When did the universal Church first mentioned in 110AD stop being universal?

tom55 said:

If in fact there is as YOU say, "...a competing doctrine with just as much Scriptural support,..." then logic says someone's doctrine must be wrong since there can be only one Truth. Only ONE doctrine can be right.

Click to expand...

Well, i disagree, and if they are both just two competing povs that have swung too far wide of the truth, then neither one is right, right? Truth ends up being a moving target, and no doctrine is sufficient to encompass truth, or else how can Love believe all things? But of course these are traps for those seeking a logical salvation, who require some "proof" of God, like Thomas, and imo God is trying to tell one something, when a "competing" doctrine arises with equal justification. Pick a side, and demonstrate how you are lost, perhaps.

tom55 said:

I don't understand what you are saying. AND you didn't answer any of my questions.

Click to expand...

well, you haven't answered mine, either, so there you go. I am not the one accusing and condemning, calling you "sad" and inferring that you are hopeless, somehow, because you have decided to completely ignore Scripture and went and found yourself an earthly priest to confess to, now am i? You are completely acceptable to me, if you do not judge; you will not be judged. Would it be tempting to lump you in with some "others," lost sinners all, because of this? Yes, it would. I could justify it quite easily. With Scripture. I currently hold every doctrine that you reject, practically speaking; yet we both still get rain, do we not?

tom55 said:

Why is scripture, the writings of the Apostolic Fathers and other ancient historical writings FULL of instructions on how to establish a church with binding authority and a hierarchy?

Click to expand...

simple--because you are a Priest, and you are building a church, with an obvious hierarchy of spirit/male over soul/female, the three of you, your mind, your heart, and your intestines, which must all 3 agree on a thing for it to be established, and if you seek to save your soul, you will of course lose it, just like Scripture says. Pretend that the Church is contained in the physical realm all you like; It isn't, and It never will be, at least not in the manner that we have collectively decided is "the future." The war is in us, individually, not in some imaginary future physical apocalypse. The hierarchy that you refer to is binding upon you, because you have chosen it--which is fine with me, don't get me wrong.

tom55 said:

Based on your theory "two competing povs that have swung too far wide of the truth, then neither one is right" AND "Truth ends up being a moving target, and no doctrine is sufficient to encompass truth," we can never know the Truth of Scripture. I disagree with you. The truth was given to the apostles, they passed it down to the next generation, they then passed it down etc. etc.

Your theory suggest the truth is out there somewhere but nobody really knows who has the truth or what the truth is. Your theory suggest God abandoned us and satan has won. Satan has sown confusion and division amongst us Christians. Sounds like satan is an anarchist.

You still haven't answered my questions.

Click to expand...

hmm. Well, God has the truth, we assume that, and for all of our "the truth was given to the Apostles," i notice that Christ gave explicit instructions to the 12, and then to the 72, i can read where they are "passed down," yet no Christian i can talk to ever seems to have followed them; and we most likely cannot even agree on the definition of "Gospel," so i guess that depends upon one's pov. If one cannot follow Instruction #1, then i guess confusion is going to follow. The truth is right next to us, but i doubt anyone much wants to hear it lol. So no, i don't suggest any of those things, or i didn't mean to. Our present condition must be laid at the feet of those who purport to lead us, as Christians; our current and past leaders. That is the truth. You can know the truth, but of course you cannot state it from Scripture, in the form of a doctrine, was my point. The truth that there is an equally Scriptural, competing doctrine that is equally unassailable is the truth. And so we are provided a choice, to recognize that all truth is subjective, and that we have no "proof" for any pov that might take our fancy, because the truth is a moving target, alive, and is different in different situations--to soften our hearts, iow--or to insist that truth is objective, and the only correct way to perceive truth is to perceive it from our pov, making ourselves into God, by insisting that we know.

You make "Anarchist" into a curse, when God commands you to be an Anarchist, and to pledge allegiance to no earthly ruler. And this, this corrupting of your definition of the word "Anarchist," so that you do not even know what it means anymore, no offense, so that you can feel ok about ignoring 1Sam8--generally speaking, now, as i don't know you, of course, but your definition indicates this--and can more comfortably assure people that, what, in your case, i guess it goes something along the lines of "join the RCC or be doomed," perhaps, i don't know there. Join some group of blind people in some belief, that we know for a fact is the truth, because after all, we joined it. And look, we are "successful."

So, i find this characterization of truth as being already discovered by some people, and well known, who purport to have it straight from the Apostles, but cannot witness even following Instruction #1, to be mostly self-serving yack, that keeps blind people blind and fills offering plates, and little else, wadr. I know you mean well, and you might even have a better heart than i do, but if i am being invited to know truth, and to then declare how objective it is, then my question is which doctrine of yours do you find unassailable, when held up to Scripture that you insist has given you this truth? Let's see what the truth really is, as the Book illuminates it, and i'll let you pick the subject, ok. any doctrine that you like, any doctrine that you hold dear.

Who or what congregation has that authority in your life?

Who has the authority to remove one from The Church or tell us we need to turn away from them or testify that the life they are leading is unruly?

Who has the power to excommunicate?

So who's doctrine do YOU choose? Who's doctrine has The Truth?

You said Christ was not referring to "an establishment of men". Then why did Jesus tell Peter he will build his Church on him? Then why did he choose 12 men to lead others after he died? Did the men at the Council of Jerusalem NOT have binding authority over all Christians? Why did those men then train others and tell Timothy: And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable people who will also be qualified to teach others. What you believe and what scripture says are opposite of each other.

So, do you mean these blatantly Papist questions, that rely on an earthly intercessor for understanding, and cannot even be understood outside of that system, which requires that most of Scripture be ignored, or deemed "unreliable" as you have done? Since when did Catholics start reading their Bibles, anyway? wadr, you are the first unlapsed Catholic i have ever known to even attempt to actually wander in to reading the Bible.

And i don't mean this unkindly, ok--i did the same thing, trusted a group of smiling, Pentecostal blind people with an agenda to interpret Scripture for me--but if you are now reading Scripture with an agenda, your obvious agenda, you have not done what Paul did, and left us an example of doing, in purposely avoiding the other Apostles for his first three years, so as not to unintentionally be led by them--your heroes--and be led by the Spirit instead. When did you hear that sermon, in your "church?" Lol. And you now have conclusions that are not at all supported by Scripture, which your questions reflect, so the first thing you might do is toss all of the conclusions, that have engendered the moot questions.

I mean, i could mention how Paul assured us that as soon as he left, the wolves would come in and strong-arm the Church away from the believers, or try to, but as a Catholic, how well can you even accept the implications of this passage? This passage could not possibly be about depraved Popes seeking power and granting indulgences, now, can it? Or religion in general, more likely, but your characterization of some unbroken line of church leaders is an apt one, to me, only i recognize that anyone who would accept that crown is obviously a wolf, no offense, and not meaning that you are, too. I am just suggesting that your model is not going to come out Lily-white in a holistic understanding of the Book, either, and you have vast swathes of the Book that you cannot even address now, in your model. In your mind, you are not even a Priest, and someone else is i guess building a Temple for you? So, we are just constantly going to be at odds, every time i point out that you are a Priest, and that you are building a Temple, and if you are following some guy with a crown on, we are not ever even really going to be having the same conversation, i don't think. But then i know some very good-hearted Catholics, better than me, and talking is overrated anyway imo.

bbyrd009 said:

hmm. Well, God has the truth, we assume that, and for all of our "the truth was given to the Apostles," i notice that Christ gave explicit instructions to the 12, and then to the 72, i can read where they are "passed down," yet no Christian i can talk to ever seems to have followed them; and we most likely cannot even agree on the definition of "Gospel," so i guess that depends upon one's pov. If one cannot follow Instruction #1, then i guess confusion is going to follow. The truth is right next to us, but i doubt anyone much wants to hear it lol. So no, i don't suggest any of those things, or i didn't mean to. Our present condition must be laid at the feet of those who purport to lead us, as Christians; our current and past leaders. That is the truth. You can know the truth, but of course you cannot state it from Scripture, in the form of a doctrine, was my point. The truth that there is an equally Scriptural, competing doctrine that is equally unassailable is the truth. And so we are provided a choice, to recognize that all truth is subjective, and that we have no "proof" for any pov that might take our fancy, because the truth is a moving target, alive, and is different in different situations--to soften our hearts, iow--or to insist that truth is objective, and the only correct way to perceive truth is to perceive it from our pov, making ourselves into God, by insisting that we know.

You make "Anarchist" into a curse, when God commands you to be an Anarchist, and to pledge allegiance to no earthly ruler. And this, this corrupting of your definition of the word "Anarchist," so that you do not even know what it means anymore, no offense, so that you can feel ok about ignoring 1Sam8--generally speaking, now, as i don't know you, of course, but your definition indicates this--and can more comfortably assure people that, what, in your case, i guess it goes something along the lines of "join the RCC or be doomed," perhaps, i don't know there. Join some group of blind people in some belief, that we know for a fact is the truth, because after all, we joined it. And look, we are "successful."

So, i find this characterization of truth as being already discovered by some people, and well known, who purport to have it straight from the Apostles, but cannot witness even following Instruction #1, to be mostly self-serving yack, that keeps blind people blind and fills offering plates, and little else, wadr. I know you mean well, and you might even have a better heart than i do, but if i am being invited to know truth, and to then declare how objective it is, then my question is which doctrine of yours do you find unassailable, when held up to Scripture that you insist has given you this truth? Let's see what the truth really is, as the Book illuminates it, and i'll let you pick the subject, ok. any doctrine that you like, any doctrine that you hold dear.

Click to expand...

The Deposit of Faith is the body of saving truth entrusted by Christ to the Apostles and handed on by them to be preserved and proclaimed. Jesus ordered them to teach the nations "everything I have commanded you" and assured them "know that I am with you always, until the end of the world." (Mt 28:18-20). The metaphor of a "deposit" suggests that this teaching is an inexhaustible treasure, that rewards reflection and study with new insights and deeper penetration into the mystery of the divine economy of salvation [God's plan for saving mankind]. Although the Church's understanding of this teaching can and does develop, it can never be augmented in substance. The Catechism of the Catholic Church notes:

"The apostles entrusted the sacred deposit of the faith [the depositum fidei; see 1 Tim 6:20; 2 Tim 1:12-14] contained in Sacred Scripture and Tradition, to the whole of the Church. 'By adhering to (this heritage) the entire holy people, united to its pastors, remains always faithful to the teaching of the apostles, to the brotherhood, to the breaking of bread [the Eucharist] and the prayers. So, in maintaining, practicing and professing the faith that has been handed on, there should be a remarkable harmony between the bishops and the faithful.'"

Both Oral Tradition and Scripture "come from the same divine wellspring." A shorthand formula for this is:
Deposit of Faith = Apostolic Tradition (or Sacred Oral Tradition) + Sacred Scriptures

Apostolic Tradition--Jesus commissioned the Apostles to "go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations. Baptize them in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Teach them to carry out everything I have commanded you" (Mt.28: 19-20). He promised that the Holy Spirit would "instruct you in everything and remind you of all that I have told you" (John 14:26). Just before his ascension into heaven Jesus said, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation" (Mk 16: 15). He commanded them to do precisely what He himself had done, namely, deliver the Word of God to the people by the living voice and granted them, through the Holy Spirit, the gift of tongues. He told them, "He who hears you hears me and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects Him who sent me." (Luke 10:16)

It was by this oral Apostolic Tradition that the Church discerned which books should be included in the New Testament. Many were already in use in the house churches (Christianity was "underground" for three centuries and much persecuted) St. Augustine endorses the same position when he says: "I should not believe the Gospel except on the authority of the Catholic Church" (Con. epist. Manichaei, fundam., n. 6). As St. Paul urged in his epistle, 2 Thessalonians 2: 15, "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter."

The books of the New Testament were written between about 45 A.D. and as late as 100 A.D. but were not put into a defined canon or single collection until the end of the fourth century. Why not? The Holy Spirit protected the oral Tradition or Apostolic Tradition taught by the true Church, which by 100 A.D. was already known as the "Catholic Church." See the seven letters of Ignatius of Antioch, accepted by both Protestant and Catholic scholars as legitimate. Sacred Tradition has for its subject the Holy Spirit, indwelling the Church as the soul animates the body. The Spirit guides the Church in its interpretation of the Word and in its liturgy.

Q: In Matthew 15:1-9 (the "you make void the word of God by your tradition" passage), didn't Jesus indicate that any tradition which contradicts Scripture is false, meaning that we must test traditions by Scripture, meaning that tradition is inferior to Scripture?

A: It is true that any proposed tradition which contradicts Apostolic Scripture is a false tradition and must be rejected, but this does not make Apostolic Tradition inferior to Scripture for that reason. It is also true that any proposed scripture which contradicts Apostolic Tradition is a false scripture and must be rejected.

This was, in fact, one of the ways in which the canon of the New Testament was selected. Any scriptures which contained doctrines which were contrary to the Traditions the apostles had handed down to the Church Fathers were rejected. Between the Gnostic gospels (like the Gospel of Thomas) or Marcion's edited version of Luke and Paul's epistles, there were a lot of heretical writings that different groups wanted to see in the New Testament. But the Fathers said, "No, this contradicts the faith that was handed down to us from the apostles. Thus it must be a forged writing."

So while tradition must be tested against Scripture to see if the tradition is apostolic, it is also true that scripture must be tested against Tradition to see if the scripture is apostolic.
There is complementarity here, and one mode of teaching is not automatically inferior to the other.

"A: It is true that any proposed tradition which contradicts Apostolic Scripture is a false tradition and must be rejected, but this does not make Apostolic Tradition inferior to Scripture for that reason. It is also true that any proposed scripture which contradicts Apostolic Tradition is a false scripture and must be rejected."

How does this statement not automatically cancel it's self out?

Born_Again said:

"A: It is true that any proposed tradition which contradicts Apostolic Scripture is a false tradition and must be rejected, but this does not make Apostolic Tradition inferior to Scripture for that reason. It is also true that any proposed scripture which contradicts Apostolic Tradition is a false scripture and must be rejected."

How does this statement not automatically cancel it's self out?

Click to expand...

It's impossible. All authentic Apostolic Traditions are in complete harmony with Apostolic Scripture. There are no contradictions. Some Traditions are in the Bible, like the Anointing of the Sick (James 5). The canon of Scripture is a Tradition, because no verse gives a list of books. If a tradition conflicts with Scripture, it gets rejected. The problem is the false definition of Tradition held by most Protestants. It is not a dirty word.

tom55 said:

I can't respond to the rest of your post because it doesn't make sense TO ME. All of your post are very confusing.

Click to expand...

i'm never quite sure how to respond to this. after all, you are not asking for clarification, it seems. I do my best to use common symbology, but English is a very slippery language anyway...so, my apologies there. If you are not understanding something for lack of not getting one of the symbols, you might ask, and maybe i could clarify. It just comes out that way.

You suggested in an earlier post that you don't have any friends. Maybe you loose the people who are willing to be your friend because what you write is confusing and not logical? When two people can't carry on a logical conversation based on common language then one person will walk away.

Click to expand...

hmm, not sure that is the basis for most friendships though. I'm afraid you are taking advantage of a statement i made by way of apology, tongue-in-cheek., like. Truth is not arrived at by logic, i don't think. Anyway, i said that most Christian models appear to have Paul characterized as being suicidal, or craving death, however you might like to put it, and you evinced surprise, but you did not reply with your interpretation of "absent form the body = present with the Lord," either. So let's hear it!
And imo we are kinda developing a lexicon, a common language, right now, you and me, or at least still IDing each others personal lexicons. I guess it seems like we are on different planets, maybe, but we have more in common than not, i am sure.

Click to expand...

You suggested in an earlier post that you don't have any friends. Maybe you loose the people who are willing to be your friend because what you write is confusing and not logical? When two people can't carry on a logical conversation based on common language then one person will walk away.

kepha31 said:

The Deposit of Faith is the body of saving truth entrusted by Christ to the Apostles and handed on by them to be preserved and proclaimed. Jesus ordered them to teach the nations "everything I have commanded you" and assured them "know that I am with you always, until the end of the world." (Mt 28:18-20). The metaphor of a "deposit" suggests that this teaching is an inexhaustible treasure, that rewards reflection and study with new insights and deeper penetration into the mystery of the divine economy of salvation [God's plan for saving mankind]. Although the Church's understanding of this teaching can and does develop, it can never be augmented in substance. The Catechism of the Catholic Church notes:

"The apostles entrusted the sacred deposit of the faith [the depositum fidei; see 1 Tim 6:20; 2 Tim 1:12-14] contained in Sacred Scripture and Tradition, to the whole of the Church. 'By adhering to (this heritage) the entire holy people, united to its pastors, remains always faithful to the teaching of the apostles, to the brotherhood, to the breaking of bread [the Eucharist] and the prayers. So, in maintaining, practicing and professing the faith that has been handed on, there should be a remarkable harmony between the bishops and the faithful.'"

Click to expand...

wadr sounds like a cry for peace, when i see war, with the RCC leading the way. I am just p[laying DA here understand, and i do like the sentiment, and there is a place for blessed assurance, don't get me wrong. But i identify my Bishops differently than you, perhaps? Maybe that is the beginning of the disconnect? I would seek men married to one woman, free of daughters with the "preacher's daughter" syndrome, as Scripture directs. What does a Catholic even read there? ty

kepha31 said:

Both Oral Tradition and Scripture "come from the same divine wellspring." A shorthand formula for this is:
Deposit of Faith = Apostolic Tradition (or Sacred Oral Tradition) + Sacred Scriptures

Apostolic Tradition--Jesus commissioned the Apostles to "go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations. Baptize them in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Teach them to carry out everything I have commanded you" (Mt.28: 19-20). He promised that the Holy Spirit would "instruct you in everything and remind you of all that I have told you" (John 14:26). Just before his ascension into heaven Jesus said, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation" (Mk 16: 15). He commanded them to do precisely what He himself had done, namely, deliver the Word of God to the people by the living voice and granted them, through the Holy Spirit, the gift of tongues. He told them, "He who hears you hears me and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects Him who sent me." (Luke 10:16)

It was by this oral Apostolic Tradition that the Church discerned which books should be included in the New Testament. Many were already in use in the house churches (Christianity was "underground" for three centuries and much persecuted) St. Augustine endorses the same position when he says: "I should not believe the Gospel except on the authority of the Catholic Church" (Con. epist. Manichaei, fundam., n. 6). As St. Paul urged in his epistle, 2 Thessalonians 2: 15, "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter."

Click to expand...

well, you neglect to mention that this "church discerned which Books" thing also tore the Church apart, and that the RCC currently has the only extant copies of several Books that we cannot access, and can only read mention of in the Bible. So i could drag out all of the Scripture cautioning against relying on the traditions of men here, too, if you like, i bet we could go toe to toe, 1 for 1, and end up in a dead heat there

9And he continued, "You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions!
8You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions
8Be careful not to allow anyone to captivate you through an empty, deceitful philosophy that is according to human traditions
13Because of your traditions you have destroyed the authority of God's word
3Jesus replied, "And why do you, by your traditions, violate the direct commandments of God?

so i would ask which traditions? I mean, the Spanish Inquisition was a tradition, too, see. "Traditions" are great, and they are also what gets pulled out as a set-up to enforcing some Law that is not from God, but might appear to be, iow.

The tradition of accepting what some guy in a tie or a collar tells you is truth as being unquestionable is vacuous, at best, and my first question is going to be "Did they sign a Contract for Jesus?" A 501c3, with a 1023 back? Then ty, i'll go find my own Bishops, and some other traditions, no offense.

kepha31 said:

The books of the New Testament were written between about 45 A.D. and as late as 100 A.D. but were not put into a defined canon or single collection until the end of the fourth century. Why not? The Holy Spirit protected the oral Tradition or Apostolic Tradition taught by the true Church, which by 100 A.D. was already known as the "Catholic Church." See the seven letters of Ignatius of Antioch, accepted by both Protestant and Catholic scholars as legitimate. Sacred Tradition has for its subject the Holy Spirit, indwelling the Church as the soul animates the body. The Spirit guides the Church in its interpretation of the Word and in its liturgy.

Click to expand...

i can agree in Spirit here, unfortunately i am pretty sure your definition of Church is different than mine, as you have a concept in mind there that you can point to, while i cannot. And on down the line, i guess. you have a def of "Word" that makes the Book into God, somehow, and a def of "liturgy" that imo Christ reserved his most scathing condemnation for, those who conduct ritual liturgies, i mean, no offense, but "liturgy: a public office or duty performed voluntarily by a rich Athenian." So imo they weren't put into a defined Canon until the end of the 4th century because it took that long for the RCC to sneak it through, and God was not asking anyone to define any Canon, and the results speak for themselves, the Church was ripped apart, don't forget to mention that. And "to be absent from the body" as far as you are concerned, means you get to be with Jesus when you die, right? Isn't that pretty much what you believe right now? Or correct me if i am wrong there, ty.

kepha31 said:

Q: In Matthew 15:1-9 (the "you make void the word of God by your tradition" passage), didn't Jesus indicate that any tradition which contradicts Scripture is false, meaning that we must test traditions by Scripture, meaning that tradition is inferior to Scripture?

A: It is true that any proposed tradition which contradicts Apostolic Scripture is a false tradition and must be rejected, but this does not make Apostolic Tradition inferior to Scripture for that reason. It is also true that any proposed scripture which contradicts Apostolic Tradition is a false scripture and must be rejected.

This was, in fact, one of the ways in which the canon of the New Testament was selected. Any scriptures which contained doctrines which were contrary to the Traditions the apostles had handed down to the Church Fathers were rejected. Between the Gnostic gospels (like the Gospel of Thomas) or Marcion's edited version of Luke and Paul's epistles, there were a lot of heretical writings that different groups wanted to see in the New Testament. But the Fathers said, "No, this contradicts the faith that was handed down to us from the apostles. Thus it must be a forged writing."

So while tradition must be tested against Scripture to see if the tradition is apostolic, it is also true that scripture must be tested against Tradition to see if the scripture is apostolic.
There is complementarity here, and one mode of teaching is not automatically inferior to the other.

Click to expand...

i have to agree with the last part there, and i suggest that the Book will lead anyone there, who is willing to follow. And if you have a doctrine, any doctrine, that someone else has a competing doctrine for that you do not recognize, despite it's inclusion in the Book, then you are not there yet. Because one doctrine is useful at times, and the other at other times, in other situations. We are inevitable led back to here and now, in Scripture, and we of course are scared to death of here and now, and seek any number of ways to avoid it. I'm not even sure what the RCC teaches about the hereafter, but i'm pretty sure that is the focus provided to it's adherents, and that is as death-centered as any other religious model imo, focusing on some life after death that no one has the first bit of evidence for, and even contradicting the Book at "you do not know where you are going."

So, if you have started from the assumption of "eternal life" as meaning your life, that i guess begins once you die? Lol, you did not get this from Scripture, and you certainly didn't get it from Paul. You got it from guys who cloister themselves, no ship at sea, all in safe harbors, who have signed Contracts for Jesus that add up to 666, i mean, do the math 501, c3, 1023, it isn't a puzzle lol. You just are not going to be able to understand me, prolly. Which i don't mean i am telling the truth either, because i don't know what the truth even is, i trust that the truth is best expressed between the two of us, you and me.

kepha31 said:

It's impossible. All authentic Apostolic Traditions are in complete harmony with Apostolic Scripture. There are no contradictions. Some Traditions are in the Bible, like the Anointing of the Sick (James 5). The canon of Scripture is a Tradition, because no verse gives a list of books. If a tradition conflicts with Scripture, it gets rejected. The problem is the false definition of Tradition held by most Protestants. It is not a dirty word.

Click to expand...

wadr i have never read any "proposed Scripture," i don't even know what that means?

and you suggest that there are no contradictions...lol. The Bible is a Book of contradictions, so when i hear that, i have to take it with a grain of salt. Wadr this is usually uttered by those who will confidently assure you that the Bible is the Word, and then ignore your quotation of some Scripture that does not fit their belief system, which demands that their doctrine be worshipped as God.

tom55 said:

You said: We assume God has the truth? Are you being serious or is that the anarchist in you talking? I don't assume that YOU do!!

Click to expand...

well, my meaning was that that can be safely assumed, sorry.

tom55 said:

How can you know that "no Christian i can talk to ever seems to have followed them" unless YOU know what The Truth is that has been passed down? You can't say no Christian is following the Truth unless YOU know the truth. Do you know the truth?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
well, i know that Christ sent out the Twelve, two by two, and i know of no Christian that has done this, despite all of our confessions about following Christ.. I know i have never heard a sermon on it, either. So, i know of no Christian following the truth, and i do not know what the truth is, in objective terms, because it does not exist, it is a chimera made up of our desire for (dead) facts and our desire to be gods, which was put in us, and leads us to imagine Mansions in the Sky where we will live eternally, in some kind of party-land, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the kingdom coming to earth that i can see.

Click to expand...

tom55 said:

How can you know that "no Christian i can talk to ever seems to have followed them" unless YOU know what The Truth is that has been passed down? You can't say no Christian is following the Truth unless YOU know the truth. Do you know the truth?

God commands Christians to be anarchist? Are you being serious? YOUR definition of anarchist and anarchy must be different than the average human. I am having a difficult time taking you serious when you say things like that.

Anarchist defined: a person who believes in or tries to bring about anarchy.
Anarchy defined: a state of disorder due to absence or non-recognition of authority
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
well of course, that is the definition of Anarchy that you are going to find in your corrupted dictionary, now. Chaos, iow. It is pounded into us from a young age, at about the time we start pledging allegiance, right? And tares are just "weeds" too now; go look it up, and see. Anarchy means no rulers, but of course that is not a very healthy definition as far as the fascists who we vote for now are concerned, regardless of the Anarchist Manifesto in 1Sam8. So, go find a better def of Anarchist, imo.
View attachment 426

Click to expand...

I love you and wish the best for you but you are saying some confusing and non-scriptural stuff.

Click to expand...

well, you characterize it as "non-Scriptural," but give no examples, so i would ask for an example, and we will see. If it is confusing then the accepted method is "Hey, i don't get this part here, '_______,' could you rephrase that?" But i don't see this being asked, so i can respond.

i mean, not to put too fine a point on it here, but a Catholic telling me that i am non-Scriptural is kind of...well...i mean the cliche goes "Catholics are encouraged to not read the Bible," so you are working uphill here, sorry. And what Bible you do have has come to you the exact way that Paul condemned, so the hill becomes a cliff imo, and so now we need pitons and ropes and stuff.