The Catholic Church gets put down a lot, but it was all that could help

[StanJ]

I may be misunderstanding your statement "There is no Apostolic church and there was no Apostolic succession other than that."
Why would they appoint someone to replace Judas but then not appoint other men to succeed them after they die? Did they not appoint other men to go out and spread the gospel? And then those men appoint other men to go out and spread the gospel? And then those men appoint other men to go out and spread the gospel?

If the RCC didn't give us the bible, then who did? Don't get me wrong! I am not saying they did I just want to know who YOU think gave us the bible (table of contents)?

Why is what our Catholic brothers and sisters post on here (a Christian website) garbage?

I can only assume the why is because God never told them to do so, or that Apostles had been personally selected by Jesus, who never condoned or instructed them to replace Judas with Matthias. Do we really think that God condoned 'casting lots' to choose an Apostolic successor?
In my opinion Jesus himself chose the 12th apostle in Paul.

https://bible.org/question/how-did-we-get-our-bible-who-wrote-it-and-who-decided-what-order-put-it

Only some post garbage, especially when they cite dogma and not the Bible.

 

[tom55]

I can only assume the why is because God never told them to do so, or that Apostles had been personally selected by Jesus, who never condoned or instructed them to replace Judas with Matthias. Do we really think that God condoned 'casting lots' to choose an Apostolic successor?
In my opinion Jesus himself chose the 12th apostle in Paul.

https://bible.org/question/how-did-we-get-our-bible-who-wrote-it-and-who-decided-what-order-put-it

Only some post garbage, especially when they cite dogma and not the Bible.

Interesting! You don't think God inspired them to replace Judas? They just did it on their own? Fascinating! I had never heard that interpretation of scripture before.

Yes, I do think God condoned "casting lots" to choose an a new Apostle. That's what scripture says anyways.

I read the link you provided. If you agree with what the link says then you must believe that MEN (Clement, Polycarp, Justin Martyr etc.) gave us the table of contents for the bible? Did the Catholic Church play a part in the Council of Carthage?

I have read Clement of Rome writings and a lot of what he wrote is still practiced by the RCC today. Here is a sample.

Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier....Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry.





Since you like Justin Martyr you probably like this small sample of what he wrote:

On the day called Sunday there is a gathering together in the same place of all who live in a given city or rural district. The memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read (scripture), as long as time permits. Then when the reader ceases, the president (priest)[SIZE=12pt] in a discourse admonishes and urges the imitation of these good things. Next we all rise together and send up prayers. When we cease from our prayer, bread is presented and wine and water. The president in the same manner sends up prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people sing out their assent, saying the 'Amen.[/SIZE][SIZE=medium]' A distribution and[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]participation of the elements[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] ([/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]Eucharist) [/SIZE][SIZE=medium]for which thanks have been given is made to each[/SIZE] [SIZE=medium]person,[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] and to those who are not present they are sent by the deacons. Those who have means and are willing, each according to his own choice, gives what he wills, and what is collected is deposited with the president. He provides for the orphans and widows, those who are in need on[/SIZE] [SIZE=12pt]account of sickness or some other cause, those who are in bonds, strangers who are sojourning, and in a word he becomes the protector of all who are in need. And this food is called among us the Eucharist….it is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.[/SIZE]

Kind of sounds the early Christians had Apostolic Succession and were Catholic!!

 

[Phoneman777]

I may be misunderstanding your statement "There is no Apostolic church and there was no Apostolic succession other than that."

Why would they appoint someone to replace Judas but then not appoint other men to succeed them after they die? Did they not appoint other men to go out and spread the gospel? And then those men appoint other men to go out and spread the gospel? And then those men appoint other men to go out and spread the gospel?

If the RCC didn't give us the bible, then who did? Don't get me wrong! I am not saying they did I just want to know who YOU think gave us the bible (table of contents)?

Why is what our Catholic brothers and sisters post on here (a Christian website) garbage?

Respectfully, Tom55

Hi, friend, if I may, a word on the origin of the Bible. A study of church history will reveal that the "capital" of Christianity was moved from Palestine to Rome in the 4th century when Christianity was legalized by Emperor Constantine. Very quickly, many men - who made sure to hide their "faith" from the authorities when so many of their brethren deemed it an honor to perish for the cause of Christ - began pushing their way to the forefront as these religious opportunists saw that could safely be done now that Christianity had legal status. They sought the favor of the secular power, which was all to happy to grant to these "Christian" leaders who were so anxious to compromise the purity of the Gospel for ecumenical unity with the pagans of the Empire. An "ecumenical Bible" was commissioned by Constantine for Eusebius, who was a follower of Origen - a straight up occultist and preacher of occult Christian doctrine - using available MSS of the day in that region. About 50 copies were made, were rejected by the early church, and went underground. Incidentally, Codex Sinaticus which was found in 1844 at Sinai to be the oldest MSS and forms the basis for every new Bible version out there today since the beginning of the 20th century, including the JW's NWT, NIV, NASB, TEV, NKJV, etc., is believed to be by many, many authoritative diplomatics none other than one of these 50 corrupt "ecumenical" Bibles of Constantine's day. This is why the new versions of today read so differently from Bibles based on the Textus Receptus Greek, such as the KJV.

Meanwhile, back in Palestine, the purity of the Gospels, the epistles, etc. was kept alive by devout men wholly unconcerned with whatever gain the world might afford them, but only with spreading the truth of Jesus' salvation and His Second Coming, for which we need to prepare. These men lived and worked in that region until Muslims overran Palestine and forced these men to retreat West. With their ancient MSS maintained in the purity of Christ's truth in hand, they settled in Europe and began disseminating for the first time in Europe the unmolested truth of God's Word, which quickly came into conflict with Rome's corrupt MSS. These conflicts eventually led to the Protestant Reformation and the re-establishment of God's true Word on the stage of history, never again to be hidden away from the masses, who were subject to the death penalty for reading or possessing copies of even Rome's corrupt Bible MSS.

Therefore, when speaking of who was responsible for compiling the Bible, it depends upon which Bible is in question: the Bible based on the corrupt MSS of the Western church in Rome or the one based on the purity of God's Word preserved by His own hand. An excellent documentary on YouTube to view more info about this subject is "A Lamp In The Dark: The Untold History of The Bible". Very comprehensive and very well substantiated with facts from history and diplomatics.

 

[ScaliaFan]

Again if you read the English without your RCC colored glasses you would see that Jesus said 'this' was not revealed to you. That 'this' was his confession of who Jesus was.

“Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven."

yeh, blessed are you Peter. most people dont talk to statements

 

[ScaliaFan]

The apostolic Church, which was Catholic then and still is now, existed and gave you the bible.

You are welcome

notice no one has answered the Q yet (asked of the anticatholic posters here):

Are you infallible?

they apparently think their interpretation of any give psg is the absolute truth and if you disagree, ther is something wrong w/ you and you worship the pope and etc.. etc. but if they're saying their intepretation is always right, then they are saying they are infallible (yet the pope is not??)


:blink:

 

[StanJ]

yeh, blessed are you Peter. most people dont talk to statements

And this response just proves you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[tom55]

Again if you read the English without your RCC colored glasses you would see that Jesus said 'this' was not revealed to you. That 'this' was his confession of who Jesus was.

“Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven."

Is it possible you, StanJ, are reading with Protestant glasses on and you are misinterpreting scripture?

 

[StanJ]

notice no one has answered the Q yet (asked of the anticatholic posters here):
Are you infallible?
they apparently think their interpretation of any give psg is the absolute truth and if you disagree, ther is something wrong w/ you and you worship the pope and etc.. etc. but if they're saying their intepretation is always right, then they are saying they are infallible (yet the pope is not??)
:blink:

It was indeed answered but just because you or he didn't understand or address it doesn't mean it wasn't the right answer. Secondly there are no Anti-Catholic posters here just anti-rcc posters. If you or any RC comes in here and cannot exegete the scripture on your own and have nothing to say but the dogmas you were taught by the RCC, then of course you're going to be disputed and refuted.
Dismissing an interpolation outright without addressing it doesn't work here. I also think you have a wrong understanding of what infallible means.

 

[StanJ]

Is it possible you, StanJ, are reading with Protestant glasses on and you are misinterpreting scripture?

With God all things are possible but in this case highly unlikely. What you fail to understand is that I was born and raised a Catholic and I know how long a lot of their teachings are. Once I actually started reading the Bible I understood that. It's not really that hard to see the erroneous dogmas of the RCC. Only those who are inculcated into it are the ones that won't read the word and see what it says.

 

[StanJ]

Interesting! You don't think God inspired them to replace Judas? They just did it on their own? Fascinating! I had never heard that interpretation of scripture before.

Yes, I do think God condoned "casting lots" to choose an a new Apostle. That's what scripture says anyways.

I read the link you provided. If you agree with what the link says then you must believe that MEN (Clement, Polycarp, Justin Martyr etc.) gave us the table of contents for the bible? Did the Catholic Church play a part in the Council of Carthage?

No I don't think God inspired them to replace Judas. I think they did it on their own but of course I'm not in their heads so I have no idea. Only God knows but as far as I'm concerned Jesus appointed the 12 apostles including Judas and I'm sure it was his intention to make Paul the replacement to Judas. I'm not sure it will be one of the questions but I ask Him when I see Him, but then again the Bible says at that point 'we will know as we have been known'.

The scripture does not say God condones casting lots. The scripture just says they cast lots. It says they did it as a way to decide. In my opinion I think that the spiritual leadership that Jesus left to take care of the church would have been in tune enough with God to know and their Spirits what they should do. As in all things they should have prayed about it and the majority feeling or View would have decided what would have been done. It seems to me they just made up their minds, based on the scripture they quote, that number 12 needed to be replaced when in essence a few chapters later, that's exactly what Jesus did.
It wouldn't be the first time that men stepped up to the plate to do something that God already have in hand. It might also explain why early on, Peter and Paul had some very confrontational meetings.

The link provides an account of all the people that contributed to making up the Bible.
The Roman Emperor Constantine established himself as the head of the church around 313 A.D., which made this new "Christianity" the official religion of the Roman Empire. The first actual Pope in Rome was probably Leo I (440-461 A.D.), although some claim that Gregory I was the first (590-604 A.D.).

Until the actual date of the establishment of the RCC can be determined I cannot say whether or not they played a part at the Council of Carthage.
http://www.bible-researcher.com/carthage.html

 

[ScaliaFan]

And this response just proves you have no idea what you're talking about.

and your response shows you have no response

you know you are wrong

 

[ScaliaFan]

With God all things are possible but in this case highly unlikely. What you fail to understand is that I was born and raised a Catholic and I know how long a lot of their teachings are. Once I actually started reading the Bible I understood that. It's not really that hard to see the erroneous dogmas of the RCC. Only those who are inculcated into it are the ones that won't read the word and see what it says.

i have read the whole Bible. And amazingly, i did this once i returned to the Catholic Church. Going to Mass (daily) for 3 yrs.. hear the whole bible (more/less) but on top of that, i personally read it as well

The Catholic Church is what gave me an interest in doing so.. funny how that goes, eh?

yeh, the whole thing, Old and New.. read it

And i am far more Catholic than b4 rdg it.. not without my reservations. There is plenty of wrong doing in the church but hey, that's humans 4 ya

 

[StanJ]

and your response shows you have no response
you know you are wrong

You just keep those blinders on

 

[StanJ]

i have read the whole Bible. And amazingly, i did this once i returned to the Catholic Church. Going to Mass (daily) for 3 yrs.. hear the whole bible (more/less) but on top of that, i personally read it as well
The Catholic Church is what gave me an interest in doing so.. funny how that goes, eh?
yeh, the whole thing, Old and New.. read it
And i am far more Catholic than b4 rdg it.. not without my reservations. There is plenty of wrong doing in the church but hey, that's humans 4 ya

So you read the Bible once in 3 years and you figure you know it all now aye? I've been reading it for over 45 years now and I definitely don't know it all but what I know, I know. Seems even though you've actually read the Bible once in 3 years you don't remember the part where it says that God draws us to Jesus. Definitely not the Catholic church that draws anyone to Jesus. The sad thing is you should be more Christian than Catholic after reading the Bible, but, oh well.

 

[Phoneman777]

yeh, blessed are you Peter. most people dont talk to statements

You've already been shown that the disciples argued over which one of them would be the head of the church AFTER they witnessed this encounter with Jesus. Do you really think that they would be arguing over this if they understood Jesus' words to mean the church was to be built on Peter, especially in light of the fact that they well knew of Peter's chronic affliction - "foot in mouth disease" - which is what Jesus was saying to him:

"Thou art Peter - an impulsive, unstable pebble that's always shooting off his mouth. Upon this Rock - your confession that I AM the Son of the living God which surprises us all that you actually got something right for a change, Peter - I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Yes, that's exactly what Jesus was saying.

 

[ScaliaFan]

So you read the Bible once in 3 years and you figure you know it all now aye? I've been reading it for over 45 years now and I definitely don't know it all but what I know, I know. Seems even though you've actually read the Bible once in 3 years you don't remember the part where it says that God draws us to Jesus. Definitely not the Catholic church that draws anyone to Jesus. The sad thing is you should be more Christian than Catholic after reading the Bible, but, oh well.

nice how you put words in peoples' mouths. I read the Bible once through, then other parts over and over, have read the New T twice through (and read parts of it nearly every day, plus hear it @ daily Mass). I don't know where you get that once in 3 years thing... but then, by reading your posts, i realize accuracy and precision in words is not your thing.

I found Jesus in the Catholic faith. Too bad you would take that away from people.. just b/c you found something there that didn't set well w/ you.. how selfish

 

[ScaliaFan]

You've already been shown that the disciples argued over which one of them would be the head of the church AFTER they witnessed this encounter with Jesus. Do you really think that they would be arguing over this if they understood Jesus' words to mean the church was to be built on Peter, especially in light of the fact that they well knew of Peter's chronic affliction - "foot in mouth disease" - which is what Jesus was saying to him:

"Thou art Peter - an impulsive, unstable pebble that's always shooting off his mouth. Upon this Rock - your confession that I AM the Son of the living God which surprises us all that you actually got something right for a change, Peter - I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Yes, that's exactly what Jesus was saying.

well, that is YOUR interpretation. And the Church has her own. The church goes back 2000 years. You are not quite that old, I am sure.

Are you infallible?

Why do you trust your own human interpretation? esp since in Peter (1 or 2) it says not to go by private interpretation

 

[StanJ]

nice how you put words in peoples' mouths. I read the Bible once through, then other parts over and over, have read the New T twice through (and read parts of it nearly every day, plus hear it @ daily Mass). I don't know where you get that once in 3 years thing... but then, by reading your posts, i realize accuracy and precision in words is not your thing.
I found Jesus in the Catholic faith. Too bad you would take that away from people.. just b/c you found something there that didn't set well w/ you.. how selfish

I didn't put any words into your mouth, I quoted what you wrote on the website. Now you're going to clarify what you should have done in the first place. Really doesn't matter whether you read it a couple of times or not, the point is you have very little understanding of the Bible as it exists today and everything that you do know is filtered through the RCC. You didn't find Jesus Through the Catholic faith you had Faith to accept Jesus, who got the father drew you to. It's not quite the same thing but of course it's very hard to tell somebody who thinks they know everything already that they're wrong. Maybe I can find a Catholic priest who will explain it better for you. The only one lacking in accuracy and precision in these threads is you.

 

[StanJ]

well, that is YOUR interpretation. And the Church has her own. The church goes back 2000 years. You are not quite that old, I am sure.

Are you infallible?

Why do you trust your own human interpretation? esp since in Peter (1 or 2) it says not to go by private interpretation

That is standard interpretation commonly held by most Christians. Again as I've shown you in the past 2 Timothy 2:15 should be what you shoot for but apparently is not. We are told to study God's word so we may know it. Jesus told us that we have the Holy Spirit so he will reveal the truth in His Word.
Just another thing you seem to be lacking.

 

[Barrd]

notice no one has answered the Q yet (asked of the anticatholic posters here):

Are you infallible?

they apparently think their interpretation of any give psg is the absolute truth and if you disagree, ther is something wrong w/ you and you worship the pope and etc.. etc. but if they're saying their intepretation is always right, then they are saying they are infallible (yet the pope is not??)


:blink:

Scalia, I think the answer you are looking for is that no human being is infallible.

Not me, certainly, or Stan, or Mj, or any other poster here...including you.

And not the pope, either.