You understood me perfectly
Not to mention the denial of your own faith at the top of the page
TRUTH
- Thread starter epostle1
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
You understood me perfectly
Not to mention the denial of your own faith at the top of the page
Actually, I beg to differ. Neo said:
If you are saying that the Catholic Church is the "One" church of Christ, then ipso facto you are saying that every other 'church' is false. Simple.
Also, he very clearly stated that most of us 'Protestants' follow non-truth of men...again...fairly clear what the implication there is.
So...while you may feel you have 'corrected' me, that stands very, very far from the truth. And honestly, I haven't seen anything even remotely resembling proof, biblical or rational, that we should put man's word on the same shelf as Gods. I'm still waiting for you guys to trot out a single person who hasn't made a mistake. Until you do, there is absolutely no way I'm going to believe man's word can be as reliable as God's.
Selene
New Member
Actually, there is another "Word of God" and this "Word of God" has a name. This "Word of God" is actually a person. His name is Jesus Christ. Christianity is not about the Bible and never was about the Bible. Christianity is about Jesus Christ. Christianity is about the "Word" of God, a word which is "not written and mute Word" but the Word which is incarnate and living."
Oral tradition is just as reliable as the Holy Bible. Oral tradition is kept through "practice." So, for example, the breaking of bread that is mentioned in the Holy Bible....Nowhere in the Holy Bible does it tell HOW the rite of the breaking of bread takes place. But the rite was kept and passed on through tradition. Nowhere in the Bible does it tell how the canon of the Books were canonized, but the tradition of the canon was kept because this came from the Holy Spirit.
Christ not only gave us Sacred Scripture. He also gave us the Church. It is God who chooses and grants men gifts. God chose a poor shepherd boy named David and made him into a king. God also took a group of Hebrew slaves out of Egypt and made them into the great nation of Israel. So, what is to stop God from doing the same thing to His Church?? He can take His Church and turn it into the nation of Vatican City. Since God did the same thing to His chosen people.....turning them into a nation.....then why shouldn't He also do the same for the Church He built? The Pope is the last. One of the Pope's official title is "the Servant of the Servants of God."
It's not so simple. It's a matter of degree of separation. The Catholic Church can claim to teach the same doctrines as the first 3 centuries. Non-denominationalism can't even claim to teach the same doctrines as the reformers.
Sola scriptura is a non-truth of men, and has no defense.
For the third time, Apostolic Teaching has nothing to do with the mere "man's word". That's your invention. And you continue to confuse impeccability with infallibility.
The first Christians "devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching" (Acts 2:42) long before there was a New Testament. From the very beginning, the fullness of Christian teaching was found in the Church as the living embodiment of Christ, not in a book.
The teaching Church, with its oral, apostolic tradition, was authoritative.
deal with it.
-- You and other Catholics on this board have used this scripture more than once to try to justify some of the Catholic beliefs based on 'oral tradition.'
But you of course cannot prove that ANY of the traditions Paul was speaking of had anything at all to do with the current Catholic beliefs you have.
No one can even point to a listing of the actual "traditions" that Paul was speaking of.
You use it as a blanket excuse to justify any belief you want.
.
Wrong , not only that verse of [ 1 Cor.11:2 ] but these verses also are written for the sole purpose of truth in believing both Oral and Written are equally of the same importance---
2 Thess. 2:15 - Paul clearly commands us in this verse to obey oral apostolic tradition. He says stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, either by word of mouth or letter. This verse proves that for apostolic authority, oral and written communications are on par with each other. Protestants must find a verse that voids this commandment to obey oral tradition elsewhere in the Bible, or they are not abiding by the teachings of Scripture.
2 Thess. 2:15 - in fact, it was this apostolic tradition that allowed the Church to select the Bible canon (apostolicity was determined from tradition). Since all the apostles were deceased at the time the canon was decided, the Church had to rely on the apostolic tradition of their successors. Hence, the Bible is an apostolic tradition of the Catholic Church. This also proves that oral tradition did not cease with the death of the last apostle. Other examples of apostolic tradition include the teachings on the Blessed Trinity, the hypostatic union (Jesus had a divine and human nature in one person), the filioque (that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son), the assumption of Mary, and knowing that the Gospel of Matthew was written by Matthew.
2 Thess. 3:6 - Paul again commands the faithful to live in accord with the tradition that they received from the apostles.
2 Thess. 3:7 - Paul tells them they already know how to imitate the elders. He is referring them to the tradition they have learned by his oral preaching and example.
Taken fron Scripturecatholic.com
Again you miss the point.
Those verses are used to justify Catholic dogma that wasn't in existance when Paul said those things.
There has been NOTHING shown that the current Catholic beliefs based on Oral Tradition were even in existance when Paul wrote those words.
Many of the Catholic practices/beliefs that have been initiated by the Catholic church didn't occur until centuries after Paul's death.
In many cases these 'beliefs' were established long after the books and letters that ended up in the New Testament were written.
Those verses are used to justify Catholic dogma that wasn't in existance when Paul said those things.
There has been NOTHING shown that the current Catholic beliefs based on Oral Tradition were even in existance when Paul wrote those words.
Many of the Catholic practices/beliefs that have been initiated by the Catholic church didn't occur until centuries after Paul's death.
In many cases these 'beliefs' were established long after the books and letters that ended up in the New Testament were written.
Not only that, but the boast of the official beginning is a marriage of the RCC and the government of Rome.
Hardly a model of Christ, It's a much better model of the old temple system that Jesus wasn't to pleased with.
Posted Today, 03:03 PM
Foreigner, on 22 November 2012 - 02:51 PM, said:
Again you miss the point.
Those verses are used to justify Catholic dogma that wasn't in existance when Paul said those things.
There has been NOTHING shown that the current Catholic beliefs based on Oral Tradition were even in existance when Paul wrote those words.
Many of the Catholic practices/beliefs that have been initiated by the Catholic church didn't occur until centuries after Paul's death.
And Rex said-
Not only that, but the boast of the official beginning is a marriage of the RCC and the government of Rome.
Hardly a model of Christ, It's a much better model of the old temple system that Jesus wasn't to pleased with.
Foreigner wrote this but can not back it up with which doctrines--"Many of the Catholic practices/beliefs that have been initiated by the Catholic church didn't occur until centuries after Paul's death."
Catholics use both the Bible and Apostolic Teachings and the writings from the early Church Fathers for proof of all teachings found in Christ's Church.Show me documentation please. What source of reference are you using foreigner and where is that evidence found ?
DumDum all you have to do is look at the dates in your churches records to see when those doctrines became official.
Centuries after Christ
This one here is your shining crown notice the date 1854
In the Constitution Ineffabilis Deus of 8 December, 1854, Pius IX pronounced and defined that the Blessed Virgin Mary "in the first instance of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin."
http://www.newadvent...then/07674d.htm
Centuries after Christ
This one here is your shining crown notice the date 1854
In the Constitution Ineffabilis Deus of 8 December, 1854, Pius IX pronounced and defined that the Blessed Virgin Mary "in the first instance of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin."
http://www.newadvent...then/07674d.htm
Those are the dates they became catholic dogma
Do you really think people can't read for themselves.
Those are the dates they became catholic dogma
Do you really think people can't read for themselves.
The Immaculate Conception was always a teaching of the Catholic Church way before your year that you write, have you not the intellect to understand that just because it was not called by that name of Immaculate Conception doesn't mean that the concept was not believed at beginning of the early formative Church. You do realize that with the advancement of civilization, vocabulary also advanced, the word Trinity never existed at first until centuries later.No, most people could not read back then.
They seem to do that a lot. I'm unsure if it's deliberate as they have no biblical proof for their claims...claims that even the history of their own Church cannot back up. But I've had enough. They won't listen to reason, they won't listen to scripture, they'll only listen to what their 'church' tells them. The problem with that is that we all know the inconsistencies of the RCC down through the ages. It's those proofs of man made errors in the very church they trust as much as Christ that worries me. I have nothing truly against the RCC...it's not like their errors surpass the ones we could find in Protestant circles...but I do very much wish that more Catholic people would test everything against scripture...against what Jesus said...not what the Pope said...at a time when he was infallible...or fallible, or wait...infallible again. My point is there's just too much risk it could be off...and it's not a risk I wish them to take. It's not a risk I want any Christian to take. God gave us the bible for a reason people...he had his Apostles write it down for a specific purpose. Use it!
Selene
New Member
Actually, what we have goes all the way back to the first century. ONLY the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church are apostolic Churches. No Protestant churches are apostolic because you cannot trace your lineage to an Apostle. The Roman Catholic Church can trace her lineage to the Apostle Peter. The Jerusalem Church can trace her lineage to the Apostle James. The Armenian Orthodox Church can trace her lineage to the Apostles Bartholomeu and Thaddeus. The Orthodox Christians in Turkey (which is the Patriarch of Constantinople) can trace their lineage to the Apostle Andrew. The Church in Malta can trace her lineage to the Apostle Paul.
As for the Protestant churches, they can only trace their lineage to the 16th century. You cannot trace the lineage of your church past the 16th century because you were only born in the 16th century. In fact, none of the Apostles established your churches. It is only the Roman Catholic Church and her sister the Eastern Orthodox Church that can trace their lineage to an Apostle. No Protestant church can do this. The Apostles were sent by Christ, and it was Christ who founded the Church through these Apostles.....only through these apostles. So, the Church is founded by Christ THROUGH an Apostle sent by Christ. Therefore, the only true churches in this sense would be the RCC and the Eastern Orthodox Church.
This, of course, does not mean that our Protestant brothers are not Christians. You are definitely Christians by the fact that you believe in our Lord Jesus Christ. However, the TRUTH is......Protestants did not exist until the 16th century and no Protestant church was established by any Apostle of Christ.
What our Catholic friends are either failing to grasp or are in complete denial about is the "weight" of Scriptures given for extremely important events and then eyewitnesses of that event. What I mean by that is God gave prophetic utterances in the OT for things that would happen in New Testament times which He considered very important for people to know about, especially those of the household of faith.
In fact the opposite is true in the RCC. Very weighty events (in Roman Catholicism) are not backed up by multiple scriptures or eyewitnesses. What we allegedly have is ONE scripture to tell the church about an extremely significant event and that event is that Peter went to Rome. The Scripture is 1 Peter 5:13 where the RCC allegedly knows what Peter was thinking when he used the word Babylon. They base the fact that he was in Rome for 25 years, no less on this one scripture. Then, as usual they provide multiple non-scriptural sources to prove their point. No other believers or Apostles corroborate this fact, but plenty of so-called non scriptural sources allegedly do.
The RCC says that Peter used Babylon as a code word for Rome. Where did this gnostic knowledge come from? Paul was called to the circumcision (the Jews) and there was a large population of them in Babylon. In 1 Peter 1:1 we have this: "Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia."
Can any of the Catholic apologists please tell me what Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia were "CODE WORDS" for?
Then for an extremely significant event that is probably the greatest event in the Catholic church we have their interpretation of Matthew 16 where they say Jesus Christ made Peter the first Pope (Papa or Father) of the Church. In fact it is what the Catholic church has built all their dogma on. If there is no Pope, then there are no Priests, then there is no turning of the bread and wine into the actual body and blood of Jesus (since only "priests" can do this).
To comfort the church and give them multiple witnesses concerning extremely important events God has a reputation for giving us many advance notices PLUS eyewitnesses on the ground. There is not one single prophecy about Peter becoming the "Father" of the Church (we have a heavenly Father, by the way) and there are no Believers on the ground (in the scriptures) that can attest to Peter being in Rome and serving as the Pope of Rome.
The Bible gives us all the important "bible words" we should know about. The Catholic church has added an innumerable amount of new words (new meanings and concepts) that don't come close to existing in the Bible.
This and many other reasons are why so many will not accept the Catholic Church's claims.
1. No prophetic proof of major events (Peter as Pope (Father), Mary's Ascension (Mother of the Church))
2. No eyewitnesses (Peter as Pope, Peter in Rome, people adoring Mary and asking her to intercede for them)
However, they seem to be able to provide unlimited proof outside of Scripture. And God has given us a history of Himself working within Scripture, especially for major events.
Believers are directly related to Jesus Christ, by the way. The Church of Jesus Christ (all true believers) have been persecuted and killed throughout the centuries. It is a Red Herring to say we should be able to trace our "lineage" to the Apostles.
Again, all true Believers are directly related to Jesus Christ through the Spirit. The Spirit is at work throughout the world, moving where He wills and when He wills, to bring men to the same revelation that the Spirit of God revealed to Peter. That Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God.
Axehead
In fact the opposite is true in the RCC. Very weighty events (in Roman Catholicism) are not backed up by multiple scriptures or eyewitnesses. What we allegedly have is ONE scripture to tell the church about an extremely significant event and that event is that Peter went to Rome. The Scripture is 1 Peter 5:13 where the RCC allegedly knows what Peter was thinking when he used the word Babylon. They base the fact that he was in Rome for 25 years, no less on this one scripture. Then, as usual they provide multiple non-scriptural sources to prove their point. No other believers or Apostles corroborate this fact, but plenty of so-called non scriptural sources allegedly do.
The RCC says that Peter used Babylon as a code word for Rome. Where did this gnostic knowledge come from? Paul was called to the circumcision (the Jews) and there was a large population of them in Babylon. In 1 Peter 1:1 we have this: "Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia."
Can any of the Catholic apologists please tell me what Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia were "CODE WORDS" for?
Then for an extremely significant event that is probably the greatest event in the Catholic church we have their interpretation of Matthew 16 where they say Jesus Christ made Peter the first Pope (Papa or Father) of the Church. In fact it is what the Catholic church has built all their dogma on. If there is no Pope, then there are no Priests, then there is no turning of the bread and wine into the actual body and blood of Jesus (since only "priests" can do this).
To comfort the church and give them multiple witnesses concerning extremely important events God has a reputation for giving us many advance notices PLUS eyewitnesses on the ground. There is not one single prophecy about Peter becoming the "Father" of the Church (we have a heavenly Father, by the way) and there are no Believers on the ground (in the scriptures) that can attest to Peter being in Rome and serving as the Pope of Rome.
The Bible gives us all the important "bible words" we should know about. The Catholic church has added an innumerable amount of new words (new meanings and concepts) that don't come close to existing in the Bible.
This and many other reasons are why so many will not accept the Catholic Church's claims.
1. No prophetic proof of major events (Peter as Pope (Father), Mary's Ascension (Mother of the Church))
2. No eyewitnesses (Peter as Pope, Peter in Rome, people adoring Mary and asking her to intercede for them)
However, they seem to be able to provide unlimited proof outside of Scripture. And God has given us a history of Himself working within Scripture, especially for major events.
Believers are directly related to Jesus Christ, by the way. The Church of Jesus Christ (all true believers) have been persecuted and killed throughout the centuries. It is a Red Herring to say we should be able to trace our "lineage" to the Apostles.
Again, all true Believers are directly related to Jesus Christ through the Spirit. The Spirit is at work throughout the world, moving where He wills and when He wills, to bring men to the same revelation that the Spirit of God revealed to Peter. That Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God.
Axehead
Selene
New Member
Below is a weblink from Strongs biblical translation of Babylon of the Old and New Testament. I provided the weblink below. As you can see, even your KJV admits that Babylon is the code name for Rome.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G897&t=KJV
Furthermore, the Bible shows that a Church at Rome already existed before St. Paul went there because St. Paul wrote his letter to the Romans. He was writing that letter to Christians in Rome who were being persecuted by the Roman emperor. (See Romans 1-16).
Same old broken record here, Sure Selene, I remember well, how Jesus spent 3.5 years arguing about a church, that it was going to be established in Rome, be in league with the government and end "outlaw" all other religions. He also said it was going to teach many things He never said. What verse was that.
Here it is Gal 1:8
That is a false assertion.
see http://www.scripturecatholic.com/ for biblical proof.
We listen to the Church that gave you the Bible. Yet you find this unreasonable.
Name the date and the teaching the first time there was an inconsistency with what was always believed. You can't because your charge is empty.
I like that. Catholics and Protestants have errors but your private opinion is deified because the Holy Spirit tells you what everything in scripture means and everyone has errors except you. If you disagree with that then you must admit to your own fallibility. Consequently, you have no right to hold anyone to any false teaching or heresy.
This is the fifth or sixth time you have ejected the Holy Spirit from the process Who superintends the Church when she teaches on faith and morals. If you are going to repeatedly deny that the Holy Spirit has anything to do with what the catholic Church teaches, then you have to deny the Holy Spirit had anything to do with the canon of the New Testament. (393 A.D.) ITS THE SAME AUTHORITY THEN AS NOW.
1 Cor. 10:16-17
"For because Christ bore us all, in that He also bore our sins, we see that in the water is understood the people, but in the wine is showed the blood of Christ...Thus, therefore, in consecrating the cup of the Lord, water alone cannot be offered, even as wine alone cannot be offered. For if any one offer wine only, the blood of Christ is dissociated from us; but if the water be alone, the people are dissociated from Christ; but when both are mingled, and are joined with one another by a close union, there is completed a spiritual and heavenly sacrament. Thus the cup of the Lord is not indeed water alone, nor wine alone, unless each be mingled with the other; just as, on the other hand, the body of the Lord cannot be flour alone or water alone, unless both should be united and joined together and compacted in the mass of one bread; in which very sacrament our people are shown to be made one, so that in like manner as many grains, collected, and ground, and mixed together into one mass, make one bread; so in Christ, who is the heavenly bread, we may know that there is one body, with which our number is joined and united."
Cyprian, To Caeilius, Epistle 62(63):13 (A.D. 253).
42. St. Cyprian too, in the course of laying stress on the Church's unity in opposition to schism, said this: "Finally the Lord's sacrifices proclaim the unity of Christians who are bound together by a firm and unshakeable charity. For when the Lord calls the bread that has been made from many grains of wheat His Body, He is describing our people whose unity He has sustained; and when He refers to wine pressed from many grapes and berries as His Blood, once again He is speaking of our flock which has been formed by fusing many into one." (45)
43. But before all of these, St. Paul had written to the Corinthians: "The one bread makes us one body, though we are many in number; the same bread is shared by all." (46)
43. But before all of these, St. Paul had written to the Corinthians: "The one bread makes us one body, though we are many in number; the same bread is shared by all." (46)
MYSTERIUM FIDEI A.D. 1965
Looks like consistency to me.
