WHY IS THE CHURCH GOING OUT BACKWARD?

[Marymog]

That is what Daniel 2 says.

Who taught you your interpretation of Daniel 2?

 

[Timtofly]

Who taught you your interpretation of Daniel 2?

His story.

 

[marksman]

I Trow(think) not.

KJV lingo...LOL

My apologies. I do not speak in KJV lingo. I have to use Queens English as I was an English teacher at the last school I taught at.

 

[marksman]

No, you did.

Paul did not insert the words "shepherds".

Obtuse is what it is known as. The Greek is Shepherd. The Latin is Pastor. one and the same.

 

[marksman]

Easy.

Strongs is a book or REDEFINITIONS.

I know, I own it.

Years ago, before I ever was aware of the universal KJV attack, I used Strongs and automatically(not realizing), was finding endless new meanings the KJV "omitted".

I saw this from the pulpit weekly too.

I began to doubt the Bible's accuracy, thinking Strongs was the fix of it's errors.

Thank God someone showed me what was going on, because my faith in the Bible was at stake.

Next time you see someone begin to dissect the Bible with a Strongs, just say nothing and observe what just happened before your eyes....


"Saints...I know the Bible says this, but let me "shed some light" on that it REALLY means per my Strongs/Thayers etc. You may find it fascinating to see that it means more than meets the eye...."

According to your theology but not according to 99% of everyone else theology. You are on your own on that one. I can see by your last comment that the only inspired word of God is the King James Version. So I have to ask which cave you live in?

The original Greek gives you a much better understanding of scripture and leaves the KJV cold. That is why those with qualifications and are learned don't use it anymore.

 

[Illuminator]

That is what Daniel 2 says.

scroll up to post #326. In Daniel 2 a "mountain" is not a literal mountain.

 

[Illuminator]

No, the reformation began the first attempt to slowly over the centuries find their way back to the Acts church.

The protestants are trying, but are addicted to RCC doctrines that are like meth to an addict.

They must reach a point to do a complete reboot, starting with Acts 2, to create the 1st century foundation they lack.

They are daughters of the RCC, because they modify the RCC doctrines, rather that toss them and start over.

It is like a junkie on methadone, saying they are not a junkie now.

Independent Evangelical churches follow the Baptist Successionist idea that the early church was de-centralized. They like to imagine that the early Christians met in their homes for Bible study and prayer, and that in this pure form they existed independently of any central authority. It is easy to imagine that long ago in the ancient world transportation and communication was rare and difficult and that no form of centralized church authority could have existed even if it was desirable.

The most straightforward reading of the Acts of the Apostles shows this to be untrue, and a further reading of early church documents shows this to be no more than a back-projected invention. In the Acts of the Apostles what we find is a church that is immediately centralized in Jerusalem. When Peter has his disturbing vision in which God directs him to admit the Gentiles to the Church, he references back at once to the apostolic leadership in Jerusalem.(Acts 11:2)

The mission of the infant church was directed from Jerusalem, with Barnabas and Agabus being sent to Antioch (Acts 11:22,27) The Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) was convened to decide on the Gentile decision and a letter of instruction was sent to the new churches in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia. (Acts 15:23) We see Philip, John Mark, Barnabas and Paul traveling to and from Jerusalem and providing a teaching and disciplinary link from the new churches back to the centralized church in Jerusalem.

After the martyrdom of James the leadership shifts to Peter and Paul. The authority is not centered on Jerusalem, but through their epistles to the various churches, we see a centralized authority that is vested in Peter and Paul as apostles. This central authority was very soon focused on Rome, so that St Ignatius, a bishop of the church in Antioch would write to the Romans in the year 108 affirming that their church was the one that "had the superior place in love among the churches.’”
(had, past tense)

Historian Eamon Duffy suggests that the earliest leadership in the Roman church may have been more conciliar than monarchical because in his letter to the Corinthians, Clement of Rome doesn’t write as the Bishop of Rome, but even if this is so Duffy confirms that the early church believed Clement was the fourth Bishop of Rome and read Clement’s letter as support for centralized Roman authority. He also concedes that by the time of Irenaeus in the mid second century the centralizing role of the Bishop of Rome was already well established. From then on, citation after citation from the apostolic Fathers can be compiled to show that the whole church from Gaul to North Africa and from Syria to Spain affirm the primacy of the Bishop of Rome as the successor of Peter and Paul.

The acceptance of this centralized authority was a sign of belonging to the one true church so that St Jerome could write to Pope Damasus in the mid 300s,
“I think it is my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church whose faith has been praised by Paul… My words are spoken to the successor of the fisherman, to the disciple of the cross. As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built!”

Was the Early Church Local and Congregational?

We find no evidence of a network of independent, local churches ruled democratically by individual congregations. Instead, from the beginning we find the churches ruled by elders (bishops) So in the New Testament we find the apostles appointing elders in the churches. (Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5) The elders kept in touch with the apostles and with the elders of the other churches through travel and communication by epistle. (I Pt.1:1; 5:1) Anne Rice, the author of the Christ the Lord series of novels, points out how excellent and rapid the lines of communication and travel were in the Roman Empire.

In the early church we do not find independent congregations meeting on their own and determining their own affairs by reading the Bible. We have to remember that in the first two centuries there was no Bible as such for the canon of the New Testament had not yet been decided. Instead, from the earliest time we find churches ruled by the bishops and clergy whose authenticity is validated by their succession from the apostles. So Clement of Rome writes,
“Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife on the question of the bishop’s office. Therefore for this reason… they appointed the aforesaid persons and later made further provision that if they should fall asleep other tested men should succeed to their ministry.”
Ignatius of Antioch in Syria writes letters to six different churches and instructs the Romans,
“be submissive to the bishop and to one another as Jesus Christ was to the Father and the Apostles to Christ…that there may be unity.”

This apostolic ministry was present in each city, but centralized in Rome. The idea of a church being independent, local and congregational is rejected. Thus, by the late second century Irenaeus writes, “Those who wish to see the truth can observe in every church the tradition of the Apostles made manifest in the whole world…therefore we refute those who hold unauthorized assemblies…by pointing to the greatest and oldest church, a church known to all men, which was founded and established at Rome by the most renowned Apostles Peter and Paul…for this Church has the position of leadership and authority, and therefore every church, that is, the faithful everywhere must needs agree with the church at Rome for in her the apostolic tradition has ever been preserved by the faithful from all parts of the world.”

Hebrews 13:17 "Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you."

Truther, what is the expiration date of this verse? 1517???

 

[Illuminator]

Catholics agree with their more agreeable Protestant brethren that the sixteenth century division among Christians was tragic. But most Catholics who think about it also see it as unnecessary. At least unnecessary in the sense that what Catholics might regard as genuine issues raised by the Reformers could, on the Catholic view, have been addressed without the tragedy of dividing Christendom.

Yet we can go further than decrying the Reformation as unnecessary. In his ground-breaking work, The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism, Louis Bouyer argued that the Catholic Church herself is necessary for the full flowering of the Reformation principles. In other words, you need Catholicism to make Protestantism work for Protestantism's principles fully to develop. Thus, the Reformation was not only unnecessary; it was impossible. What the Reformers sought, argues Bouyer, could not be achieved without the Catholic Church.
https://www.catholiceducation.org/e...ism-work-louis-bouyer-on-the-reformation.html

 

[mjrhealth]

Catholics agree with their more agreeable Protestant brethren that the sixteenth century division among Christians was tragic. But most Catholics who think about it also see it as unnecessary. At least unnecessary in the sense that what Catholics might regard as genuine issues raised by the Reformers could, on the Catholic view, have been addressed without the tragedy of dividing Christendom.

Yet we can go further than decrying the Reformation as unnecessary. In his ground-breaking work, The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism, Louis Bouyer argued that the Catholic Church herself is necessary for the full flowering of the Reformation principles. In other words, you need Catholicism to make Protestantism work for Protestantism's principles fully to develop. Thus, the Reformation was not only unnecessary; it was impossible. What the Reformers sought, argues Bouyer, could not be achieved without the Catholic Church.
https://www.catholiceducation.org/e...ism-work-louis-bouyer-on-the-reformation.html

Jesus did it all without any mans help. and God will finish what HE started without any mans religions, none will boast none.

 

[Truther]

Independent Evangelical churches follow the Baptist Successionist idea that the early church was de-centralized. They like to imagine that the early Christians met in their homes for Bible study and prayer, and that in this pure form they existed independently of any central authority. It is easy to imagine that long ago in the ancient world transportation and communication was rare and difficult and that no form of centralized church authority could have existed even if it was desirable.

The most straightforward reading of the Acts of the Apostles shows this to be untrue, and a further reading of early church documents shows this to be no more than a back-projected invention. In the Acts of the Apostles what we find is a church that is immediately centralized in Jerusalem. When Peter has his disturbing vision in which God directs him to admit the Gentiles to the Church, he references back at once to the apostolic leadership in Jerusalem.(Acts 11:2)

The mission of the infant church was directed from Jerusalem, with Barnabas and Agabus being sent to Antioch (Acts 11:22,27) The Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) was convened to decide on the Gentile decision and a letter of instruction was sent to the new churches in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia. (Acts 15:23) We see Philip, John Mark, Barnabas and Paul traveling to and from Jerusalem and providing a teaching and disciplinary link from the new churches back to the centralized church in Jerusalem.

After the martyrdom of James the leadership shifts to Peter and Paul. The authority is not centered on Jerusalem, but through their epistles to the various churches, we see a centralized authority that is vested in Peter and Paul as apostles. This central authority was very soon focused on Rome, so that St Ignatius, a bishop of the church in Antioch would write to the Romans in the year 108 affirming that their church was the one that "had the superior place in love among the churches.’”
(had, past tense)

Historian Eamon Duffy suggests that the earliest leadership in the Roman church may have been more conciliar than monarchical because in his letter to the Corinthians, Clement of Rome doesn’t write as the Bishop of Rome, but even if this is so Duffy confirms that the early church believed Clement was the fourth Bishop of Rome and read Clement’s letter as support for centralized Roman authority. He also concedes that by the time of Irenaeus in the mid second century the centralizing role of the Bishop of Rome was already well established. From then on, citation after citation from the apostolic Fathers can be compiled to show that the whole church from Gaul to North Africa and from Syria to Spain affirm the primacy of the Bishop of Rome as the successor of Peter and Paul.

The acceptance of this centralized authority was a sign of belonging to the one true church so that St Jerome could write to Pope Damasus in the mid 300s,
“I think it is my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church whose faith has been praised by Paul… My words are spoken to the successor of the fisherman, to the disciple of the cross. As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built!”

Was the Early Church Local and Congregational?

We find no evidence of a network of independent, local churches ruled democratically by individual congregations. Instead, from the beginning we find the churches ruled by elders (bishops) So in the New Testament we find the apostles appointing elders in the churches. (Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5) The elders kept in touch with the apostles and with the elders of the other churches through travel and communication by epistle. (I Pt.1:1; 5:1) Anne Rice, the author of the Christ the Lord series of novels, points out how excellent and rapid the lines of communication and travel were in the Roman Empire.

In the early church we do not find independent congregations meeting on their own and determining their own affairs by reading the Bible. We have to remember that in the first two centuries there was no Bible as such for the canon of the New Testament had not yet been decided. Instead, from the earliest time we find churches ruled by the bishops and clergy whose authenticity is validated by their succession from the apostles. So Clement of Rome writes,
“Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife on the question of the bishop’s office. Therefore for this reason… they appointed the aforesaid persons and later made further provision that if they should fall asleep other tested men should succeed to their ministry.”
Ignatius of Antioch in Syria writes letters to six different churches and instructs the Romans,
“be submissive to the bishop and to one another as Jesus Christ was to the Father and the Apostles to Christ…that there may be unity.”

This apostolic ministry was present in each city, but centralized in Rome. The idea of a church being independent, local and congregational is rejected. Thus, by the late second century Irenaeus writes, “Those who wish to see the truth can observe in every church the tradition of the Apostles made manifest in the whole world…therefore we refute those who hold unauthorized assemblies…by pointing to the greatest and oldest church, a church known to all men, which was founded and established at Rome by the most renowned Apostles Peter and Paul…for this Church has the position of leadership and authority, and therefore every church, that is, the faithful everywhere must needs agree with the church at Rome for in her the apostolic tradition has ever been preserved by the faithful from all parts of the world.”

Hebrews 13:17 "Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you."

Truther, what is the expiration date of this verse? 1517???

Hebrews 13:7 does not make extra Biblical religion one's leader.

There is NO church body or organization that can link an unbroken chain of succession to the Acts 2 church.

The only way an INDIVIDUAL can find themselves in the true, original Church is if they duplicate the same exact doctrine AND experience that the Acts Church had.

All other Churches can be debunked by the Bible for being Acts skippers.

 

[Truther]

According to your theology but not according to 99% of everyone else theology. You are on your own on that one. I can see by your last comment that the only inspired word of God is the King James Version. So I have to ask which cave you live in?

The original Greek gives you a much better understanding of scripture and leaves the KJV cold. That is why those with qualifications and are learned don't use it anymore.

So, the 300 years of KJV dominance before the early 1900's produced scriptural cave men?

 

[Truther]

Obtuse is what it is known as. The Greek is Shepherd. The Latin is Pastor. one and the same.

You just debunked John 10(Jesus).

Again...

 

[Truther]

My apologies. I do not speak in KJV lingo. I have to use Queens English as I was an English teacher at the last school I taught at.

I was just havin' a bit a fun.

 

[BreadOfLife]

It doesn't say that in my KJV, it only says it in RCC sponsored versions.

The RCC and her daughter versions are hell bent on stealing power from Jesus, to the point of stealing His ONE Shepherd title(John 10) for themselves.

It's about power over people and money.

Like I have ALWAYS admonished you, my ignorant friend – when in doubt, ALWAYS go back to the original Greek.

The NT wasn’t written in English, Einstein – it was written in 1st century Koine Greek. The word that Paul uses for “Pastor” (shepherd) is the EXACT SAME work Jesus uses in John 10 as He describes Himself as the Good “Shepherd”.

YOU keep dancing around this issue because you LOST this argument pages ago . . .

 

[Illuminator]

Hebrews 13:7 does not make extra Biblical religion one's leader.

Hebrews 13:7 doesn't make that claim. It says "obey your leaders". Which "leaders" is Paul talking about? The reformers made void this verse with their revolt. So you reply with a derailed.

There is NO church body or organization that can link an unbroken chain of succession to the Acts 2 church.

So you are forced to re-write early church history to make it compatible with your man made system, and ignore the writings of Christians of the first 3 centuries.

The only way an INDIVIDUAL can find themselves in the true, original Church is if they duplicate the same exact doctrine AND experience that the Acts Church had.

You have no concept of development of doctrine.
C. S. Lewis, the famous Anglican writer, once wrote:

The very possibility of progress demands that there should be an unchanging element . . . the positive historical statements made by Christianity have the power . . . of receiving, without intrinsic change, the increasing complexity of meaning which increasing knowledge puts into them.​

The Catholic Church, in agreement with Lewis, defines doctrinal development as a growth of depth and clarity in the understanding of the truths of divine revelation. It is important to understand that the substantial or essential truths at the core of each doctrine remain unchanged. Only the subjective grasp of men increases. This increase is the result of the prayerful reflection of the Church, theological study and research (often occasioned by heretical challenges), practical experience, and the collective wisdom of the Church’s bishops and popes, especially when joined in Ecumenical Councils. (which you despise)

Like many Christian doctrines, the idea of doctrinal development is based on much implicit or indirect scriptural evidence. The best indications are perhaps Mt. 5:17, 13:31-2, Jn. 14:26, 16:13, 1 Cor. 2:9-16, Gal. 4:4, Eph. 1:10, 4:12-15. Furthermore, doctrine clearly develops within Scripture (“progressive revelation”). Examples: doctrines of the afterlife, the Trinity, the Messiah (eventually revealed as God the Son), the Holy Spirit (Divine Person in the New Testament), the equality of Jews and Gentiles, bodily resurrection, sacrifice of lambs evolving into the sacrifice of Christ, etc. Not a single doctrine emerges in the Bible complete with no further need of development.

In general, whenever Scripture refers to the increasing knowledge and maturity of Christians and the Church, an idea very similar to doctrinal development is present. Holy Scripture, then, is in no way hostile to development. It is only Protestant presuppositions – not always so “biblical” – which preclude development for fear of “excess.”

The Canon of Scripture itself is an example of developing doctrine. The New Testament never informs us which books comprise itself, and its Canon (final list of books) took about 360 years to reach its final form (at the Council of Carthage in 397). For instance, the books of Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Revelation were not widely accepted by the Church until 350 A.D.!

One simply needs to become familiar with Catholic biblical apologetic arguments. The idea of doctrinal development is a key, in any case, for understanding why the Catholic Church often appears on the surface as fundamentally different than the early Church. Thoughtful Protestants owe it to themselves and intellectual honesty to ponder this indispensable notion before lashing out at the allegedly “unbiblical excesses” of Catholicism.
Development of Doctrine: A Corruption of Biblical Teaching?

All other Churches can be debunked by the Bible for being Acts skippers.

Your Acts skipping parallels post # 347 which you ignored.
If anything must be described, then, as a corruption of primitive, pure Christianity, it is Protestantism, not Catholicism, since it introduced a radically new mode of Christian authority which was a 180-degree departure from the established Christian Tradition: that of subjective, private judgment, tied in with the unbiblical, unhistorical, and unreasonable notion of “Scripture Alone.” Protestantism is much more of a corruption, if that word is defined as an essential change of direction or philosophy of an institution or a set of beliefs (in this case theological and spiritual).

One might say that an automobile was “corrupt” if the owner decided that it ran better with no muffler, no shocks, no air or fuel filters, half of its spark plugs, watered-down gas, no rear brakes, one headlight, no heat, three quarts low on oil, with half of its radiator coolant, etc. Corruption can consist of “subtraction” as well as “addition.” Protestantism’s charges against Catholicism, closely scrutinized, only come back to incriminate itself.

 

[Illuminator]

There is NO church body or organization that can link an unbroken chain of succession to the Acts 2 church.

This is intellectual suicide.

 

[Timtofly]

That is why those with qualifications and are learned don't use it anymore.

Is that not what Satan told Eve? We use the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. No one uses the tree of life anymore.

 

[Timtofly]

scroll up to post #326. In Daniel 2 a "mountain" is not a literal mountain.

Yes, it is the body of Christ.

 

[Illuminator]

Yes, it is the body of Christ.

But your "body of Christ" on earth has no head, no prime minister on earth subject to the King, so you do scriptural contortions of Daniel 2 in a feeble attempt to claim division and theological chaos is God's will.




.

 

[Truther]

This is intellectual suicide.

No, not adhering to the doctrines and experience of Acts is spiritual suicide.

No joke.