The Apostles and their Followers were Catholics!!!! (Isn't it astonishing???)

[D.R.R.]

St. Cyprian of Carthage:

"If any will consider this, there is no need of a long treatise and of arguments. 'The Lord saith to Peter: 'I say unto thee that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it; to thee I will give the keys to the kingdom of heaven, and what thou shalt have bound on earth shall be bound in heaven, and what thou shalt have loosed shall be loosed in heaven.' Upon one He builds His Church, and though to all His Apostles after His resurrection He gives an equal power and says: 'As My Father hath sent Me, even so send I you: Receive the Holy Ghost, whosesoever sins you shall have remitted they shall be remitted unto them, and whosesoever sins you shall have retained they shall be retained', yet that He might make unity manifest, He disposed the origin of that unity beginning from one. The other Apostles were indeed what Peter was, endowed with a like fellowship both of honour and of power, but the commencement proceeds from one, that the Church may be shown to be one. This one Church the Holy Ghost in the person of the Lord designates in the Canticle of Canticles, and says, One is My Dove, My perfect one, one is she to her mother, one to her that bare her. He that holds not this unity of the Church, does he believe that he holds the Faith? He who strives against and resists the Church, is he confident that he is in the Church?"

"Extra ecclesiam nulla salus" - "Outside the Church there is no salvation" (Ep. 73, 21).

St. Irenaeus (born in the first half of the second century):

In Adversus haereses, he speaks of the Holy Eucharist, and the primacy of the Roman Church.

St. Ignatius of Antioch, who was very probably a disciple of St. John the Apostle, (d. c. 115):

Some Catholic doctrines in his writings: "Among the many Catholic doctrines to be found in the letters are the following: the Church was Divinely established as a visible society, the salvation of souls is its end, and those who separate themselves from it cut themselves off from God (Philad., c. iii); the hierarchy of the Church was instituted by Christ (lntrod. to Philad.; Ephes., c. vi); the threefold character of the hierarchy (Magn., c. vi); the order of the episcopacy superior by Divine authority to that of the priesthood (Magn., c. vi, c. xiii; Smyrn., c. viii;. Trall., .c. iii);the unity of the Church (Trall., c. vi;Philad., c. iii; Magn., c. xiii);the holiness of the Church (Smyrn., Ephes., Magn., Trall., and Rom.); the catholicity of the Church (Smyrn., c. viii); the infallibility of the Church (Philad., c. iii; Ephes., cc. xvi, xvii); the doctrine of the Eucharist (Smyrn., c. viii), which word we find for the first time applied to the Blessed Sacrament, just as in Smyrn., viii, we meet for the first time the phrase "Catholic Church", used to designate all Christians; the Incarnation (Ephes., c. xviii); the supernatural virtue of virginity, already much esteemed and made the subject of a vow (Polyc., c. v); the religious character of matrimony (Polyc., c. v); the value of united prayer (Ephes., c. xiii); the primacy of the See of Rome (Rom., introd.). He, moreover, denounces in principle the Protestant doctrine of private judgment in matters' of religion (Philad. c. iii), The heresy against which he chiefly inveighs is Docetism. Neither do the Judaizing heresies escape his vigorous condemnation" (www.newadvent.org).

The Didache (the doctrine of the Twelve Apostles, written in 1st century, earliest known Christian writing outside of Scripture, "catechetical summary of Christian sacraments, practices, and morality" (Introduction to Catholicism, Midwest Theological Forum, 2003) ):

Pt.2, ch. ix: "Concerning the Eucharist, thus shall you give thanks: 'We give Thee thanks, our Father, for the holy Vine of David Thy Child, which Thou hast made known to us through Jesus Thy Child; to Thee be the glory for ever'. And of the broken Bread: 'We give Thee thanks, our Father, for the Life and knowledge which Thou hast made known to us through Jesus Thy Child; to Thee be glory for ever. For as this broken Bread was dispersed over the mountains, and being collected became one, so may Thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Thy kingdom, for Thine is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever.' And let none eat or drink of your Eucharist but those who have been baptized in the Name of Christ; for of this the Lord said: 'Give not the holy Thing to the dogs'."

Pt.3 says that 'the breaking of bread and Thanksgiving [Eucharist] is on Sunday, "after you have confessed your transgressions, that your Sacrifice may be pure", and those who are at discord must agree, for this is the clean oblation prophesied by Malachias, i, 11, 14. "Ordain therefore for yourselves bishops and deacons, worthy of the Lord . . . for they also minister to you the ministry of the prophets and teachers." ' (www.newadvent.org).

[Jude3b]

Roman Catholicism is not God's church. It is part of Babylon.

Popery, as found in the Roman Catholic Church today, dates back to A.D. 270. Years preceding this date it was developing, but did not exert much power until 270 A.D. and was fully developed in 530 A.D. and ruled, along with its political power, the entire civilized world from approximately A.D. 530 until A.D. 1530, a period of one thousand years. This period is known as the dark ages. The Roman Catholic Church does not date back to the days of Jesus. It is not the church Jesus built.

Come out of her my people (Revelation 18:1-5)

[romepunk]

Can't argue with that reply. What a devestating deconstruction of your argument, DRR. You and I better ditch popery. Popery? Isn't that some sort of incense? Oh, no wait, that's potpouri...

[D.R.R.]

Roman Catholicism is not God's church. It is part of Babylon.

Then the Apostles too must have been part of Babylon since the Didache, the doctrine of the Apostles, contains distinctly Catholic doctrines (Eucharist, confession, etc.). Please see my last post.

[D.R.R.]

Can't argue with that reply. What a devestating deconstruction of your argument, DRR. You and I better ditch popery. Popery? Isn't that some sort of incense? Oh, no wait, that's potpouri...

Popery, yes...Jude's quite the lexicographer.

[VFarris01]

The Apostles and their "followers" (really they were all followers of Jesus Christ) were all called Christians.

# of times the word Christian or Christians appears in the NT: 3, (Acts 11:26, Acts 26:28, 1 Peter 4:16)

# of times the word catholic or universal appears in the NT: 0

Source: 1899 Douay-Rheims Bible

the Roman Catholic Church today, dates back to A.D. 270. Years preceding this date it was developing, but did not exert much power until 270 A.D. and was fully developed in 530 A.D. and ruled, along with its political power, the entire civilized world from approximately A.D. 530 until A.D. 1530, a period of one thousand years. This period is known as the dark ages. The Roman Catholic Church does not date back to the days of Jesus. It is not the church Jesus built.Spare me, I don't accept much from a group (the RCC) known for extensive forgery to back-up their doctrine.

[spl_cadet]

Spare me, I don't accept much from a group (the RCC) known for extensive forgery to back-up their doctrine.

Instances being? Only one I'm aware of is the Donation of Constantine and that wasn't even produced by the heirarchy of the Church iirc.

[D.R.R.]

The Apostles and their "followers" (really they were all followers of Jesus Christ) were all called Christians.

# of times the word Christian or Christians appears in the NT: 3, (Acts 11:26, Acts 26:28, 1 Peter 4:16)

# of times the word catholic or universal appears in the NT: 0

Source: 1899 Douay-Rheims Bible

Spare me, I don't accept much from a group (the RCC) known for extensive forgery to back-up their doctrine.

Did you read what I posted?

[kofh2u]

St. Cyprian of Carthage:

"If any will consider this, there is no need of a long treatise and of arguments. 'The Lord saith to Peter: 'I say unto thee that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it; to thee I will give the keys to the kingdom of heaven, and what thou shalt have bound on earth shall be bound in heaven, and what thou shalt have loosed shall be loosed in heaven.' Upon one He builds His Church, and though to all His Apostles after His resurrection He gives an equal power and says: 'As My Father hath sent Me, even so send I you: Receive the Holy Ghost, whosesoever sins you shall have remitted they shall be remitted unto them, and whosesoever sins you shall have retained they shall be retained', yet that He might make unity manifest, He disposed the origin of that unity beginning from one. The other Apostles were indeed what Peter was, endowed with a like fellowship both of honour and of power, but the commencement proceeds from one, that the Church may be shown to be one. This one Church the Holy Ghost in the person of the Lord designates in the Canticle of Canticles, and says, One is My Dove, My perfect one, one is she to her mother, one to her that bare her. He that holds not this unity of the Church, does he believe that he holds the Faith? He who strives against and resists the Church, is he confident that he is in the Church?"

"Extra ecclesiam nulla salus" - "Outside the Church there is no salvation" (Ep. 73, 21).

St. Irenaeus (born in the first half of the second century):

In Adversus haereses, he speaks of the Holy Eucharist, and the primacy of the Roman Church.

St. Ignatius of Antioch, who was very probably a disciple of St. John the Apostle, (d. c. 115):

Some Catholic doctrines in his writings: "Among the many Catholic doctrines to be found in the letters are the following: the Church was Divinely established as a visible society, the salvation of souls is its end, and those who separate themselves from it cut themselves off from God (Philad., c. iii); the hierarchy of the Church was instituted by Christ (lntrod. to Philad.; Ephes., c. vi); the threefold character of the hierarchy (Magn., c. vi); the order of the episcopacy superior by Divine authority to that of the priesthood (Magn., c. vi, c. xiii; Smyrn., c. viii;. Trall., .c. iii);the unity of the Church (Trall., c. vi;Philad., c. iii; Magn., c. xiii);the holiness of the Church (Smyrn., Ephes., Magn., Trall., and Rom.); the catholicity of the Church (Smyrn., c. viii); the infallibility of the Church (Philad., c. iii; Ephes., cc. xvi, xvii); the doctrine of the Eucharist (Smyrn., c. viii), which word we find for the first time applied to the Blessed Sacrament, just as in Smyrn., viii, we meet for the first time the phrase "Catholic Church", used to designate all Christians; the Incarnation (Ephes., c. xviii); the supernatural virtue of virginity, already much esteemed and made the subject of a vow (Polyc., c. v); the religious character of matrimony (Polyc., c. v); the value of united prayer (Ephes., c. xiii); the primacy of the See of Rome (Rom., introd.). He, moreover, denounces in principle the Protestant doctrine of private judgment in matters' of religion (Philad. c. iii), The heresy against which he chiefly inveighs is Docetism. Neither do the Judaizing heresies escape his vigorous condemnation" (www.newadvent.org).

The Didache (the doctrine of the Twelve Apostles, written in 1st century, earliest known Christian writing outside of Scripture, "catechetical summary of Christian sacraments, practices, and morality" (Introduction to Catholicism, Midwest Theological Forum, 2003) ):

Pt.2, ch. ix: "Concerning the Eucharist, thus shall you give thanks: 'We give Thee thanks, our Father, for the holy Vine of David Thy Child, which Thou hast made known to us through Jesus Thy Child; to Thee be the glory for ever'. And of the broken Bread: 'We give Thee thanks, our Father, for the Life and knowledge which Thou hast made known to us through Jesus Thy Child; to Thee be glory for ever. For as this broken Bread was dispersed over the mountains, and being collected became one, so may Thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Thy kingdom, for Thine is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever.' And let none eat or drink of your Eucharist but those who have been baptized in the Name of Christ; for of this the Lord said: 'Give not the holy Thing to the dogs'."

Pt.3 says that 'the breaking of bread and Thanksgiving [Eucharist] is on Sunday, "after you have confessed your transgressions, that your Sacrifice may be pure", and those who are at discord must agree, for this is the clean oblation prophesied by Malachias, i, 11, 14. "Ordain therefore for yourselves bishops and deacons, worthy of the Lord . . . for they also minister to you the ministry of the prophets and teachers." ' (www.newadvent.org).



I presume that this threadvwas placed here primarily to emphasis that Peter was bestowed the keys.

Since these keys have never been produced inspite of the assumption that tge RCC ought have them, claiming to be directly derived from Peter, and having the rather unique position of primacy among the present twelve Major Christian Denomination, the question is this:

If these keys are tangible, why have they not been produced and explained? It would seem to thr benfit of the RCC to establish the point among the other Christian denominations of the Church of our one Lord.

If these keys are figurative, then thst ought be made clear. And, in thst case, the power therein should be exercised in ecumenicalism.

[VFarris01]

Did you read what I posted?I did; it's all RC propoganda defined in newadvent.org.:lol:
IF you really could think for yourself you wouldn't need the RCC to tell you what to believe and why and how to believe it. The truth will someday "set you free" from the cult of Catholicism.

Instances being? Only one I'm aware of is the Donation of Constantine and that wasn't even produced by the heirarchy of the Church iirc.You need to get up-to-date on "St." Gregory, the forger.

Catholics often quote the "Early Fathers" in support of Catholic doctrines, the Papacy, and other Catholic claims. Who were these people? There were many early Christian leaders, including priests, bishops, and scholars. There were a lot of these men, and they had a wide variety of opinions on religious matters. Their theological differences were as widely varied as those of theologians from different denominations are today. (Malachi Martin in The Decline and Fall of the Roman Church, pages 11-28 describes these different beliefs and practices. Martin was a Catholic priest, an eminent theologian, and a professor at the Vatican's Pontifical Institute.)

So one person finds some "Early Fathers" to support one position, and another person finds other "Early Fathers" to support the opposite position. But it's not a level playing field. Among all of those early Christian leaders, who decided which ones qualified to be called "Early Fathers"? The Catholic Church. Who decided which works should be copied and passed on to posterity? Who decided which writings were important enough to copy? The Catholic Church.

Apart from political intrigue, the Roman bishops have been known to stoop to forge documents to support their claims of supremacy and to widely increase their power and influence. I will look at two of the more famous and important ones: The Donation of Constantine and the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals.

The Donation of Constantine was a known forgery that was used by Pope Stephen III (752-757) against the Franks, which successfully increase the powers and influence of the Roman Church. In the year 753 the Lombards threatened Rome, a barbarian tribe from the Baltic. Stephen approached Pepin, the king of the Franks. The Roman bishop showed the Frankish king a document that purports to be dated 30th March 315; a document that came to be called “The Donation of Constantine”. The document tells the story of how Emperor Constantine, after being miraculously healed of leprosy, gave Pope Sylvester I (314-335), the regions of Italy surrounding Rome and pronounced Rome supreme over the other main centers of the church, namely, Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem.

The document all purports to give the reason why Constantine moved the capital of his empire from Rome to Constantinople: he wished that the Pope should have no rival on earth! In a stroke, the document showed that the Roman Church was, from the days of Constantine, pronounced as the supreme church, had a right to the regions around Rome and was superior to the emperor. The document made the right impression on Pepin. Upon defeating the Lombards, he duly handed to Stephen the regions mentioned in the Donation. Thus was how the Papal States came into being.

The Donation of Constantine, however, is a fraudulent document and one that was most probably concocted just before Stephen met Pepin. The document was finally shown to be a fraud in the fifteenth century by the Italian humanist, Lorenzo Valla. Lorenzo showed that, among other things, the time of the donation as stipulated by the document was before the reign of Pope Sylvester I; thus the Pope that should have received the donation was Pope Miltiades. He also showed that the name Constantinople was not conferred on the new capital, which was called Byzantium until 330; so it would not have been possible for a document that was supposed to have been written in 315 to know that the name of the new capital was going to be changed to Constantinople fifteen years later. Valla also showed that the language of the document was a later form of Latin than that used in the fourth century. With the help of these and other arguments he conclusively proved that the Donation of Constantine was a papal fraud. While Valla’s argument convinced the impartial scholars, Rome continued to deny for many centuries that the Donation was a fraud. Thus one of the most significant triumphs in the history of the Roman Church was achieved by fraud. (de Rosa, Vicars of Christ: p54-57, Kelly, Dictionary of Popes: p90-91, Livingstone, Dictionary of the Church: p127,158, Strauss, The Catholic Church: p58-59)

The Pseudo Isidorian Decretals was perhaps the most important forgery in the steps towards papal supremacy. St. Isidore of Seville supposedly collected the documents. Part of the collection contained letters purportedly written by the anti-Nicene Popes beginning with Clement (88-97). These letters collection was supposed to prove that from the earliest days the Church of Rome had the right to issue laws, validate council decisions and depose bishops. These documents are known today to be forgeries.

The documents first surfaced when Pope Nicholas I (858-867), who was an ardent campaigner for papal supremacy, clashed with Hincmar, archbishop of Rheims, on the issue of the right of the Roman church to depose and install bishops. Nicholas I, in his arguments with Hincmar, cited the Decretals, claiming to have ancient copies of them. It was obvious that Nicholas lied, for the forgery was only less than two decades old then!

Pope Gregory VII (1073-1085) used the Decretals as the source of his claim, in the Dictatus papae, of the right to depose princes, emperors and kings. He deposed the Polish King and the Greek emperor, sowing trouble and unrest everywhere. More than any other Pope before him, Gregory virtually invented the Roman Catholic ideal: with the Pope having control over all things, temporal and spiritual. The Popes following Gregory became emboldened by his claims. The Roman bishops, in the few centuries following Gregory, excommunicated no less than eight emperors (and some deposed). It was also Gregory who changed the title of the Roman see from Vicar of St. Peter to Vicar of Christ. The title the Pope today claims came, not from Peter, but from Gregory VII and based ultimately on fraudulent documents. (de Rosa, Vicars of Christ: p79-91, Kelly, Dictionary of Popes: p107-108, Livingstone, Dictionary of the Church: p189, Strauss, The Catholic Church: p62-63)

It is important to add that Gregory not only used fake documents, he had a whole school set up to manufacture still more fraudulent documents:
The leaders of the school were Anselm of Lucca, nephew of the previous pontiff, cardinal Deusdedit and after them Cardinal Gregory of Pavia...Many earlier documents were touched up to make them say the opposite of what they were saying originally. Some of these earlier documents were themselves forgeries...This instant method of inventing history was marvelously successful, especially as the forgeries were at once inserted into canon law. By innumerable subtle changes they made Catholicism seem changeless. They turned "today" into "always was and always will be", which even now, contrary to the findings of history, is the peculiar stamp of Catholicism.- de Rosa, Vicars of Christ, p81The Roman Church made this user (and maker!) of fraudulent documents a saint in the sixteenth century.

[Jude3b]

Then the Apostles too must have been part of Babylon since the Didache, the doctrine of the Apostles, contains distinctly Catholic doctrines (Eucharist, confession, etc.). Please see my last post.

The pure church of God of the apostolic period was not to continue ever with glories undimmed. It was God's will that she should remain the same, but conditions among men were destined to bring about a great change in her spiritual affairs.
Peter wrote about the great apostasy that was to come with the increase of man-rule that would lead into full blown Romanism: "But there were false prophets also among the people even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their pernicious ways: by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of" (2 Peter 2:1,2)
Jesus described the same as follows: "Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many." "And many false prophets shall arise and shall deceive many. And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold" (Matt. 24:4,5, 11, 12).
Paul tells us about the Apostasy and Papacy that was to come: "Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God" (2 Thess. 2:3,4). (papal system and ex-cathedra doctrine).
By consulting the historical facts in the case we find that these predictions were true. Even before the death of the apostles themselves the apostasy was beginning to work. Simple apostolic truth as we read of it in the Bible was being lost sight of and rapidly the dark night of spiritual apostasy was coming on. As we get into the 2nd and 3rd century A.D. we find that many congregations of that age were filled with multitudes of nominal professors, while errors and heresies were creeping in. This would develope into Romanism by 270 A.D. and continue to "fall away" into the darkness and gloom that is full blown Romanism - by the 6th century and after that for nearly 1,000 years, the era is known as the "dark ages."
But all was not lost. God has always had a people. A Remnant that Love Him and Love His Word. Praise the Lord!

[romepunk]

Ah, charges of forgery. The last line of defense. Proof that, at root, the only way Protestants can deal with the testimony of the Church Fathers is with conspiracy theory.

Of course, why not take this line of reasoning to it's logical extreme, and call major elements of the NT forgery. There's really no reason not to. Most scholars, even conservative ones, admit that certain passages such as the Johanine comma are "othodox corruptions." Who's to say the NT isn't full of them.

[D.R.R.]

I presume that this threadvwas placed here primarily to emphasis that Peter was bestowed the keys.

No, that wasn't why the thread was posted. It was posted to prove the subject-matter of the title.

[Jude3b]

Ah, charges of forgery. The last line of defense. Proof that, at root, the only way Protestants can deal with the testimony of the Church Fathers is with conspiracy theory.

Of course, why not take this line of reasoning to it's logical extreme, and call major elements of the NT forgery. There's really no reason not to. Most scholars, even conservative ones, admit that certain passages such as the Johanine comma are "othodox corruptions." Who's to say the NT isn't full of them.

[Jude3b]

God says His Word is true. God gave us the Bible. He did not give us false religion!

[jason]

I agree with you the early Christians were both catholic and orthodox.

The problem is that the Roman Catholic Church is no longer catholic or orthodox and has become corrupted with the inventions of men and drunk with the blood of the saints.

Which is hardly a surprise given the demons made flesh that have so frequently sat in the top job.

Jason

[Jezz]

I agree with you the early Christians were both catholic and orthodox.

The problem is that the Roman Catholic Church is no longer catholic or orthodox and has become corrupted with the inventions of men and drunk with the blood of the saints.

Which is hardly a surprise given the demons made flesh that have so frequently sat in the top job.
I agree with Jason. The RCC apostasised from the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church when it tried to assert its inflated claims of papal authority - ie, that the pope had supreme authority over all other bishops.

In fact, Cyprian's words seem to work against that position:

The other Apostles were indeed what Peter was, endowed with a like fellowship both of honour and of power...

Thus while Cyprian recognises Peter as the first apostle, he notes that the other apostles have the same honour and power. In other words, no single apostle had power or authority over all the others. This is precisely the position held by the Orthodox to this very day - ie, that the pope was "first among equals" (a position inherited by the bishop of Constantinople after Rome apostasised).

The quotes you gave prove that the apostles were Orthodox - not part of the apostate RCC. :smile:

[jason]

I agree with Jason. The RCC apostasised from the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church when it tried to assert its inflated claims of papal authority - ie, that the pope had supreme authority over all other bishops.And where this wacky wacky concept of "apostolic succession" comes from is beyond me.

Jason

[VFarris01]

Ah, charges of forgery. The last line of defense. Proof that, at root, the only way Protestants can deal with the testimony of the Church Fathers is with conspiracy theory.De Rosa the author of Vicars of Christ is a Roman Catholic priest. Why would he make this stuff up. Proof there are some RCs who are willing to admit the truth, unlike yourself.

[romepunk]

God says His Word is true. God gave us the Bible.The Bible says God says the Bible is true, so the Bible is True. I don't think I need to point out that this is circular logic, but I will anyway. This is circular logic. I can't believe how many Christians use this kind of reasoning to defend the faith. If Jesus hadn't risen, he'd be spinning in his grave. I can't blame any skeptics out there who see this and think to themselves that if this is the best Christianity has to offer, count them out. However, we do have something better to offer, and I'll bring it up in just a sec.

De Rosa the author of Vicars of Christ is a Roman Catholic priest. Why would he make this stuff up. Proof there are some RCs who are willing to admit the truth, unlike yourself.
And John Shelby Spong is a Protestant minister, so you better stop believing the ressurection. Gimme a break. You know that Spong is a poor scholar, and no matter how loudly he proclaims he is a Christian, it ain't so. De Rosa is a modernist heretic. If you think he wrote a hatchet job on the papacy because he's an objective scholar, your poorly mistaken. Like Spong, De Rosa is pro-abortion, anti-inerrancy, and many other things I'm sure you disagree with. This is why he detests the papacy, for solemnly defending dogmatic truths of the faith, many of which Catholics and Protestants share in common. Vicars of Christ, or at least the edition at my library, is a 400 page diatribe with no footnotes and no bibliography, which immediately sends off alarm bells in my brain. Interesting critiques of the papcy do exist. This is not one of them.

But to return to the argument I hinted at in my reply to Jude, let's assume the Catholic Church has engaged in massive forgery. Let's say that all those quotes supplied by DRR at the beginning of this thread are inauthentic. Protestants would be in just as much trouble as Catholic. Because as much as Protestants like to throw around terms like "self-authenticating documents", the truth is educated Protestant scholars construct careful historical arguments for the authenticity of the Bible, much of it based on the Church Fathers. Most secular scholars dismiss the Gospel of St. John out of hand as inauthentic, early second-century pseudopigripha. Conservative Catholic and Protestant scholars rely on the testimony of Iranaeus in arguing for the authenticity of St. John. The Church Fathers are an invaluable tool in defending the NT. The books of the NT didn't develop in a vacuum, they bear witness to a living a community, and a living community preserved them. Protestants defer to the writing of this living community when it comes to establishing the apostolic origin of the NT books, but illogically, ignore the theology of this community. They ignore it in two ways:

1) Like you they call it forgery, or latter Catholic corruption, which complete undermines in attempt to use them to defend the NT. or

2) Like James White and his ilk, they attempt to reinterpret them. Trying in vain to squeeze Protestant juice from Catholic fruit. This way they can use them to defend the NT, and not worry about any Catholic implications. However, this method is at best really, really poor scholarship. And at worst, outright deception.

What say you?

[VFarris01]

And where this wacky wacky concept of "apostolic succession" comes from is beyond me.I agree Jason. Why is Peter the only Apostle worthy of a successor? Shouldn't the other 11 have successors as well? If so who and where are they?

[D.R.R.]

I agree Jason. Why is Peter the only Apostle worthy of a successor? Shouldn't the other 11 have successors as well? If so who and where are they?

They do have successors: the bishops of the Catholic Church (with the exception of the Bishop of Rome, the successor of St. Peter).

[jason]

I agree Jason. Why is Peter the only Apostle worthy of a successor? Shouldn't the other 11 have successors as well? If so who and where are they?Why are only the Apostles worthy of successors ?

We are all saints.

Jason

[VFarris01]

They do have successors: the bishops of the Catholic Church (with the exception of the Bishop of Rome, the successor of St. Peter).Can any of them trace an "unbroken" line back to any of the other 11 Apostles? If there is such a thing as "Apostolic succession" they should shouldn't they?

I agree as well concerning the Saints. We don't have to go to New Orleans to be among or have the Vatican's permission to become Saints.

[D.R.R.]

Can any of them trace an "unbroken" line back to any of the other 11 Apostles? If there is such a thing as "Apostolic succession" they should shouldn't they?

They do. http://www.catholic.com/library/Apostolic_Succession.asp

[jason]

They do. http://www.catholic.com/library/Apostolic_Succession.aspHow do you deal with the fact that a number of popes excommunicated their fore runners.

Not to mention the Papal Schism.

How do you know you picked the right line to succeed through ?

Leaving aside the obvious point, that their is not justification in scripture for this at all.

Jason

[Bill the Cat]

So if the Apostles were Catholic, did they venerate statues of Mary before they died? Did they have Mass at noon? Where did they hide their rosaries?

[Jezz]

And where this wacky wacky concept of "apostolic succession" comes from is beyond me.
I thought you subscribed to the Nicene and Apostle's Creeds? You know, the ones where you confess "I believe in one Holy Catholic and Aposotlic Church"? What did you think "Apostolic" meant? Because when the people who wrote those creeds confessed it, they meant that they believed in the faith that was founded by Jesus, through His apostles, and handed down from one (group of) church leader(s) to the next.

The idea of apostolic succession has its earliest explicit expression (to my knowledge) in Irenaeus' "Against Heresies". In order to refute the heretics, he could not rely only on Scripture, because all of the heretical sects supported their position from Scripture as well. Some of them even had their own Scripture (Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Truth, etc). (Does this sound like a familiar picture??? Think: those who support their position from Scripture = Protestant, those who have their own Scripture = Mormons)

The only weapon he had to argue against the heretics as that what he taught could be traced back directly to the apostles, through the succession of bishops. rely on the fact that what he taught was the same as that taught by everyone, everywhere, since the time of the apostles. He used apostolic succession to prove that the teaching of the Roman bishop could be traced back to the apostle Paul.

See here (http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-60.htm). This appeal to tradition has also found its roots in the NT (Paul instructs people to hold fast to the traditions that he has taught them somewhere, IIRC).

If that weapon was effective against combating the "sola scriptura" heresies of the time, then surely it's equally applicable today?

Leaving aside the obvious point, that their is not justification in scripture for this at all.
That's a circular argument. I could similarly argue that there is no justification in tradition for sola scriptura, and likewise leave the question about whether or not tradition is the final court of appeal very firmly begged.

But we're discussing this elsewhere, so I see no point in going over it again here. I just thought I'd call your bluff.

[VFarris01]

They do. http://www.catholic.com/library/Apostolic_Succession.asp
Bishop = Elder in the NT. Every church had at least one.
Paul told Timothy, "[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first four generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, the generation Timothy will teach, and the generation they in turn will teach.Paul "refers" to no such thing except in the imagination of the RCC. Paul MUST be referring to the "generations of apostolic succession" in order for RC doctrine to be consistent. TALK ABOUT READING OUT OF CONTEXT AND READING INTO WHAT ISN'T THERE.

Also, I trust the word of the "Church Fathers" about as much as I trust the word of Bill Clinton. Rome is self-serving in this regard; only take the word of the ECF supporting RC doctrine. Doesn't the RCC use the Bible to support their doctrine? Not that I can tell.

[VFarris01]

http://www.hyperdictionary.com/search.aspx?define=apostolic

Apostolic Church: the Christian church; so called on account of its apostolic foundation, doctrine, and order. The churches of Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem were called apostolic churches.

Simply meaning, the Church was founded on the Apostles (JC being the chief cornerstone) not that there is some mythical "unbroken" line of succession.

Yet another case of a RC trying to change the meaning of words to suite RC doctrine.

[jason]

I thought you subscribed to the Nicene and Apostle's Creeds? You know, the ones where you confess "I believe in one Holy Catholic and Aposotlic Church"? What did you think "Apostolic" meant? Because when the people who wrote those creeds confessed it, they meant that they believed in the faith that was founded by Jesus, through His apostles, and handed down from one (group of) church leader(s) to the next.Do you really think it applies 1900 years after the fact ?

I have no problem with the idea of those believers in the 2nd Century holding to this sort of idea when it still had some legitimacy. 1900 years (or 1400 years) removed from the time of the Apostles, and only the Lord knows how many heretics later, do you really still ascribe to this concept ?

Certianly their is a universal church built on the foundation of the Apostles, but it is the Church that stays with their teachings not the Church that traces some direct lineage back to them.

And their is some precedent in scripture for this idea (albeit indirectly). After all who did Jesus say were the real children of Abraham ?

The only weapon he had to argue against the heretics as that what he taught could be traced back directly to the apostles, through the succession of bishops. rely on the fact that what he taught was the same as that taught by everyone, everywhere, since the time of the apostles. He used apostolic succession to prove that the teaching of the Roman bishop could be traced back to the apostle Paul.Thats fine. 1900 years removed from the fact the same argument holds a lot less weight.

See here (http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-60.htm). This appeal to tradition has also found its roots in the NT (Paul instructs people to hold fast to the traditions that he has taught them somewhere, IIRC).Do you mean in 2nd Timothy ?

If that weapon was effective against combating the "sola scriptura" heresies of the time, then surely it's equally applicable today?No it is not, because the chain is much longer and the longer it gets and the further removed from the teaching of the Apostles the weaker the chain gets.

You could appeal to the writings of the Fathers to butress a point, but that is not the same thing.

That's a circular argument. I could similarly argue that there is no justification in tradition for sola scriptura, and likewise leave the question about whether or not tradition is the final court of appeal very firmly begged.If divine revelation is not a final authority then what could you hope to be ?

Men are fallible, as is church consensus (which shifts over time).

The scriptures are not. Although care must be taken in reading them (2Peter 3:16), they can be accurately interpreted.

But we're discussing this elsewhere, so I see no point in going over it again here. I just thought I'd call your bluff.I'm not bluffing. I made a defence of the need for sola scriptura today in a debate against spl_Cadet, but he never replied to my argument. We can pick this up if you want in a formal debate.

Jason

[Jezz]

http://www.hyperdictionary.com/search.aspx?define=apostolic

Apostolic Church: the Christian church; so called on account of its apostolic foundation, doctrine, and order. The churches of Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem were called apostolic churches.

Simply meaning, the Church was founded on the Apostles (JC being the chief cornerstone) not that there is some mythical "unbroken" line of succession.

Yet another case of a RC trying to change the meaning of words to suite RC doctrine.
Hint: It's no use using a modern dictionary to define the meaning of an ancient word.

When the creed was written, the idea of the "Apostolic Church" had a very specific meaning - ie, the Church that adhered to the teachings of the apostles. Apostolic succession is simply an argument by induction to prove that the currently held belief at the end of the succession is the same as the belief at the start of the succession.

[jason]

When the creed was written, the idea of the "Apostolic Church" had a very specific meaning - ie, the Church that adhered to the teachings of the apostles. Apostolic succession is simply an argument by induction to prove that the currently held belief at the end of the succession is the same as the belief at the start of the succession.The problem is that I don't think it is a sound argument.

I agree that a church could adhere to the teaching of the apostles 1900 years later. But there is not reason to assume it does, and look at the Roman Church, you definitely think it does not.

Also note, that the RC's are making the same argument you made in the other thread over them being the OneTrueChurchTM.

Jason

[D.R.R.]

Do you really think it applies 1900 years after the fact ?

Chronological snobbery, eh?

[Jezz]

Do you really think it applies 1900 years after the fact ?
Argument from incredulity. I can just imagine Marcion et. al. arguing, in response to irenaeus: "Do you really think that apostolic succession applies 120 years after the fact?" :wink: I can also hear echos of Bishop Spong and other liberal Christians: "That applied back then, but it no longer applies today..."

At what point, exactly, did it no longer apply, and why?

I have no problem with the idea of those believers in the 2nd Century holding to this sort of idea when it still had some legitimacy. 1900 years (or 1400 years) removed from the time of the Apostles, and only the Lord knows how many heretics later, do you really still ascribe to this concept ?
See above. Any reason why we shouldn't?

Certianly their is a universal church built on the foundation of the Apostles, but it is the Church that stays with their teachings not the Church that traces some direct lineage back to them.
The Church that traces their direct lineage back to them is the Church that stays with their teachings. They are the measuring stick by which all other claimants to Orthodoxy must be measured.

And their is some precedent in scripture for this idea (albeit indirectly). After all who did Jesus say were the real children of Abraham ?
Jesus said that following the tradition of men did not make one a child of Abraham. He said that following his teaching (ie, his tradition) did.

Everyone interprets the Bible according to a tradition. The question is not "do we need tradition to interpret the Bible?", but "which tradition is the right one?"

Do you mean in 2nd Timothy ?
No, 2 Thessalonians 3:6 In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers, to keep away from every brother who is idle and does not live according to the teaching (Greek paradosis = tradition) you received from us.

This is a very clear teaching - keep away from those who do not live according to the tradition (and by implication, associate with those who do live according to the tradition). It is exactly this sort of clear statement in support of "sola scriptura" that the Bible lacks.

No it is not, because the chain is much longer and the longer it gets and the further removed from the teaching of the Apostles the weaker the chain gets.
This line of reasoning predicts the extinction of the Church. If the tradition inevitably becomes distorted with the passage of time, then it inevitably will disappear.

Moreover, you're also ignoring the fact that, in the case of the Orthodox, we're not talking about a single chain like the Catholics do. I agree that the Catholic position is weak, because there have provably been breaks in the chain of bishops of Rome from the start. However, the Orthodox view is not of a single chain, but of a whole network of interlinked chains. While there may have been breaks in individual chains, the multitude of chains is more than sufficient to take up the slack left behind.

You could appeal to the writings of the Fathers to butress a point, but that is not the same thing.
But it is the same thing. Moreover, the fathers themselves, like the Bible, were not writing in a vacuum. They need to be interpreted. So we have to appeal to the successors of those Fathers for guidance in interpretation of their work. And likewise for those Fathers, and for those again... all the way up to the present.

If divine revelation is not a final authority then what could you hope to be ?
How about the authority of the institution which declared that Scripture was the divine revelation of God in the first place?

Men are fallible, as is church consensus (which shifts over time).

The scriptures are not.
Your first point undermines the second.

How was the canon of Scripture determined? That's right - by Church consensus. The reliability of the Scriptures cannot be greater than the reliability of the reasoning that led it to be declared Scripture. If Church consensus is fallible, then so are the Scriptures.

Although care must be taken in reading them (2Peter 3:16), they can be accurately interpreted.
This contradicts the experience of the Ethiopian eunuch, who could not interpret the Scriptures until Phillip (who had the benefit of a great Teacher) explained them to him.

Also remember that in the letter you cited, Peter was writing to a group who were already part of the Church, and had already received the tradition from the apostles.

I'm not bluffing. I made a defence of the need for sola scriptura today in a debate against spl_Cadet, but he never replied to my argument. We can pick this up if you want in a formal debate.
I know, I read that defence of sola scriptura, and meant to write a reply but was too busy at the time. I'd be interested in a formal debate, but don't really have the time right now. To summarise: in my view, you undermined your own argument as soon as you started relying on something other than scripture to make your case. For if you are allowed to rely on something other than scripture to support your reasoning, then why am I not allowed to rely on Tradition to do the same?

I agree that a church could adhere to the teaching of the apostles 1900 years later. But there is not reason to assume it does, and look at the Roman Church, you definitely think it does not.
There is every reason to assume that it does. In fact, of all the apostolic Churches, it is really only the RCC (and its progeny) that have distorted the faith. The Oriental and Eastern Orthodox, for example, split at the Council of Chalcedon. Now, after 1500 years in isolation from each other, they are nearly back in full communion again, having resolved their original difference (and every other aspect of the faith remaining the same). It is only the RCC that seem to have stuffed things up completely (a slight exaggeration, but it makes my point :smile:).

Also note, that the RC's are making the same argument you made in the other thread over them being the OneTrueChurchTM.
This is unsurprising, because for the first 1000 years of existence, both the EO and the RCC agree that they were both part of the One True Church. The disagreement is over who apostasised from whom. And as I have noted to you several times before, merely noting that there is an alternative claimant to the One True Church does not mean that the first claimant is false. You need to engage specifics. Otherwise, I could note that the Jehovah's Witnesses also make the same argument you make about Sola Scriptura, and therefore that disproves your claim...

[jason]

Chronological snobbery, eh?Not at all. Just an assumption of reality.

Look at church history, the longer down the chain you get the more barnacles that get adhered.

John Tetzel and his selling of Papal Indulgences anyone ?

Jason

[jason]

Argument from incredulity. I can just imagine Marcion et. al. arguing, in response to irenaeus: "Do you really think that apostolic succession applies 120 years after the fact?" :wink: I can also hear echos of Bishop Spong and other liberal Christians: "That applied back then, but it no longer applies today..."But unlike at the time of Marcion the church has over time grown an accretion of barnacles that can only really be called the "vain inventions of men".

The further down the chain you go the greater the corruption that creeps in. Especially in a church that is not persecuted.

At what point, exactly, did it no longer apply, and why?The weight that can be accorded to it tails off the further down the chain you go. Or are you going to accord Tetzel's hawking of Papal Indulgences the same level of weight as the Doctrine of the Trinity ?

The Church that traces their direct lineage back to them is the Church that stays with their teachings. They are the measuring stick by which all other claimants to Orthodoxy must be measured.The Donatists would disagree with you.

Jesus said that following the tradition of men did not make one a child of Abraham. He said that following his teaching (ie, his tradition) did.Which begs the question.

Everyone interprets the Bible according to a tradition. The question is not "do we need tradition to interpret the Bible?", but "which tradition is the right one?"Yes to some extent.

It is exactly this sort of clear statement in support of "sola scriptura" that the Bible lacks.2 Tim 3:14-17.

Plus you have a warning against those bringing new traditions 2 Peter 2:3

This line of reasoning predicts the extinction of the Church. If the tradition inevitably becomes distorted with the passage of time, then it inevitably will disappear.Not at all. It simply means that an authorative anchor is needed to "test everything and hold onto the good".

However, the Orthodox view is not of a single chain, but of a whole network of interlinked chains. While there may have been breaks in individual chains, the multitude of chains is more than sufficient to take up the slack left behind.Are you sure you don't have barnacles just as the pharisees did ?

But it is the same thing. Moreover, the fathers themselves, like the Bible, were not writing in a vacuum. They need to be interpreted. So we have to appeal to the successors of those Fathers for guidance in interpretation of their work. And likewise for those Fathers, and for those again... all the way up to the present.But the context at each point is critically important. And you have to watch for breaks in those chains as well.

How about the authority of the institution which declared that Scripture was the divine revelation of God in the first place? Is the church a single institution as you claim ? Or is it those who hold fast to the teaching of Christ and the Apostles.

And note already, that I did say that the early church was in a position to appeal to tradition in a way the modern church is not so readily able to do.

How was the canon of Scripture determined? That's right - by Church consensus.Actually it was determined by careful examination of the evidence from the texts and then the decisions were finalised. True ultimately the decision was scholarly consensus in the early church in response to marcion and montanus, but at the same time, it is not as if any old book was included. Each book was included after careful investigation and much thought and work.

It was not just the concensus that went into figuring this out.

The reliability of the Scriptures cannot be greater than the reliability of the reasoning that led it to be declared Scripture. If Church consensus is fallible, then so are the Scriptures.Who said the church made a mistake here ? Quite clearly the churches consensus in some matters is fallibe. Papal indulgences again.

This contradicts the experience of the Ethiopian eunuch, who could not interpret the Scriptures until Phillip (who had the benefit of a great Teacher) explained them to him.Not really. Why would you expect any novice to be able to interpret everything without some training. It does not mean it cannot be done with some training.

To summarise: in my view, you undermined your own argument as soon as you started relying on something other than scripture to make your case. For if you are allowed to rely on something other than scripture to support your reasoning, then why am I not allowed to rely on Tradition to do the same?You can. The problem is when there is a conflict between the two, what is the final authority. Does scripture bend to tradition or tradition to scripture.

And as I have noted to you several times before, merely noting that there is an alternative claimant to the One True Church does not mean that the first claimant is false.I know. But that is not the problem, the problem is that we have 2 claimants to the one title that are both arguing identically about why they deserve the title.

What would you appeal to to break the deadlock.

Otherwise, I could note that the Jehovah's Witnesses also make the same argument you make about Sola Scriptura, and therefore that disproves your claim...Actually they make a claim a little more akin to that of the muslim and the koran.

Jason

[Jezz]

But unlike at the time of Marcion the church has over time grown an accretion of barnacles that can only really be called the "vain inventions of men".
If you read Irenaeus, you'll notice that there were plenty of barnacles that are the "vain inventions of men" at the time.

The further down the chain you go the greater the corruption that creeps in. Especially in a church that is not persecuted.
Many Orthodox churches have been persecuted for a long time. The Church in Constantinople has been persecuted ever since the Turks took it over in

The weight that can be accorded to it tails off the further down the chain you go. Or are you going to accord Tetzel's hawking of Papal Indulgences the same level of weight as the Doctrine of the Trinity ?
You'll find that quoting the abuses of Tetzel et. al. have little effect on the Orthodox case. According to the Orthodox, the RCC ceased to be part of the true Church when it split from them. Thus, in their eyes, these papal abuses are in no way affiliated with the Church (that is, Orthodoxy).

Even if a particular church within Orthodoxy does stray, this does not mean that the wider Church has strayed. A single church is not the Church. The wider Church will react to the errant church by trying to get them to correct their errant ways (witness several Epistles in the NT and from the ECFs that are aimed at achieving this purpose), or if that cannot be achieved, then by breaking communion with them. Either way, the Church as a whole remains pure and undefiled.

The Donatists would disagree with you.
And where are the Donatists today?

Which begs the question.
Yes, it does leave the question of "which tradition is Jesus' tradition" left open. I hope to be answer this question more directly at some stage.

Everyone interprets the Bible according to a tradition. The question is not "do we need tradition to interpret the Bible?", but "which tradition is the right one?"

Yes to some extent.
Actually, it is "yes" to a complete extent. Those who ignore tradition are, by definition, making up a new interpetation and starting a new tradition. Either way, it's still a question of "which tradition is the right one"?

2 Tim 3:14-17.
This is a popular one by sola scriptura advocates, I've noticed. Socrates, themuzicman and now yourself have all quoted it to me.

I find it interesting, though, that unlike them you've included verse 14:

But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it...

Paul uses "you" in the singular here, not the plural, so he is specifically addressing Timothy. Does he tell him to come up with his own interpretation of the Scripture? Or does he tell him to continue to use the interpretation that he learned from Paul et al?

Anyway, that little bit aside, the bit that most sola scriptura advocates quote is vs16:

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness...

I gave a more detailed response to Muz here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=23067&page=4#post505111), so I'll only give a summary here: That verse omits a key part of the "sola scriptura" doctrine - the "sola" part. It says that scripture is useful for teaching (with which the Orthodox wholeheartedly agree). It does not say that only Scripture is useful for this purpose.

Plus you have a warning against those bringing new traditions 2 Peter 2:3
Yes, Peter gives a warning against those who make up stories. In doing so, he implicitly affirms that people should stick with the teaching that he had "passed on" to them (ie, the tradition).

Not at all. It simply means that an authorative anchor is needed to "test everything and hold onto the good".
Exactly. And what is that authoritative anchor? It can't be the Bible, because the Bible needs context to interpret it, and "context" is just tradition by another name. And you claim that all traditions inevitably "grow barnacles". :smile:

Are you sure you don't have barnacles just as the pharisees did ?
Yes, I am sure that the Orthodox don't have barnacles just as the pharisees did. For reasons, see the end of this post re: the monophysites.

But the context at each point is critically important. And you have to watch for breaks in those chains as well.
The break in the RCC chain is easy to see - when the RCC separated itself from the Church ~1054, by its dogmatic adherence to claims of papal supremacy.

It is much more difficult to find breaks in the Orthodox chains, because there are so many of them. Every single Orthodox believer is a link in a chain, so that it's not even really a "chain" but a matrix. Like a single break in a single thread in a piece of woven material.

Is the church a single institution as you claim ? Or is it those who hold fast to the teaching of Christ and the Apostles.
It is both.

And note already, that I did say that the early church was in a position to appeal to tradition in a way the modern church is not so readily able to do.
Yes, I did note that. However, at what point in time did appeal to tradition cease to be a useful way of eliminating heresy? I assume that you allow this period to persist as long as to the formation of the canon and the Niceo-Constantinopolitan Creed, but if you do that that puts you to 381 AD. It was not long after that (at the Council of Ephesus in 431) that the first long-standing schism happened (Nestorians), and (as I argue at the end) there is little difference between the two halves of that schism even today. That doesn't leave much of a window for when "appeal to tradition" becomes useless. :smile:

Actually it was determined by careful examination of the evidence from the texts and then the decisions were finalised. True ultimately the decision was scholarly consensus in the early church in response to marcion and montanus, but at the same time, it is not as if any old book was included. Each book was included after careful investigation and much thought and work.

It was not just the concensus that went into figuring this out.
Oh yes - I don't dispute that each person who voted considered their position carefully. I don't claim that the vote was frivolous. But it was a vote, a consensus nonetheless. And no doubt you believe, as I did, that the result of the vote was guided by the Holy Spirit.

But my point is, Jason, that the process you described (which you obviously don't find objectionable as a way of settling disputes) is exactly the process that the Orthodox Church uses to resolve all matters of doctrine - primarily through the Ecumenical Councils, secondarily through local councils, works of the great fathers, etc...

Who said the church made a mistake here ? Quite clearly the churches consensus in some matters is fallibe. Papal indulgences again.
Papal indulgences were not determined by a Church consensus - an Ecumenical Council. They were an innovation introduced by the RCC, and condemned by the Orthodox.

Not really. Why would you expect any novice to be able to interpret everything without some training. It does not mean it cannot be done with some training.
But if the one doing the training is themselves not properly trained, then the one being trained will not be either.

You can. The problem is when there is a conflict between the two, what is the final authority. Does scripture bend to tradition or tradition to scripture.
No, as I pointed out above, the choice is not between scripture and tradition - the choice is between traditions of scriptural interpretation. Whose interpretation must bend to whose? You already know my answer. :smile:

I know. But that is not the problem, the problem is that we have 2 claimants to the one title that are both arguing identically about why they deserve the title.

What would you appeal to to break the deadlock.
Well, you already acknowledge that papal indulgences is a false doctrine, as is papal supremacy. Both doctrines that the Orthodox deny, and the latter of which was the cause of the split in the first place.

You can also look at those Orthodox churches who split prior to the East-west branches of the church, and weren't part of the whole East-West controversy. Specifically, the monophysites and the "Nestorians" (I use quotation marks because it is dubious whether or not the church known by that name actually bears the condemned Christology it implies). Are they closer to the EO or to the Catholics? In actual fact, despite being out of contact for most of the time since their schism, the monophysites and the EO still only differ on that single doctrine which split them way back at Chalcedon. And as a matter of fact, even that one doctrine they've recently come to a mutual understanding on, so that they are nearly back in full communion again. If either of them had changed their doctrines in the intervening 1500 years, then this would not have been possible. So I think that answers your "barnacles" question. :smile: If there are any barnacles in Orthodoxy, they must have been introduced before the councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon - way back in the first 4 centuries. And if the church of the first 4 centuries was that unreliable, then what business do we have trusting the canon that they handed down to us?

And of course, it seems much more likely that the 4 Eastern patriarchs excommunicated the one Western, than the one Western patriarch simultaneously excommunicated the other 4...

As I've said elsewhere, you can judge a tree by its fruit. The RCC approach has led to doctrinal innovation, papal abuses, and further schism. The Orthodox approach has led to older schisms being healed. Judge for yourself.

[VFarris01]

Hint: It's no use using a modern dictionary to define the meaning of an ancient word.

When the creed was written, the idea of the "Apostolic Church" had a very specific meaning - ie, the Church that adhered to the teachings of the apostles. Apostolic succession is simply an argument by induction to prove that the currently held belief at the end of the succession is the same as the belief at the start of the succession.Nice try Jezz at throwing the dictionary back into my face. The problem is you tell me my definition is wrong then define "Apostolic Church" essentially the same way.Apostolic Church: the Christian church; so called on account of its apostolic foundation, doctrine, and order. The churches of Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem were called apostolic churches.Take a look:

Apostolic Church ala Jezz: the Church that adhered to the teachings of the apostles.

Apostolic Church ala VF01: the Christian church; so called on account of its apostolic foundation, doctrine, and order.

I don't know about you but these two definitions are the same!

Let's take a look at this: "Apostolic succession is simply an argument by induction to prove that the currently held belief at the end of the succession is the same as the belief at the start of the succession."

Here are a few RCC practices (now used or once used) that didn't start with the Apostles.

1. Prayers for the dead .....300 AD
2. Making the sign of the cross .....300 AD
3. Veneration of angels & dead saints .....375 A.D
4. Use of images in worship .....375 A D.
5. The Mass as a daily celebration .....394 AD
6. The exaltation of Mary; the term, "Mother of God" applied at Council of Ephesus .....431AD.
7. Extreme Unction (Last Rites) .....526 AD
8. Doctrine of Purgatory-Gregory I .....593 AD
9. Prayers to Mary & dead saints .....600 AD
10. Worship of cross, images & relics .....786 AD
11. Canonization of dead saints .....995 AD
12. Celibacy of priesthood .....1079 AD
13. The Rosary .....1090 AD
14. Indulgences .....1190 AD
15. Transubstantiation - Innocent III .....1215 AD
16. Auricular Confession of sins to a priest .....1215 AD
17. Adoration of the wafer (Host) .....1220 AD
18. Cup forbidden to the people at communion .....1414 AD
19. Purgatory proclaimed .....1439 AD
20. The doctrine of the Seven Sacraments confirmed .....1439 AD
21. Tradition declared of equal authority with Bible by Council of Trent .....1545 AD
22. Apocryphal books added to Bible .....1546 AD
23. Immaculate Conception of Mary (not only of Jesus!).....1854 AD
24. Infallibility of the pope in matters of faith and morals, proclaimed by the Vatican Council .....1870 AD
25. Assumption of the Virgin Mary (bodily ascension into heaven shortly after her death) .....1950 AD
26. Mary proclaimed Mother of the Roman Catholic Church - the Mother of God!!.....1965 AD

[romepunk]

Here are a few RCC practices (now used or once used) that didn't start with the Apostles.


</P>

1. Prayers for the dead .....300 AD</P>

2. Making the sign of the cross .....300 AD</P>

3. Veneration of angels & dead saints .....375 A.D</P>

4. Use of images in worship .....375 A D.</P>

5. The Mass as a daily celebration .....394 AD</P>

6. The exaltation of Mary; the term, "Mother of God" applied at Council of Ephesus .....431AD.</P>

7. Extreme Unction (Last Rites) .....526 AD</P>

8. Doctrine of Purgatory-Gregory I .....593 AD</P>

9. Prayers to Mary & dead saints .....600 AD</P>

10. Worship of cross, images & relics .....786 AD</P>

11. Canonization of dead saints .....995 AD</P>

12. Celibacy of priesthood .....1079 AD</P>

13. The Rosary .....1090 AD</P>

14. Indulgences .....1190 AD</P>

15. Transubstantiation - Innocent III .....1215 AD</P>

16. Auricular Confession of sins to a priest .....1215 AD</P>

17. Adoration of the wafer (Host) .....1220 AD</P>

18. Cup forbidden to the people at communion .....1414 AD</P>

19. Purgatory proclaimed .....1439 AD</P>

20. The doctrine of the Seven Sacraments confirmed .....1439 AD</P>

21. Tradition declared of equal authority with Bible by Council of Trent .....1545 AD</P>

22. Apocryphal books added to Bible .....1546 AD</P>

23. Immaculate Conception of Mary (not only of Jesus!).....1854 AD</P>

24. Infallibility of the pope in matters of faith and morals, proclaimed by the Vatican Council .....1870 AD</P>

25. Assumption of the Virgin Mary (bodily ascension into heaven shortly after her death) .....1950 AD</P>

26. Mary proclaimed Mother of the Roman Catholic Church - the Mother of God!!.....1965 AD</P>

</P>

</P>

</P>

Have you actually done any research to look into these claims. This is the old Protestant charge of identifying a dogmatic definition with the genesis of a doctrine. For instance, to hit a few obvious points:</P>

</P>

The term Mother of God was around long before Ephesus, and if you did some studying, you would know that the proclamation was made not as a way to elevate Mary, but a defense of the deity of Jesus. Heretics were denying that the Jesus's human nature and divine nature existed hypostatically in one person. It essentially turned Christ into a demigod, with his human half coming from Mary and his divine half from the Father. When the Church proclaims Mary the Mother of God, they are saying that Jesus is truly God. Mary didn't simply supply a nature, she gave birth to a person. And this person was truly God.</P>

</P>

Priestly celibacy existed long as the Church's preference before it became an offcial mandate.</P>

</P>

The real presence was dogmatically defined in Aristotelian terms as transubstantion during this time, but the idea of the real presence is much older. Just read the Fathers (and the Bible :teeth: ).</P>

</P>

The "apocryphal books" or deuterocanon were part of the Greek OT, and were used by the Church since the earliest of times. Good linguistic arguments can be made that this translation was used by the NT authors.</P>

</P>

Immaculate conception is likewise very old, though recently proclaimed. Once again, in the latter Fathers. (This was quite controversial because the nature of the Fall and transmission of original sin wasn't defined until Trent. At that time, it became easy to define the immaculate conception. Since you can't define the one before the other. Ironically, if Calvin hadn't said such crazy things about the Fall, Marian doctrine may not be where it is today.!)</P>

</P>

Furthermore, the "not only of Jesus remark" makes me think that you might not know what the IC is. Jesus was virginally conceieved. Mary was not virginally conceived, she was conceived the normal way, but God made it so that she wasn't stained with original sin, so she could be a proper vessel to hold Jesus. This is another example of Marian doctrine simply reflecting how great and holy Jesus is.</P>

</P>

Okay, that's an incomplete analysis, my fingers hurt. I'll do some more later.</P>

[spl_cadet]

Ok, this has always bugged me about The List™: What exactly is wrong with making the sign of the cross?

[jason]

If you read Irenaeus, you'll notice that there were plenty of barnacles that are the "vain inventions of men" at the time.Yes, so why would you expect them to be fewer the further down the ages you go ? This is why I have a problem with a tradition like "The perpetual virginity of Mary". It turns up first in the 5th Century. Why so late ? IF it really was their from the first, why isn't it mentioned, and if it wasn't and it developed over time, then I think we have a candidate for the "inventions of men". Surely you can see why I would say this and agree with the reformers for rejecting this doctrine.

Many Orthodox churches have been persecuted for a long time. The Church in Constantinople has been persecuted ever since the Turks took it over in Thats fine, the problem is that it also wasn't persecuted for a very long time.

You'll find that quoting the abuses of Tetzel et. al. have little effect on the Orthodox case. According to the Orthodox, the RCC ceased to be part of the true Church when it split from them. Thus, in their eyes, these papal abuses are in no way affiliated with the Church (that is, Orthodoxy).The problem is that I am more familar with the RCC church than the EO. I know you want accord any weight to his claim, I don't expect you to, the point is, you have a late idea that is part of tradition, should it be accepted ?

Icons were actually condemmed at a Church council before a later one reversed the decision, and the mary's perpetual virginity are relativly late ideas, shall we deal with those instead ? Tetzel has the advantage of being someone that neither of us are offside about so we are less likely to be defensive.

I only noted him because the case for Papal Indulgences for the remission of sin are a "holy tradition" and argued for the same as some of your traditions as well. I notice the RC's in here are very quiet on this charge, plus the charge of the RCC being "drunk on the blood of the saints". Perhaps they should read a short tome by John Foxe.

Even if a particular church within Orthodoxy does stray, this does not mean that the wider Church has strayed. A single church is not the Church. The wider Church will react to the errant church by trying to get them to correct their errant ways (witness several Epistles in the NT and from the ECFs that are aimed at achieving this purpose), or if that cannot be achieved, then by breaking communion with them. Either way, the Church as a whole remains pure and undefiled.Yes I agree. The problem is that I do not agree with you that a merely human institution is the entire manifestation of the Church.

And where are the Donatists today?Persecuted out of existence unfortunately. But they were hardly heretics.

Actually, it is "yes" to a complete extent. Those who ignore tradition are, by definition, making up a new interpetation and starting a new tradition. Either way, it's still a question of "which tradition is the right one"?Ok then I concede this point. True enough.

I find it interesting, though, that unlike them you've included verse 14:I do take the charge of "context is important" very seriously.

Paul uses "you" in the singular here, not the plural, so he is specifically addressing Timothy.Yep. But lots of the advice in the Episltes is addressed to individuals or specific churches, should we therefore ignore it ? I presume that is not what you are saying.

Does he tell him to come up with his own interpretation of the Scripture? Or does he tell him to continue to use the interpretation that he learned from Paul et al?Whats the problem ? You learn things always from the those more leaned than you and with greater knowledge and experience.

That verse omits a key part of the "sola scriptura" doctrine - the "sola" part. It says that scripture is useful for teaching (with which the Orthodox wholeheartedly agree). It does not say that only Scripture is useful for this purpose.That is a misunderstand of Sola Scriptura though. The idea is not that you cannot appeal to other souces, the idea is that Scripture is a final authority. If their is a conflict between tradition and scripture than tradition looses out. That is what Sola Scriptura is getting at. If you want to advance a position then show me where you get that from in the revealed word of God.

Although a concept like the Trinity is not directly named in scripture it certianly can be defended from it.

Yes, Peter gives a warning against those who make up stories. In doing so, he implicitly affirms that people should stick with the teaching that he had "passed on" to them (ie, the tradition).Which we find written down for us in the Bible.

Exactly. And what is that authoritative anchor? It can't be the Bible, because the Bible needs context to interpret it, and "context" is just tradition by another name. And you claim that all traditions inevitably "grow barnacles". :smile:Which is why they need to be reappaised over time and as new information comes to light. And the Bible can be an authorative anchor because the historical context of the times can be used to inform about the thinking and mind set of the writers. That will suffice to determine the writers intent in nearly all cases.

Yes, I did note that. However, at what point in time did appeal to tradition cease to be a useful way of eliminating heresy?It depends how you use it. The ECF's and a work like Against Praxaes by Tertullian will always be a useful work in looking at, understanding and defending the doctrine of the trinity. It does not fade with usefulness over time because it is anchored in time at 220AD.

The problem becomes when you want to base things on an idea that first turns up in the 5th century. That has to be accorded less weight because it turns up later. The later you find ideas first mentioned the more suspect they are. Does that make sense.

One caveat on this though. In many cases in church history we see a doctrine really get hammered out and nailed down when a challenger comes along and questions it. In many cases a doctrine is actually held in the intervening time but nobody has seriously questioned it until that point, so then a defense is written of it. So a "late tradition" gains strength and authority if it is first written about in a defense against those who are atacking the idea.

Is that clear ? I do think tradition has a part to play, I am simply suspect of traditions that grow up slowly over time that do not appear to be held by the early believers.

Look at Papal Authority. Both of us reject it, but why. Clearly it is not an idea that is taught early and it is an idea that evolved over time (even into a monstrosity like Papal Infallibility) but that is exactly why I find it suspect. You can trace its growth and lineage back in time and see were this aberation came from and it was not from the apostles.

But my point is, Jason, that the process you described (which you obviously don't find objectionable as a way of settling disputes) is exactly the process that the Orthodox Church uses to resolve all matters of doctrine - primarily through the Ecumenical Councils, secondarily through local councils, works of the great fathers, etc...Good for them. What do they do when 2 councils conflict ?

How do you resolve that case ?

You have a conflict over Icons from the council of 754 saying no and the council in 787 saying yes.

No, as I pointed out above, the choice is not between scripture and tradition - the choice is between traditions of scriptural interpretation. Whose interpretation must bend to whose? You already know my answer. :smile:The problem is that you do have problematic traditions turning up that are then used to interpret scripture. The RCC do it all the time finding justifications in scripture for all manner of wackiness. But principally by essentially reinterpreting scripture to defend their case. (Peter having the "keys" and being the "rock" anyone ?).

Well, you already acknowledge that papal indulgences is a false doctrine, as is papal supremacy. Both doctrines that the Orthodox deny, and the latter of which was the cause of the split in the first place.The problem is that you have me at a disadvantage by having a better understand of EO practice than I do.

If either of them had changed their doctrines in the intervening 1500 years, then this would not have been possible. So I think that answers your "barnacles" question. :smile: If there are any barnacles in Orthodoxy, they must have been introduced before the councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon - way back in the first 4 centuries. And if the church of the first 4 centuries was that unreliable, then what business do we have trusting the canon that they handed down to us?Do they have Icons or recognise the council that approved them ?

As I've said elsewhere, you can judge a tree by its fruit. The RCC approach has led to doctrinal innovation, papal abuses, and further schism. The Orthodox approach has led to older schisms being healed. Judge for yourself.And yet we have Protestant/EO dialogue and perhaps in time that schism can be healed as well. What I have a problem with is the idea that Protestants are not part of the Church of Christ.

Was the monophystite churches unsaved for 1500 years when they were out of communion with the EO church ?

Jason

[D.R.R.]

Not at all. Just an assumption of reality.

What do you mean?



Look at church history, the longer down the chain you get the more barnacles that get adhered.

Since when did barnacles have anything to do with church history? I thought they pertained to natural science.



John Tetzel and his selling of Papal Indulgences anyone ?

Jason

Tetzel was committing abuses and not living out the teachings of the Catholic Church.

[VFarris01]

Concerning RCC practices from my post #39, Jason covers the whole post with:Look at Papal Authority. Both of us reject it, but why. Clearly it is not an idea that is taught early and it is an idea that evolved over time (even into a monstrosity like Papal Infallibility) but that is exactly why I find it suspect. You can trace its growth and lineage back in time and see were this aberation came from and it was not from the apostles.Not all but most of the practices listed share this commonality.That is a misunderstand of Sola Scriptura thought. The idea is not that you cannot appeal to other souces, the idea is that Scripture is a final authority. If their is a conflict between tradition and scripture than tradition looses out. That is what Sola Scriptura is getting at. If you want to advance a position then show me where you get that from in the revealed word of God.Absolutely!

[jason]

What do you mean?The observation that traditions become corrupt over time.

Since when did barnacles have anything to do with church history? I thought they pertained to natural science.Funny.

Tetzel was committing abuses and not living out the teachings of the Catholic Church.Yet he was sent by the Pope to raise fund for the construction of yet another church in Rome. (St. Peters Basillican IIRC).

Was the Pope failing to live out the teaching of the RCC and commiting abuses as well ? It seems that if one is the other is. Especially as, to Luthers surprise the Pope took Tetzel's side against him in the ensuing conflagration.

But if the Pope is so freely commiting abuses what does that mean for "Apostolic Succession" ? Perhaps the Donatists were right.

Jason

[Jezz]

Yes, so why would you expect them to be fewer the further down the ages you go ?
I don't. There were plenty of barnacles all throughout the ages. But never on the Church - who always either scraped them off or cut off the affected part.

This is why I have a problem with a tradition like "The perpetual virginity of Mary". It turns up first in the 5th Century. Why so late ? IF it really was their from the first, why isn't it mentioned, and if it wasn't and it developed over time, then I think we have a candidate for the "inventions of men". Surely you can see why I would say this and agree with the reformers for rejecting this doctrine.
I used to think the same way. But then I realised:

1. It was an argument from silence. I am always wary of those.
2. Celibacy among those devoted to a life of service to God (the monastic ideal) was much more common in the day than I had at first realised, so that the claim is not historically implausible.
3. Most importantly, historically we note that the Church has usually reacted vigorously when someone changes the tradition handed down to them. The fact that noone reacted vigorously when it was mentioned for the first time in extant works tends to indicate that it was already a widely held belief.

Thats fine, the problem is that it also wasn't persecuted for a very long time.
Sorry, I didn't properly complete my sentence. I mentioned that the Church of Constantinople was oppressed, and you correctly noted that they weren't oppressed for a long time too. But I also meant to mention other churches. For example, the entire Church was oppressed for the first 3 centuries, as you know. Constantine's edict of toleration in 311 and the adoption of Christianity as the official religion some time later that century by Theodosius were a big victories for the churches of the Roman Empire - but they had the opposite effect for the churches of neighbouring Persia. Relations between Persia and Rome were always tense, and war was frequent. When Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire, to be seen as a Christian in Persia was to be seen as a traitor. Persecution of the Persian Church (aka, the Assyrian Church of the East) was intense (indeed, it still is). There has always been some part of Orthodoxy that has been persecuted.

The problem is that I am more familar with the RCC church than the EO. I know you want accord any weight to his claim, I don't expect you to, the point is, you have a late idea that is part of tradition, should it be accepted ?
I addressed this above. If 1. it is not directly contradicted by an earlier testimony (silence does not count as contradiction), and 2. it is was not met with controversy when it first appeared (indicating that it was a fact that people took for granted), then I think it should be accepted.

Icons were actually condemmed at a Church council before a later one reversed the decision, and the mary's perpetual virginity are relativly late ideas, shall we deal with those instead ? Tetzel has the advantage of being someone that neither of us are offside about so we are less likely to be defensive.
It is a fair thing to bring up Tetzel in a thread originally claiming that the RCC is the original Church - however, it won't be successful against me because I'll simply agree with you and it will not be in the least damaging to my position. As for addressing the other issues - I've addressed Mary above, and I'll address the issue of icons later.

I only noted him because the case for Papal Indulgences for the remission of sin are a "holy tradition" and argued for the same as some of your traditions as well. I notice the RC's in here are very quiet on this charge, plus the charge of the RCC being "drunk on the blood of the saints". Perhaps they should read a short tome by John Foxe.
Oh yes... the "being drunk on the blood of saints" thing. The RCC sacked and looted Constantinople during one of the Crusades and installed a Latin Patriarch...

Yes I agree. The problem is that I do not agree with you that a merely human institution is the entire manifestation of the Church.
I never claimed that a merely human institution is the entire manifestation of the Church. On the other hand, I do not believe that the Orthodox Church is a merely human institution - as it was founded by Christ Himself, and has the guidance of the Holy Spirit (as Christ promised).

Persecuted out of existence unfortunately. But they were hardly heretics.
Actually, while they were persecuted by the Church, this is not what made them die out. As a matter of fact, persecution by the Church only seemed to make them grow stronger. The only died out some time after the Muslims conquered the area (in fact, it is argued that were it not for the weakening that the Donatist schism caused, the Muslims would not have been able to take North Africa so easily). As for whether or not they were heretics... well, if they were teaching correct doctrine, do you think that God would have let them die out?

Ok then I concede this point. True enough.
:thumb:

I do take the charge of "context is important" very seriously.
:thumb:

Yep. But lots of the advice in the Episltes is addressed to individuals or specific churches, should we therefore ignore it ? I presume that is not what you are saying.
You're correct, that's not what I was saying.

My point is that he was instructing Timothy (as an individual) on how to maintain the faith. As an individual, he is not advised to rely on his personal interpretation - but to rely on the interpretation that he has been taught.

Whats the problem ? You learn things always from the those more leaned than you and with greater knowledge and experience.
Yes, but the point is that that is the only way that you're supposed to learn. You're not supposed to learn by trying to interpret the Scriptures by yourself - you're supposed to rely on the interpretation of someone more experienced than yourself.

That is a misunderstand of Sola Scriptura though. The idea is not that you cannot appeal to other souces, the idea is that Scripture is a final authority. If their is a conflict between tradition and scripture than tradition looses out. That is what Sola Scriptura is getting at. If you want to advance a position then show me where you get that from in the revealed word of God.

Although a concept like the Trinity is not directly named in scripture it certianly can be defended from it.
No, I think you're misunderstanding me. I realise that sola scriptura advocates use external sources to interpret the Bible. I have no problem with seeing Scripture as an authoritative source, which no Church doctrine should be in contradiction with. The question I am asking, is on what basis do you decide that scripture is the sole authoritative source?

In summary, I agree that Scripture is a final authority, but not the only final authority.

Yes, Peter gives a warning against those who make up stories. In doing so, he implicitly affirms that people should stick with the teaching that he had "passed on" to them (ie, the tradition).

Which we find written down for us in the Bible.
Begging the question of whether or not it was all written down for us in the Bible. Justify this assumption. You will find it difficult, given that 1. the Bible itself does not make that claim, and 2. the people who assembled the Bible did not make that claim. The first person to make that claim was Luther... so if you want to talk about the "perpetual virginity of Mary" being a late invention... :wink:

Which is why they need to be reappaised over time and as new information comes to light. And the Bible can be an authorative anchor because the historical context of the times can be used to inform about the thinking and mind set of the writers. That will suffice to determine the writers intent in nearly all cases.
Don't get me wrong - as noted above, I believe that the Bible is an authoritative anchor. This has never been the issue. The sole issue here is whether or not the Bible is the sole authoritative anchor - ie, the "sola" in "sola scriptura". I don't believe that it is, in fact it cannot be - because the authority of the Bible itself is in turn anchored on the authority of the Church that decided upon its canon. So my question is, if you trust the process and authority by which the Church came to decide upon the canon, why would you not trust it elsewhere? It would seem that in doing so one is elevating their own ability to discern what is authoritative over that of the wider Church.

It depends how you use it. The ECF's and a work like Against Praxaes by Tertullian will always be a useful work in looking at, understanding and defending the doctrine of the trinity. It does not fade with usefulness over time because it is anchored in time at 220AD.

The problem becomes when you want to base things on an idea that first turns up in the 5th century. That has to be accorded less weight because it turns up later. The later you find ideas first mentioned the more suspect they are. Does that make sense.

One caveat on this though. In many cases in church history we see a doctrine really get hammered out and nailed down when a challenger comes along and questions it. In many cases a doctrine is actually held in the intervening time but nobody has seriously questioned it until that point, so then a defense is written of it. So a "late tradition" gains strength and authority if it is first written about in a defense against those who are atacking the idea.

Is that clear ? I do think tradition has a part to play, I am simply suspect of traditions that grow up slowly over time that do not appear to be held by the early believers.
This is indeed clear to me. But I think you need to think through the consequences of the point you noted above - ie, that many doctrines went unmentioned until they were seriously questioned, at which time they were thrashed out. And one thing that is conspicuous by its absence with the first mention of the perpetual virginity of Mary is any hint of controversy over its mentioning. If this was an innovation, it would surely have brewed a controversy.

Look at Papal Authority. Both of us reject it, but why. Clearly it is not an idea that is taught early and it is an idea that evolved over time (even into a monstrosity like Papal Infallibility) but that is exactly why I find it suspect. You can trace its growth and lineage back in time and see were this aberation came from and it was not from the apostles.
I reject it not only because it appears late, but because it is contradicted by earlier testimony, and because every time Rome tried to enforce the doctrine we see ripples of controversy in the historical record, and because the fruit of the doctrine is corruption and schism.

Good for them. What do they do when 2 councils conflict ?

How do you resolve that case ?

You have a conflict over Icons from the council of 754 saying no and the council in 787 saying yes.
You figure out which of the two councils is the authoritative one. This is something done by the Church as a whole. For a council to be Ecumenical, it must have the assent of the whole Church.

With the iconoclasm controversy, for example, it's pretty easy to determine that the council of 754 was not Ecumenical. The controversy started when an iconoclastic emporer (Leo) came into power. His iconoclastic ideas were rejected by the Patriarch of Constantinople, whom he subsequently deposed and replaced with a Patriarch who would support him. His son (and successor) Constantine Copronymus was the emporer who convened the council of 754. This does not make it non-Ecumenical, but it is a bad start. The council he called only involved Eastern bishops - Rome was not represented. Again, this does not make it non-Ecumenical, but it's another black mark. Moreover, there was a disproportionately high representation of iconoclastic bishops at the council, and for that matter there were only 138 bishops all up (I'm not sure what the final vote was). Moreover the decisions of this council only lasted 33 years before being overturned, as the results weren't accepted by the wider Church. Add all of these factors together, and you don't really have a good candidate for an Ecumenical Council.

Now compare this with the 2nd Council of Nicea in 787 - it involved 350 bishops, with representatives from all the Patriarchates, the vote was unanimous, and the result was immediately accepted by the entire Church, and has been ever since by both EO and RCC. Now that's an Ecumenical Council. :smile:

Not to mention that the monophysites and Nestorians (who both split long before both of these councils) both venerate icons, and there have been Christian icons found in catacombs dating to the 2nd century, and the OT itself has examples of icons in the tabernacle, the ark, and the Solomonic temple... venerating icons can hardly be called a "late invention". The council of 754 (the iconoclastic council) was the "innovative" one, not the 7th Ecumenical Council.

The problem is that you do have problematic traditions turning up that are then used to interpret scripture. The RCC do it all the time finding justifications in scripture for all manner of wackiness. But principally by essentially reinterpreting scripture to defend their case. (Peter having the "keys" and being the "rock" anyone ?).
Yes that's true, but realise that the only reason you know about these problematic traditions is because they were identified as problematic when they first appeared. It is primarily the disagreements that generate a paper trail in history - agreement generally does not.

It is for this reason that not too much weight can be assigned to the relative lateness of the earliest extant reference to the perpetual virginity of Mary. In fact, the lack of controversy when it did appear tends to indicate that it was already an established belief.

The problem is that you have me at a disadvantage by having a better understand of EO practice than I do.
Why is that a "disadvantage"? :shrug: It's only a disadvantage if your goal is to "win" the "argument" or to defend a pre-existing POV. If you're interested in learning the truth, then you shouldn't see it as a disadvantage - rather, you should see it as an opportunity to learn. :smile:

Do [the monophysites] have Icons or recognise the council that approved them ?
Yes and yes!! Here is an excerpt from the 2nd agreed statement (1990) (http://www.orthodoxunity.org/state02.html) between the Oriental Orthodox (monophysites) and the Eastern Orthodox (simply "Orthodox" in this passage):

8. Both families accept the first three Ecumenical Councils, which form our common heritage. In relation to the four later Councils of the Orthodox Church, the Orthodox state that for them the above points 1-7 are the teachings also of the four later Councils of the Orthodox Church, while the Oriental Orthodox consider this statement of the Orthodox as their interpretation. With this understanding, the Oriental Orthodox respond to it positively.

In relation to the teaching of the Seventh Ecumenical Council of the Orthodox Church, the Oriental Orthodox agree that the theology and practice of the veneration of icons taught by that Council are in basic agreement with the teaching and practice of the Oriental Orthodox from ancient times, long before the convening of the Council, and that we have no disagreement in this regard.

Once the OO and the EO resolved the issue of "monophysitism", they both realised that that was the only thing that separated them. Thus the OO were able to ratify the four later councils of the EO, despite not being a party to them at the time. As a result, each were able to acknowledge the Orthodoxy of the other - ie, that they have both preserved the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic faith:

9. In the light of our Agreed Statement on Christology as well as of the above common affirmations, we have now clearly understood that both families have always loyally maintained the same authentic Orthodox Christological faith, and the unbroken continuity of the apostolic tradition, though they have used Christological terms in different ways. It is this common faith and continuous loyalty to the Apostolic Tradition that should be the basis for our unity and communion.

This is what makes me certain that the tradition has been preserved, because these two branches of Christendom were placed in a position where they had to preserve the faith separately. Either they both made exactly same modifications to the faith completely independently (!), or they both preserved it exactly as it was prior to the schism. Although there were many factors contributing to my acceptance of Orthodoxy, it was meditating on the consequences of this observation that was probably the most important one.

And yet we have Protestant/EO dialogue and perhaps in time that schism can be healed as well. What I have a problem with is the idea that Protestants are not part of the Church of Christ.
I think the EO attitude to Protestants is not that they're not members of the Church of Christ - rather, that if they are members it's more in spite of their Protestantism, rather than because of it. They don't try to speculate on who among the Protestants is saved (indeed, they don't try to speculate about who among themselves is saved!), but rather leave them to the mercy of God, who in His infinite love, goodness, power and kindness will deal with them in the most appropriate way.

Was the monophystite churches unsaved for 1500 years when they were out of communion with the EO church ?
Careful here - the EO do not hold that those not in communion with the EO are unsaved. See above.

As for the monophysites - the above statement shows that the EO have acknowledged that the OO were Orthodox and hence part of the Church all along. Thus, the EO hold that the OO were saved (and vice versa).

[VFarris01]

In summary, I agree that Scripture is a final authority, but not the only final authority.This makes so little sense it sounds silly. The Constitution of the United States is a final authority, but not the only final authority... there is the Supreme Court.

The mark of this thread is the Apostles and their followers were catholic... true enough... the Apostles were part of a "universal" church, however, the Apostles were not associated or part of the Roman Catholic Church.

[jason]

I don't. There were plenty of barnacles all throughout the ages. But never on the Church - who always either scraped them off or cut off the affected part.That is a begged question isn't it.

3. Most importantly, historically we note that the Church has usually reacted vigorously when someone changes the tradition handed down to them. The fact that noone reacted vigorously when it was mentioned for the first time in extant works tends to indicate that it was already a widely held belief.The problem is that beliefs can build up slowly over time, step by step, little change by little change, until you are somewhere you never intended to end up, and somewhere you never would have dreamt of going at the outset.

A clear but awful example can be seen with the progression of pornography in the west (I'm not suggesting that the veneration of mary is equivalent to pornography). It starts out with a magazine like playboy, relativly innocuous and "harmless" (Incidentally I don't think it is harmless, but this is just a secular example) and seems ok if a little bit different.

Now 40 years down the track there are clothing catalogues sold to children (till recently anyway) that were more sexually explicit than early editions of playboy. And the hardcore stuff that is available is just beyond belief. But it all started with something "relativly harmless".

These things don't start over night, but they do creep up on you, and provided the changes are small enough their is no noticeable difference, until you look at it with a longer view.

This might just as adequately account for this veneration of mary and other doctrine that protestants find "concerning".

There has always been some part of Orthodoxy that has been persecuted.Funny how the true church is always persecuted somewhere with only short period of respite. The Protestants have always been persecuted as well.


I addressed this above. If 1. it is not directly contradicted by an earlier testimony (silence does not count as contradiction), and 2. it is was not met with controversy when it first appeared (indicating that it was a fact that people took for granted), then I think it should be accepted.Ok, but I have a new line of thought.

Ok it is still an argument from silence, but at the very least it seems like a sensible principle to regard something like this as not an essential of the faith because it is not made strong note of by the Aposltes themselves.

Oh yes... the "being drunk on the blood of saints" thing. The RCC sacked and looted Constantinople during one of the Crusades and installed a Latin Patriarch...Perhaps some of the Protestants were right in thinking that Rome has a certian affinity with the whore of Babylon astride the beast.

I never claimed that a merely human institution is the entire manifestation of the Church. On the other hand, I do not believe that the Orthodox Church is a merely human institution - as it was founded by Christ Himself, and has the guidance of the Holy Spirit (as Christ promised).But it would appear that protestant churches have this same guidance and looking after.

As for whether or not they were heretics... well, if they were teaching correct doctrine, do you think that God would have let them die out?We still know about them today, and some might say that the Protetants are the heirs of some of their ideas.

Yes, but the point is that that is the only way that you're supposed to learn. You're not supposed to learn by trying to interpret the Scriptures by yourself - you're supposed to rely on the interpretation of someone more experienced than yourself.Who said protestants don't do that ? Well some don't, but they should.

The question I am asking, is on what basis do you decide that scripture is the sole authoritative source?Because it is the only really safe alternative. Given the monstrosity Rome has become with her many many traditions (and her equally ancient pedigree of traditions) what would you expect ?

Tradition might be safe for the East, but we have seen the fruit of the elevation of tradition to equal authority with scripture in the west.

In summary, I agree that Scripture is a final authority, but not the only final authority.One has to trump the other at some point. If they conflict which wins out ?

I don't believe that it is, in fact it cannot be - because the authority of the Bible itself is in turn anchored on the authority of the Church that decided upon its canon. So my question is, if you trust the process and authority by which the Church came to decide upon the canon, why would you not trust it elsewhere? It would seem that in doing so one is elevating their own ability to discern what is authoritative over that of the wider Church.I'm reading Calvins Institutes at the moment, and the next section I am to read deals with this exact topic. I'll have to get back to you on this.

If this was an innovation, it would surely have brewed a controversy.But if it is one of those slow creeping aberations, it is possible that no one will notice. And actually, given the wackiness that happens in Rome in regards to the "blessed virgin" one might question whether or not their is/was not "controversy".

You figure out which of the two councils is the authoritative one. This is something done by the Church as a whole. For a council to be Ecumenical, it must have the assent of the whole Church.Are there any ecumenical councils are the schism ?

It is for this reason that not too much weight can be assigned to the relative lateness of the earliest extant reference to the perpetual virginity of Mary. In fact, the lack of controversy when it did appear tends to indicate that it was already an established belief.Well this is the question isn't it. If it falls into the category of "creeping error" then it might not raise a ripple until it gets further along and people see how off the track the whole thing is.

The problem is that we are arguing over something that is decidedly peripheral to salvation. Romish maryology is much more problematic than eastern mary veneration, or so it appears.

Why is that a "disadvantage"? :shrug: It's only a disadvantage if your goal is to "win" the "argument" or to defend a pre-existing POV. If you're interested in learning the truth, then you shouldn't see it as a disadvantage - rather, you should see it as an opportunity to learn. :smile:I do see it as a chance to learn, the problem is that to some degree this is an argument and I dislike being in the dark when trying to defend my position. But thats ok.

As a result, each were able to acknowledge the Orthodoxy of the other - ie, that they have both preserved the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic faith:Interesting point.

I think the EO attitude to Protestants is not that they're not members of the Church of Christ - rather, that if they are members it's more in spite of their Protestantism, rather than because of it. They don't try to speculate on who among the Protestants is saved (indeed, they don't try to speculate about who among themselves is saved!), but rather leave them to the mercy of God, who in His infinite love, goodness, power and kindness will deal with them in the most appropriate way.This sounds like a very wooly way of dodging the question.

Careful here - the EO do not hold that those not in communion with the EO are unsaved. See above.Thats ok. I still think your fudging the question more than a little here.

Perhaps this belong in the other thread or a new thread.

What are the absolute requirements for salvation in the EO church ? If you don't do these then your toast.

Jason

[JCA]

Pardon me Jezz,

Quick question on this:


Yes, but the point is that that is the only way that you're supposed to learn. You're not supposed to learn by trying to interpret the Scriptures by yourself - you're supposed to rely on the interpretation of someone more experienced than yourself.


Although I agree, to an extent, isn't the authorative teacher the Holy Spirit, and not just someone with 'more experience'? Plus, this comes to mind on that subject:

Acts 17:11
These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

It seems we are to rely upon more than just the words of others, and to search for ourselves with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the scriptures to 'verify' what we have been told.

The issue has always been in who's 'verification' is correct.. At least, that's how it appears to me. And that's even a more broad a topic to approach than this one.


Just wondered what you thought.. reply in PM if you feel it disrupts the thread :smile:


Love and Peace

:jca:

[Jezz]

This makes so little sense it sounds silly. The Constitution of the United States is a final authority, but not the only final authority... there is the Supreme Court.
It makes perfect sense. You're just not trying hard enough.

"Final authority" simply means that whatever it says is true and binding. It does not mean that anything it does not say is not true and not binding.

Let me put it this way: each of the individual books of the Bible is a final authority. I think you would agree with that. But none of them is the final authority.

The mark of this thread is the Apostles and their followers were catholic... true enough... the Apostles were part of a "universal" church, however, the Apostles were not associated or part of the Roman Catholic Church.
Sure they were associated with the RCC - well, at least some of them (Paul and Peter) were. But they were associated with a whole bunch of other churches as well (eg, Peter also founded the church at Antioch).

[VFarris01]

Greetings Friends,
This makes so little sense it sounds silly. The Constitution of the United States is a final authority, but not the only final authority... there is the Supreme Court.It makes perfect sense. You're just not trying hard enough.

”Final authority" simply means that whatever it says is true and binding. It does not mean that anything it does not say is not true and not binding.
You are well aware exactly why what you are saying making your answer baloney; you are begging the question and why your statement not only “sounds silly,” it is silly.

(9) The Lord is not slow about his promise, as some people understand slowness, but is being patient with you. He does not want anyone to perish, but wants everyone to come to repentance. (10) But the Day of the Lord will come like a thief. On that day the heavens will disappear with a roaring sound, the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything done on it will be exposed. (11) Since everything will be destroyed in this way, think of the kind of holy and godly people you ought to be (12) as you look forward to and hasten the coming of the day of God, by which the heavens will be set ablaze and dissolved and the elements will melt with fire. (13) But in keeping with his promise, we are looking forward to new heavens and a new earth, where righteousness is at home. (14) So then, dear friends, since you are looking forward to this, make every effort to have him find you without spot or fault and at peace. (This passage by itself makes Purgatory a totally unscriptural belief, VF01.) (15) Think of our Lord's patience as salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him. (16) He speaks about this subject in all his letters. Some things in them are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort to their own destruction, as they do the rest of the Scriptures. (17) And so, dear friends, since you already know these things, continually be on your guard not to be carried away by the deception of lawless people, lest you fall from your secure position. (18) Instead, continue to grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Glory belongs to him both now and on that eternal day! Amen.

This is a glaring description of what has happens when “traditions” are introduced by “It does not mean that anything it does not say is not true and not binding.” My example here is the “tradition” of Purgatory. Purgatory is a tradition introduced by “the Bible does not specifically say there is no Purgatory, so we, the RCC, can say there is one.” There is absolutely no doubt the scriptures have been distorted in order for this false teaching (doctrine) to creep into the Bible like an accumulation of barnacles (thank you Jason).
Let me put it this way: each of the individual books of the Bible is a final authority. I think you would agree with that. But none of them is the final authority.
This is incorrect. Each book of the Bible is a part of a whole. The books together make the final authority. ALL of the “traditions” we are commanded to follow are given in the Bible without consulting barnacle covered “handed down” traditions. For instance, we cannot take Jesus’ commission to the Apostles in Matthew 28:19 and Mark 16:15-16 as single verses can we? We must also know what the Apostles were to teach (Matthew 28:20, which also needs clarification from scripture), what the converted are to believe (Acts 2:22-38), and how baptism is to be applied (Acts 8:38, understanding the Greek to mean immerse and 1 Peter 3:21, noting Peter uses the word body not single parts such as head, hands, feet, or elbows, the whole body needs to be “cleansed”). Note also the Philip taught the eunuch from Isaiah concerning JC. EVERYTHING we need is found in the 39 books of the OT and 27 books of the NT (66 books in all).

There is other “final authority,” GOD (Romans 9:14-18).

(14) God is not unrighteous, is he? Of course not! (15) For he says to Moses, "I will be merciful to the person I want to be merciful to, and I will be kind to the person I want to be kind to." (16) Therefore, God's choice does not depend on a person's will or effort, but on God himself, who shows mercy. (17) For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "I have raised you up for this very purpose, to demonstrate my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." (18) Therefore, God has mercy on whomever he chooses, and he hardens the heart of whomever he chooses."
The mark of this thread is the Apostles and their followers were catholic... true enough... the Apostles were part of a "universal" church, however, the Apostles were not associated or part of the Roman Catholic Church.Sure they were associated with the RCC - well, at least some of them (Paul and Peter) were. But they were associated with a whole bunch of other churches as well (eg, Peter also founded the church at Antioch).
Say what?! Peter did not found the church in Antioch, Barnabas did (Acts 11:22-26). Reading the whole chapter confirms this.

Maybe Peter founding the church in Antioch is a “tradition” too; it certainly is not scriptural.

Peter never founded a church in Rome… oh, right, the Bible does not say he did not so we (the RCC) through “tradition” can say he did.

It cannot be proven from the Bible Peter was ever in Rome… oh, right, the Bible does not say he was never in Rome so we (the RCC) through “tradition” can say he was.

The Apostles were associated with a church in Rome and it was part of a “universal” church, the Church founded by and built on JC, but it was not the Roman Catholic Church; that came along MUCH later.

[jason]

It cannot be proven from the Bible Peter was ever in Rome… oh, right, the Bible does not say he was never in Rome so we (the RCC) through “tradition” can say he was.
To be fair I believe (I haven't got around to reading it yet, but intend to RealSoonNowTM ) that Eusebius makes reference to Peter being executed in Rome under Nero's persecution that also killed Paul (also mentioned by Eusebius if memory serves).

So although this is a "tradition" as opposed to being recorded in the Bible, it would appear he was their as well as Paul. Although their is no record that he was ever Bishop till much later. (See Jezz, more suspect claims that turn up later, but don't cause to many waves).


Jason

[Jezz]

You are well aware exactly why what you are saying making your answer baloney; you are begging the question and why your statement not only “sounds silly,” it is silly.
Where did you pull that sentence from...a kindergarten playground? :huh: My statement was not silly, period, and you have failed to interact with my statement about what "final authority means". I will demonstrate this by asking you a question:

If something is not found in the Bible, does that mean that it is not true? A simple yes or no please.

(9) The Lord is not slow about his promise, as some people understand slowness, but is being patient with you. He does not want anyone to perish, but wants everyone to come to repentance. (10) But the Day of the Lord will come like a thief. On that day the heavens will disappear with a roaring sound, the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything done on it will be exposed. (11) Since everything will be destroyed in this way, think of the kind of holy and godly people you ought to be (12) as you look forward to and hasten the coming of the day of God, by which the heavens will be set ablaze and dissolved and the elements will melt with fire. (13) But in keeping with his promise, we are looking forward to new heavens and a new earth, where righteousness is at home. (14) So then, dear friends, since you are looking forward to this, make every effort to have him find you without spot or fault and at peace. (This passage by itself makes Purgatory a totally unscriptural belief, VF01.) (15) Think of our Lord's patience as salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him. (16) He speaks about this subject in all his letters. Some things in them are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort to their own destruction, as they do the rest of the Scriptures. (17) And so, dear friends, since you already know these things, continually be on your guard not to be carried away by the deception of lawless people, lest you fall from your secure position. (18) Instead, continue to grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Glory belongs to him both now and on that eternal day! Amen.
What makes you so sure that you're not one of those "ignorant and unstable" people that Peter is talking about?

This is a glaring description of what has happens when “traditions” are introduced by “It does not mean that anything it does not say is not true and not binding.”
No it's not. It's a glaring description of what happens when ignorant and unstable people distort Paul's letters and the rest of the Scriptures. It says nothing about tradition at all.

My example here is the “tradition” of Purgatory. Purgatory is a tradition introduced by “the Bible does not specifically say there is no Purgatory, so we, the RCC, can say there is one.” There is absolutely no doubt the scriptures have been distorted in order for this false teaching (doctrine) to creep into the Bible like an accumulation of barnacles (thank you Jason).
I do not believe that the RCC is the true church, and I don't believe in purgatory, and I agree that purgatory is a false tradition. So your complaints about it being a false tradition are meaningless to me. Try again.

This is incorrect. Each book of the Bible is a part of a whole. The books together make the final authority.
So if you are allowed to say that the individual books are authoritative parts of the final authoritative whole, why is it not acceptable for me to say that the Bible is an authoritative part of the final authoritative whole?

ALL of the “traditions” we are commanded to follow are given in the Bible without consulting barnacle covered “handed down” traditions.
Are they? Where in the Bible does it say that every tradition we are commanded to follow is given in the Bible? The Bible as we have it today didn't even exist at the time that the Bible was written, so how could any statement contained therein be referring to the Bible as we know it? It did not drop down out of the sky fully formed, and Jesus did not hand it to His disciples in a ready-made format. Jesus taught His disciples orally - giving them an oral tradition which they handed down to their followers.

Moreover, how do you deal with this passage:

2 Thessalonians 2:15 So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the paradoseis we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

Paul instructs the Thessalonians to hold to the paradoseis (Greek: "that which is handed over" - ie, traditions) - both oral and written. Perhaps Paul missed your advice about not adhering to "barnacle covered, handed-down traditions"?

For instance, we cannot take Jesus’ commission to the Apostles in Matthew 28:19 and Mark 16:15-16 as single verses can we? We must also know what the Apostles were to teach (Matthew 28:20, which also needs clarification from scripture), what the converted are to believe (Acts 2:22-38), and how baptism is to be applied (Acts 8:38, understanding the Greek to mean immerse and 1 Peter 3:21, noting Peter uses the word body not single parts such as head, hands, feet, or elbows, the whole body needs to be “cleansed”).
No, we can't consider these verses individually, because (as you quite rightly point out) they are part of a whole. That's my entire point. They are part of a whole, and if you consider them individually then you will misunderstand them.

Similarly, the Bible is part of a whole - a wider tradition started by Jesus himself and passed on to His earliest followers. The verse in Thessalonians above proves that not every part of this tradition was written down in the Bible. You can't take it by itself without considering the rest of the tradition as well, or you will misunderstand it.

As for your strawman about baptism - I've refuted you elsewhere on that point, and you ignored most of it. I see no reason to deal with this red herring again here.

Note also the Philip taught the eunuch from Isaiah concerning JC.
What is your point? I never said that Scripture wasn't useful for teaching.

EVERYTHING we need is found in the 39 books of the OT and 27 books of the NT (66 books in all).
Really? In that case either:

1. The list of the 66 books that you are talking about must be somewhere in the Bible, or
2. The list of the 66 books is not needed.

Which is the case?

There is other “final authority,” GOD (Romans 9:14-18).
Wrong. God is the utlimate authority - He is not "another" authority. There is nothing else that can compare to Him. The Bible is not a god.

Say what?!
"what".

Peter did not found the church in Antioch, Barnabas did (Acts 11:22-26). Reading the whole chapter confirms this.
I apologise, I made a mistake. Peter did not found the church in Antioch. However, it is likely that he was bishop there some time after Paul and Barnabas preached there.

But anyway, you're mistaken too - Barnabas didn't found the church at Antioch either - it was founded by a bunch of unnamed Christians who were scattered after the stoning of Stephen and the persecution that followed. When Barnabas first went to Antioch, there was already a Christian community there.

Maybe Peter founding the church in Antioch is a “tradition” too; it certainly is not scriptural.
It is not in Scripture that Martin Luther founded Lutheranism - does that mean that it is not true? It's called history, VFarris. Or perhaps you believe that the only history that is true is that which is recorded in the Bible, and anything that is not recorded in the Bible did not really happen?

Peter never founded a church in Rome… oh, right, the Bible does not say he did not so we (the RCC) through “tradition” can say he did.
Whether or not he founded a church in Rome, it is pretty certain that he was in Rome at some point in time and was martyred there (crucified upside-down).

It cannot be proven from the Bible Peter was ever in Rome… oh, right, the Bible does not say he was never in Rome so we (the RCC) through “tradition” can say he was.
It cannot be proven from the Bible that you wrote your last post. I guess that means its not true?

Really, you're making absurd demands. Claiming "it's not true because it's not in Scripture" is just ridiculous. I believe that everything in Scripture is true. But only a fool would claim that every true thing is in Scripture.

The Apostles were associated with a church in Rome and it was part of a “universal” church, the Church founded by and built on JC, but it was not the Roman Catholic Church; that came along MUCH later.
Rubbish - the church that was founded in Rome was the Roman Catholic Church, and Peter and Paul most likely had something to do with its founding. Of course, the RCC has since apostasised from the Church founded by the apostles, but that's a whole other story.

[dizzle]

Perhaps Paul missed your advice about not adhering to "barnacle covered, handed-down traditions"?

They didn't have barnacles yet. Barnacles take a while to form. :teeth:

"what".

:lmbo:

I don't agree with you on some things Jezz, but I feel your pain. I see you going through what I do with futurists.

[VFarris01]

You are well aware exactly why what you are saying making your answer baloney; you are begging the question and why your statement not only “sounds silly,” it is silly.
Where did you pull that sentence from...a kindergarten playground? My statement was not silly, period, and you have failed to interact with my statement about what "final authority means". I will demonstrate this by asking you a question:

If something is not found in the Bible, does that mean that it is not true? A simple yes or no please.
You start out with an ad hominem aimed directly at me, whereas I at least attacked your statement and noted why it was BS. Can we at least keep the discussion civil?

Before I answer your question answer this one: Do you still beat your wife (supposing you are married)? Or, if not, do you still drink and drive? (Spoken like Forrest Gump), I might not be a very smart man, but I do know what a trick question is. You have tried this tactic before and you know your question cannot be answered by a “yes” or a “no.”
Paul, in writing to the Thessalonians (1 Thessalonians 5:21) is instructing them to subject everything submitted to you to be believed to be properly tested (ie is it scriptural?). The Greek word used is G1381, δοκιμάζετε (dokimazete), is one that is properly applicable to metals, referring to the art of the assayer, by which the true nature and value of the metal is tested. The meaning here is they were to carefully examine everything proposed for their belief. They were not to receive it on trust or to take it on assertion or to believe it because it was urged with vehemence, zeal, or plausibility. In the various opinions and doctrines submitted to them for adoption, they were to apply the appropriate tests from reason and the written word of God, the Scriptures, and what they found to be true they were to embrace; what was false they were to reject. Christianity does not require people to disregard their reason, or to be naive. It does not expect them to believe anything because others say it is so. It does not make it a duty to receive as undoubted truth all that synods and councils have decreed; or all advanced by the ministers of religion. It is, more than any other form of religion, the friend of free inquiry, and would lead people everywhere to understand the reason of the opinions which they contemplate; compare Act 17:11-12, 2 Corinthians 3:5, 1 Peter 3:15, 1 John 4:1.

Consider what the writer of Acts 17:11 has to say concerning the Bereans, “They were very willing to receive the message, and every day they carefully examined the Scriptures to see if those things were so,” (ISV) Now I know “the Scriptures” is in reference to the OT; is not the verse saying, "anything contrary, including anything not in scripture, should be rejected?" We have the written word of God. No other writing or oral “tradition” has been deemed worthy of this distinction. Would you not agree if other writings or oral “traditions” were of God they would be included in the Bible?

Since God (JC and the Holy Spirit) has given us nothing else as a guide, the Bible must stand alone. In the absense of JC in the flesh to guide us, the Bible is all we really have is it not?.
But let's take the idea of 'sola scriptura' as a given. This means VF that you must cease to teach your theology and faith by means of the computer and the internet because Christ gave clear instruction to the disciples about going out physically to teach the gospel, First there, then Judea Samaria and the rest of the world. He gives no instruction as to the use of electronic means of spreading the Gospel or teaching about faith. By your own measure, since Christ gave a specific instruction and example, and the mode you are now using is not included in that, you must stop now or consider yourself outside the will of God.
Well… Pilgrim… you are committing an “Appeal to Ridicule” here. JC gave specific instructions on what to do; “Proclaim the gospel to the whole creation,” (John 16:15 ISV). JC did not give specific instructions on how to get to “the whole creation,” be it walk, trot, run, ride a donkey, horse, chariot, cart or any of the other forms of moving from place-to-place available in the first century; JC left this up to the Apostles to decide. The computer is simply another means to “Proclaim the gospel to the whole creation” is it not?
What makes you so sure that you're not one of those "ignorant and unstable" people that Peter is talking about
I always give scriptural support for what I have to say so you can do as the Bereans and “carefully examine(d) the Scriptures to see if those things were (are, VF) so.”
This is a glaring description of what has happens when “traditions” are introduced by “It does not mean that anything it does not say is not true and not binding.”
No it's not. It's a glaring description of what happens when ignorant and unstable people distort Paul's letters and the rest of the Scriptures. It says nothing about tradition at all.
Yes, it is. You denying the obvious is disturbing.

My example here is the “tradition” of Purgatory. Purgatory is a tradition introduced by “the Bible does not specifically say there is no Purgatory, so we, the RCC, can say there is one.” There is absolutely no doubt the scriptures have been distorted in order for this false teaching (doctrine) to creep into the Bible like an accumulation of barnacles (thank you Jason).
I do not believe that the RCC is the true church, and I don't believe in purgatory, and I agree that purgatory is a false tradition. So your complaints about it being a false tradition are meaningless to me. Try again.

Gee man, lighten up. Did I say Purgatory was your belief? I said Purgatory is a RC belief. I used Purgatory as an example.

We agree the RCC has perverted their Church into something other than the Church JC established and founded on himself and we agree there is no such thing as Purgatory.

I assume you are EO?
This is incorrect. Each book of the Bible is a part of a whole. The books together make the final authority.
So if you are allowed to say that the individual books are authoritative parts of the final authoritative whole, why is it not acceptable for me to say that the Bible is an authoritative part of the final authoritative whole?
No other writing or oral “tradition” has been deemed worthy of this distinction (inclusion in the Bible). Would you not agree if other writings or oral “traditions” were of God they would be included in the Bible?
ALL of the “traditions” we are commanded to follow are given in the Bible without consulting barnacle covered “handed down” traditions.
Are they? Where in the Bible does it say that every tradition we are commanded to follow is given in the Bible? The Bible as we have it today didn't even exist at the time that the Bible was written, so how could any statement contained therein be referring to the Bible as we know it? It did not drop down out of the sky fully formed, and Jesus did not hand it to His disciples in a ready-made format. Jesus taught His disciples orally - giving them an oral tradition which they handed down to their followers.

Moreover, how do you deal with this passage:

2 Thessalonians 2:15 So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the paradoseis we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

Paul instructs the Thessalonians to hold to the paradoseis (Greek: "that which is handed over" - ie, traditions) - both oral and written. Perhaps Paul missed your advice about not adhering to "barnacle covered, handed-down traditions"?
I refer you back to my comments on 1 Thessalonians 5:21. The “traditions” (G3862) had to be scriptural in order to be accepted.
For instance, we cannot take Jesus’ commission to the Apostles in Matthew 28:19 and Mark 16:15-16 as single verses can we? We must also know what the Apostles were to teach (Matthew 28:20, which also needs clarification from scripture), what the converted are to believe (Acts 2:22-38), and how baptism is to be applied (Acts 8:38, understanding the Greek to mean immerse and 1 Peter 3:21, noting Peter uses the word body not single parts such as head, hands, feet, or elbows, the whole body needs to be “cleansed”).
No, we can't consider these verses individually, because (as you quite rightly point out) they are part of a whole. That's my entire point. They are part of a whole, and if you consider them individually then you will misunderstand them.

Similarly, the Bible is part of a whole - a wider tradition started by Jesus himself and passed on to His earliest followers. The verse in Thessalonians above proves that not every part of this tradition was written down in the Bible. You can't take it by itself without considering the rest of the tradition as well, or you will misunderstand it.

As for your strawman about baptism - I've refuted you elsewhere on that point, and you ignored most of it. I see no reason to deal with this red herring again here.
The Bible is a “whole” all by itself as I have shown.

2 Thessalonians 2:15 proves nothing except the Thessalonians were exhorted to “stand firm” in what they had been taught. Perhaps the “traditions” (teachings) Paul spoke of in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 as being “passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter” are included in one of the other 65 “parts” of the whole Bible. Can you be sure they are not?

Perhaps also you should reacquaint yourself with logic fallacies. My statement is neither a straw man nor a non sequitur because it can only be concluded from the available facts baptism is full body immersion.

Your argument concerning baptism, on the other hand, involves special pleading. I say “baptism is immersion because that was the meaning of the word in the first century Greek.” Your reply is “baptism is at the discresion of the person applying the “sacrament” because sufficient water for immersion is not always available.”
Note also the Philip taught the eunuch from Isaiah concerning JC.
What is your point? I never said that Scripture wasn't useful for teaching.
I thought my point was obvious; Philip used a part of the whole Bible to support his teaching the eunuch about JC.
EVERYTHING we need is found in the 39 books of the OT and 27 books of the NT (66 books in all).
Really? In that case either:

1. The list of the 66 books that you are talking about must be somewhere in the Bible, or
2. The list of the 66 books is not needed.

Which is the case?
I cannot respond to a false dichotomy. Everything we need concerning salvation and worship is contained in the 66 “books” we call the Bible.

There is other “final authority,” GOD (Romans 9:14-18).
Wrong. God is the utlimate authority - He is not "another" authority. There is nothing else that can compare to Him. The Bible is not a god.

I very much agree with you! Please note the words final authority were placed in quotes. I never meant to imply God was really a second “final authority.” I thought Romans 9:14-18 made it clear God IS the final authority.

To use your rebutal; in the absence of God in the flesh, JC, we can only rely on the agreed inspired word of God, the Bible.
Say what?!
“what.”
What?! LOL.
Peter did not found the church in Antioch, Barnabas did (Acts 11:22-26). Reading the whole chapter confirms this.
I apologise, I made a mistake. Peter did not found the church in Antioch. However, it is likely that he was bishop there some time after Paul and Barnabas preached there.

But anyway, you're mistaken too - Barnabas didn't found the church at Antioch either - it was founded by a bunch of unnamed Christians who were scattered after the stoning of Stephen and the persecution that followed. When Barnabas first went to Antioch, there was already a Christian community there.
True, there were Christians in Antioch before Barnabas arrived. My mistake too.
Maybe Peter founding the church in Antioch is a “tradition” too; it certainly is not scriptural.
It is not in Scripture that Martin Luther founded Lutheranism - does that mean that it is not true? It's called history, VFarris. Or perhaps you believe that the only history that is true is that which is recorded in the Bible, and anything that is not recorded in the Bible did not really happen?
Holy smoke screen Batman!! Talk about a straw man! You cannot misrepresent my position, refute it then believe you have refuted my actual position.

Certainly, Martin Luther “founded” Lutheranism; this is a verifiable fact. On the other hand it is not a verifiable fact Peter founded the church in Antioch; this is an “urban legend.”
Peter never founded a church in Rome… oh, right, the Bible does not say he did not so we (the RCC) through “tradition” can say he did.
Whether or not he founded a church in Rome, it is pretty certain that he was in Rome at some point in time and was martyred there (crucified upside-down).
It is neither certain or verifiable Peter was ever in Rome. Urban legends die hard do they not?
It cannot be proven from the Bible Peter was ever in Rome… oh, right, the Bible does not say he was never in Rome so we (the RCC) through “tradition” can say he was.
It cannot be proven from the Bible that you wrote your last post. I guess that means its not true?

Really, you're making absurd demands. Claiming "it's not true because it's not in Scripture" is just ridiculous. I believe that everything in Scripture is true. But only a fool would claim that every true thing is in Scripture.
... as does straw man argumentation.
The Apostles were associated with a church in Rome and it was part of a “universal” church, the Church founded by and built on JC, but it was not the Roman Catholic Church; that came along MUCH later.
Rubbish - the church that was founded in Rome was the Roman Catholic Church, and Peter and Paul most likely had something to do with its founding. Of course, the RCC has since apostasised from the Church founded by the apostles, but that's a whole other story.
Phrases like “pretty certain” and “most likely” contain seeds of doubt do they not? If you were a prosecution lawyer do you believe you could get a murder conviction based on “pretty certain” and “most likely?” You need proof to convince me; so far you have presented none.

[Jezz]

Pardon me Jezz,
No problemo!

Although I agree, to an extent, isn't the authorative teacher the Holy Spirit, and not just someone with 'more experience'?
Yes... but then the question is "what is the medium by which the Holy Spirit guides us?"

Here's a little joke that illustrates the point:

Fred was stranded on the roof of his house during a flood. He said a prayer to God, asking for Him to save him. A man came floating along on a makeshift raft, and said to him:

"Here, climb on this raft with me, and we'll paddle to safety."

Fred replied: "No, it's ok - God will save me. I will put my faith in Him alone, and not in men."

The flood waters continued to rise. Fred reiterated his prayer. A woman came along in a motorboat and offered him a lift. Fred again replied "No, it's ok - God will save me. I have faith in Him alone, and not in men." After a brief disagreement, the woman went off in search of others to save.

The flood waters rose right up so that the man was nearly being swept away. He said his prayer again. A helicopter came along and tried to pluck him out of the torrent. But again, he was firm: "No, God will save me. I will put my trust in Him and not in men." The helicopter flew off to save others. Shortly thereafter, Fred was swept away and he drowned.

Fred came face-to-face with God in the afterlife. Puzzled, he said to Him: "Lord, I prayed to you to save me and I trusted in you, why did you not answer my prayer?" The Lord replied: "I sent you a raft, a boat, and a helicopter. What more did you want?"

Sometimes, we are like Fred. We trust in God to save us, but without quite understanding how He is going to do it. As a result, we miss the God-given opportunity when it comes.

Similarly, I agree that the Holy Spirit teaches us... but the question is what form does this teaching take? It is my position that the Church is the medium by which the Holy Spirit teaches us 99% of the time. Look at the majority of people in history who have come to Christ - they did so not through the Scriptures, but through learning from and submitting to the teachings of mature Christians.

Plus, this comes to mind on that subject:

Acts 17:11
These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

It seems we are to rely upon more than just the words of others, and to search for ourselves with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the scriptures to 'verify' what we have been told.
Yes, that's true, but in the case of the Bereans, whose interpretation were they verifying? The one that Paul and Silas gave to them. They didn't try to come up with their own interpetation from scratch.

The issue has always been in who's 'verification' is correct.. At least, that's how it appears to me. And that's even a more broad a topic to approach than this one.
Yes, that's true.

Just wondered what you thought.. reply in PM if you feel it disrupts the thread :smile:
Ah well, I answered it anyway - I think it better to answer in public, as others can benefit from the discussion that way.

Hope that helps.

[Jezz]

They didn't have barnacles yet. Barnacles take a while to form. :teeth:
Some of them did form barnacles, Dee Dee. Some people were distorting (ie, accruing barnacles on) the tradition that the apostles had handed them. That is why the apostles wrote epistles - to scrape off the barnacles. :smile:

I don't agree with you on some things Jezz,
Never mind, we'll get you there... :wink:

but I feel your pain. I see you going through what I do with futurists.
It does cause me that much pain really. It's more a source of amusement than anything. :smile: Of course, this is a much more fundamental issue than futurism v preterism, though...

[Jezz]

You start out with an ad hominem aimed directly at me, whereas I at least attacked your statement and noted why it was BS. Can we at least keep the discussion civil?
The sentence to which I responded started with a very accusatory "You are well aware...", implying that I was deliberately using a faulty argument. That is an ad hominem, as it wasn't simply attacking my argument.

I don't have any problems with ad hominems, I don't take them personally. However, if you are upset by them, I will refrain. It was mainly intended as a bit of a joke (I left out the smiley - my bad!) and not as something serious. Please do not take it to heart. :smile:

Before I answer your question answer this one: Do you still beat your wife (supposing you are married)? Or, if not, do you still drink and drive?
No, I do not beat my wife. A corollary of this answer is that I do not still beat my wife, as I would have had to have taken up the practice of "wife beating" at some point in order for me to "still" be doing it.

Similarly, I do not drink and drive. A corollary of this answer is that I do not still drink and drive, as I would have had to have taken up the practice at some point in order for me to "still" be doing it.

Now that I have answered your questions, are you going to answer mine?

(Spoken like Forrest Gump), I might not be a very smart man,
If you are not all that smart, then shouldn't you take advice from somebody else who is smarter than you (not implying that that person is me, mind you)? :wink:

...but I do know what a trick question is. You have tried this tactic before and you know your question cannot be answered by a “yes” or a “no.”
Your questions were trick questions because they contained an implied false dichotomy: answering "no" to the statement "Do you still beat your wife?" does not automatically imply that I ever did beat my wife, and to conclude that it does is to commit the fallacy of false dichotomy.

My question, on the other hand, was not a false dichotomy - it was a true dichotomy. The reason you didn't want to answer it is because it exposed the flaw in your argument.

Let me ask my question again: It seems to me that often we reach a point in my argument where you won't believe something I say because "it's not found in Scripture". It seems to me that you have an axiom somewhere that says "If it's not found in Scripture, then it's not true."

So tell me: Do you agree that if it's not found in Scripture, then it's not true? Yes or no, please. This isn't a loaded question.

I always give scriptural support for what I have to say so you can do as the Bereans and “carefully examine(d) the Scriptures to see if those things were (are, VF) so.”
The people that Peter said were distorting the Scriptures were also using scriptural support for their arguments. But the meanings that they had were not the correct meanings.

VF: This is a glaring description of what has happens when “traditions” are introduced by “It does not mean that anything it does not say is not true and not binding.”

Jezz: No it's not. It's a glaring description of what happens when ignorant and unstable people distort Paul's letters and the rest of the Scriptures. It says nothing about tradition at all.

Yes, it is. You denying the obvious is disturbing.
Sorry, I worded my response incorrectly. What I mean was that Peter did not say that every true tradition would be written down. It does not say that if a tradition is not found in Scriptures, then it is automatically not true.

Gee man, lighten up. Did I say Purgatory was your belief? I said Purgatory is a RC belief. I used Purgatory as an example.
:lol: I am "lightened up". I didn't take it personally, I just pointed out that your purgatory argument was a strawman from my POV, as I agree that it was a false tradition.

We agree the RCC has perverted their Church into something other than the Church JC established and founded on himself and we agree there is no such thing as Purgatory.
Yep. :thumb:

I assume you are EO?
Pretty much. I'm not officially Orthodox yet, but my theological beliefs are Orthodox.

No other writing or oral “tradition” has been deemed worthy of this distinction (inclusion in the Bible). Would you not agree if other writings or oral “traditions” were of God they would be included in the Bible?
This is precisely where we disagree, and this relates to the question that I asked you at the top which you refused to answer because you thought it was a trick question.

I believe that every tradition recorded in the Bible is of God. However, I do not believe that every tradition that is of God is included in the Bible. For example, the idea that "every tradition of God is included in the Bible" is not a tradition that is found in the Bible. It is, like purgatory, a spurious tradition added by someone who was not, strictly speaking, a member of the true Church (ie, Martin Luther).

I refer you back to my comments on 1 Thessalonians 5:21. The “traditions” (G3862) had to be scriptural in order to be accepted.
1 Thessalonians 5:21 simply says: "Test everything; hold on to the good." It does not say what everything must be tested against - much less does it say that Scripture is what everything must be tested against. That is your interpretation, and it is incorrect.

I know that your interpetation is incorrect because it contradicts with Paul's second letter to the Thessalonians, in 2:15 where Paul tells the Thessalonians to hold fast to the traditions that they had received - whether in writing or orally. If they were told to hold to oral teachings, then obviously not everything that they were taught was in Scripture, was it?

The Bible is a “whole” all by itself as I have shown.
An argument by assertion does not mean that you have "shown" it.

2 Thessalonians 2:15 proves nothing except the Thessalonians were exhorted to “stand firm” in what they had been taught. Perhaps the “traditions” (teachings) Paul spoke of in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 as being “passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter” are included in one of the other 65 “parts” of the whole Bible. Can you be sure they are not?
I'm pretty sure that they were not included in the OT, as the Thessalonians would have had a copy of the OT, so that means it must be recorded in the other 26 books of the NT. And seeing as how this was the 2nd letter, it implies that not all the traditions they taught were in that letter either, so that narrows it down to 25.

As for whether or not those traditions are included in the remaining 25 books - well, you're the one asserting that they must be included in one of these books. Prove it. Show me where in the Bible it says that all of the apostle's oral teachings were written down and eventually included in the canon (which hadn't yet been formed at the time of writing)... If you can't support your argument from Scripture, then it's not true, right?

Perhaps also you should reacquaint yourself with logic fallacies.
:lol: OK.

My statement is neither a straw man nor a non sequitur
I didn't call it a non-sequitur. I called it a red herring, which it is. We're not talking about baptism here, and you brought it up, and I didn't want to pursue that argument here and now. I did call it a strawman, which I admit it is not quite, but the fallacy of strawman and the fallacy of the red herring are closely related anyway (see here (http://www.tektonics.org/fallacies.html#875)), so this is a grey one.

...because it can only be concluded from the available facts baptism is full body immersion.

Your argument concerning baptism, on the other hand, involves special pleading. I say “baptism is immersion because that was the meaning of the word in the first century Greek.” Your reply is “baptism is at the discresion of the person applying the “sacrament” because sufficient water for immersion is not always available.”
Strawman. My reply was: Yes, baptism is immersion because that was the meaning of the word in first century Greek. However, as Luke 11:38 ("But the Pharisee, noticing that Jesus did not first baptizo before the meal, was surprised.") proves, "immersion" did not always refer to the entire body. You cannot get the idea of "full body immersion" from the word "baptizo" alone. So long as something is immersed in water, it is acceptable to call it "baptism" by the Greek usage of the word. It is also clear from the Didache that early Christians believed this too.

I thought my point was obvious; Philip used a part of the whole Bible to support his teaching the eunuch about JC.
Let me rephrase then - I recognised your point, I just didn't see the relevance of it. I agree with you. I have never suggested that any part of the Bible was not useful for teaching. I have only disputed your apparent assertion that only the Bible is useful for this purpose.

1. The list of the 66 books that you are talking about must be somewhere in the Bible, or
2. The list of the 66 books is not needed.

Which is the case?

I cannot respond to a false dichotomy.

Everything we need concerning salvation and worship is contained in the 66 “books” we call the Bible.
I wasn't asking you to respond to a false dichotomy. I was asking you to respond to a true dichotomy. :teeth:

It is patently obvious that if everything concerning worship and salvation is found in the Bible, then it is pretty important to know exactly which books belong in the Bible and which books do not belong in the Bible. So in which book of the Bible do you find this list of books? Moreover, where does it say in the Bible that everything necessary for worship and salvation is found in the Bible?

I very much agree with you! Please note the words final authority were placed in quotes. I never meant to imply God was really a second “final authority.” I thought Romans 9:14-18 made it clear God IS the final authority.
Good, then our only disagreement is how God's authority is manifest in the world. :thumb:

To use your rebutal; in the absence of God in the flesh, JC, we can only rely on the agreed inspired word of God, the Bible.
Agreed upon by whom though, VFarris? That is the key question. Not everyone agrees that the Bible is the inspired word of God - some think that the Qu'ran is. And not all Christians agree on which books belong in the Bible.

Or perhaps you believe that the only history that is true is that which is recorded in the Bible, and anything that is not recorded in the Bible did not really happen?

Holy smoke screen Batman!! Talk about a straw man! You cannot misrepresent my position, refute it then believe you have refuted my actual position.
If you are claiming that this is a strawman, does this mean that you are admitting that not all true history is found in the Bible?

Certainly, Martin Luther “founded” Lutheranism; this is a verifiable fact. On the other hand it is not a verifiable fact Peter founded the church in Antioch; this is an “urban legend.”
:lol: Please explain to me what the difference is that makes one of them an urban legend and the other a "verifiable fact".

It is neither certain or verifiable Peter was ever in Rome. Urban legends die hard do they not?
True history dies even harder than urban legends. Well, at least, most of the time. Sometimes people try to dismiss true history as "urban legends", for example, atheists claim that the Gospels are urban legends, and some Protestants try and claim that certain parts of Church history are urban legends...

Phrases like “pretty certain” and “most likely” contain seeds of doubt do they not?
Yes. Nothing in history is ever certain.

If you were a prosecution lawyer do you believe you could get a murder conviction based on “pretty certain” and “most likely?”
Yes, actually. The principle that law courts work on "is beyond reasonable doubt" - not "with absolute certainty". It is beyond reasonable doubt that Peter and Paul were involved with the early Church at Rome.

You need proof to convince me; so far you have presented none.
There doesn't seem to be any point giving you the historical evidence, because you have already made up your mind that whatever evidence I produce is unreliable. But anyway, from Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book III (http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-60.htm), chapter 3, v2:

...and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul...

What reason do you have to suspect that Irenaeus was mistaken about this? He was much closer to the events in both time and space than you are.

[Jude3b]

The church of God is the Body of Christ:

"And hath put all things under his (Christ's) feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all" (Eph. 1:22, 23).

The body of which Christ is the head is the church of God that he built; yea, "the church of God which he hath purchased with his own blood" (Acts 20:28). This is the only church taught in the New Testament. Check out the Bible, read it for yourself. Do not trust fallible sinful men to tell you the truth.

Romanism is not taught in the New Testament, except in prophecy of the apostasy that was to come. True Bible Christians like we find in the Apostolic church of God - were not Roman Catholics and there was not even a Roman Catholic church system until about 270 A.D.

[VFarris01]

Greetings Friends, We should both restrain ourselves, Christians do not fight; we discuss. While I know we will never come to an agreement on all points of our discussion, it has been stimulating and informative.
No, I do not beat my wife. A corollary of this answer is that I do not still beat my wife, as I would have had to have taken up the practice of "wife beating" at some point in order for me to "still" be doing it.

Similarly, I do not drink and drive. A corollary of this answer is that I do not still drink and drive, as I would have had to have taken up the practice at some point in order for me to "still" be doing it.

Now that I have answered your questions, are you going to answer mine?
I should have limited the way you could respond the same as you did me.

This is the question you asked me and how I was allowed to answer it:

If something is not found in the Bible, does that mean that it is not true? A simple yes or no please.

Now be realistic, how can anyone answer such an open question?

If I answer “yes” you might respond with “the speed of light being 299,792,458 m/s must not be true because it is not in the Bible;” if I answer “no” I make your argument by default.

As I more than adequately responded, everything we need to know concerning faith, salvation, and worship is in the collection of writings we call the Bible.
Your questions were trick questions because they contained an implied false dichotomy: answering "no" to the statement "Do you still beat your wife?" does not automatically imply that I ever did beat my wife, and to conclude that it does is to commit the fallacy of false dichotomy.
True, and the reason for my previous statement.
My question, on the other hand, was not a false dichotomy - it was a true dichotomy. The reason you didn't want to answer it is because it exposed the flaw in your argument.
Your question continues to be a false dichotomy because its premise fails to recognize that there are other possibilities about what is true. Certainly there are things not in the Bible we know to be true and they can be verified through observation, experimentation, and other records.
Let me ask my question again: It seems to me that often we reach a point in my argument where you won't believe something I say because "it's not found in Scripture". It seems to me that you have an axiom somewhere that says "If it's not found in Scripture, then it's not true."

So tell me: Do you agree that if it's not found in Scripture, then it's not true? Yes or no, please. This isn't a loaded question.
Yes, it is. How about if we state the question this way:

Is everything we need to know concerning faith, salvation, and worship is in the collection of writings we call the Bible?

I say, “yes.” How say you? Finish this before you respond.
always [/i]give scriptural support for what I have to say so you can do as the Bereans and “carefully examine(d) the Scriptures to see if those things were (are, VF) so.”
The people that Peter said were distorting the Scriptures were also using scriptural support for their arguments. But the meanings that they had were not the correct meanings.
The Bereans were making sure “those things were so” as I expect you to do.

I do not want or expect you to take my word for it.
Christianity does not require people to disregard their reason, or to be naive. It does not expect them to believe anything because others say it is so. It does not make it a duty to receive as undoubted truth all that synods and councils have decreed; or all advanced by the ministers of religion. It is, more than any other form of religion, the friend of free inquiry, and would lead people everywhere to understand the reason of the opinions which they contemplate.
VF: This is a glaring description of what has happens when “traditions” are introduced by “It does not mean that anything it does not say is not true and not binding.”

Jezz: No it's not. It's a glaring description of what happens when ignorant and unstable people distort Paul's letters and the rest of the Scriptures. It says nothing about tradition at all.

VF:Yes, it is. You denying the obvious is disturbing.

Jezz:Sorry, I worded my response incorrectly. What I mean was that Peter did not say that every true tradition would be written down. It does not say that if a tradition is not found in Scriptures, then it is automatically not true.
Using the same reasoning, Peter did not say every true tradition would not be written down. You might say Peter said every true tradition had not been written down yet.

Peter’s writing is not the youngest document included in the NT BTW.

I fail to see how my example of Purgatory is a straw man. Purgatory is a “tradition” not found in the Bible espoused as truth. What makes Purgatory false and baptism by non-full-body immersion true?
We agree the RCC has perverted their Church into something other than the Church JC established and founded on himself and we agree there is no such thing as Purgatory.
Yep.
Progress at last!
I'm not officially Orthodox yet, but my theological beliefs are Orthodox.
Good for you, I too think the beliefs of the EO are closer to the truth than the RC.
No other writing or oral “tradition” has been deemed worthy of this distinction (inclusion in the Bible). Would you not agree if other writings or oral “traditions” were of God they would be included in the Bible?
This is precisely where we disagree, and this relates to the question that I asked you at the top which you refused to answer because you thought it was a trick question.

I believe that every tradition recorded in the Bible is of God. However, I do not believe that every tradition that is of God is included in the Bible. For example, the idea that "every tradition of God is included in the Bible" is not a tradition that is found in the Bible. It is, like purgatory, a spurious tradition added by someone who was not, strictly speaking, a member of the true Church (ie, Martin Luther).
Again, I answered your question, regretable my answer did not suit you.

Purgatory was not ML’s idea and the “tradition” is fairly ancient.
I refer you back to my comments on 1 Thessalonians 5:21. The “traditions” (G3862) had to be scriptural in order to be accepted.
1 Thessalonians 5:21 simply says: "Test everything; hold on to the good." It does not say what everything must be tested against - much less does it say that Scripture is what everything must be tested against. That is your interpretation, and it is incorrect.

I know that your interpetation is incorrect because it contradicts with Paul's second letter to the Thessalonians, in 2:15 where Paul tells the Thessalonians to hold fast to the traditions that they had received - whether in writing or orally. If they were told to hold to oral teachings, then obviously not everything that they were taught was in Scripture, was it?
Here is where you are mistaken. Certainly, it is true Paul addressed two letters to the Thessalonians, however, nearly all of the letters of Peter, Paul, John, James, Jude, and the Gospels were copied and circulated throughout the various churches. This fact is not recorded anywhere in the NT, however, it is verifiable. How else would Peter (wherever he was) know of the contents of Paul’s letters?

Did the various recipients of the letters say, “Hey, we better keep this letter for posterity, I bet someone will want to include it in a testamony of JC some day.”
An argument by assertion does not mean that you have "shown" it.
Yours is an assertion as well for you have not “shown it” either.
2 Thessalonians 2:15 proves nothing except the Thessalonians were exhorted to “stand firm” in what they had been taught. Perhaps the “traditions” (teachings) Paul spoke of in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 as being “passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter” are included in one of the other 65 “parts” of the whole Bible. Can you be sure they are not?
I'm pretty sure that they were not included in the OT, as the Thessalonians would have had a copy of the OT, so that means it must be recorded in the other 26 books of the NT. And seeing as how this was the 2nd letter, it implies that not all the traditions they taught were in that letter either, so that narrows it down to 25.

As for whether or not those traditions are included in the remaining 25 books - well, you're the one asserting that they must be included in one of these books. Prove it. Show me where in the Bible it says that all of the apostle's oral teachings were written down and eventually included in the canon (which hadn't yet been formed at the time of writing)... If you can't support your argument from Scripture, then it's not true, right?
This argument seems rather circular and a well stuffed straw man. You know I cannot use one to prove the other.

The bottom line is, is the Bible sufficient? I believe it is; therefore, writings outside of the Bible are unnecessary to complete Christian doctrine.
My statement is neither a straw man nor a non sequitur
I didn't call it a non-sequitur. I called it a red herring, which it is. We're not talking about baptism here, and you brought it up, and I didn't want to pursue that argument here and now. I did call it a strawman, which I admit it is not quite, but the fallacy of strawman and the fallacy of the red herring are closely related anyway (see here (http://www.tektonics.org/fallacies.html#875)), so this is a grey one.
A red herring IS a non-sequitur; look it up. And my statement is neither a straw man nor a red herring (non-sequitur) no matter how hard you try to argue it is.
...because it can only be concluded from the available facts baptism is full body immersion.

Your argument concerning baptism, on the other hand, involves special pleading. I say “baptism is immersion because that was the meaning of the word in the first century Greek.” Your reply is “baptism is at the discretion of the person applying the “sacrament” because sufficient water for immersion is not always available.”
Strawman. My reply was: Yes, baptism is immersion because that was the meaning of the word in first century Greek. However, as Luke 11:38 ("But the Pharisee, noticing that Jesus did not first baptizo before the meal, was surprised.") proves, "immersion" did not always refer to the entire body. You cannot get the idea of "full body immersion" from the word "baptizo" alone. So long as something is immersed in water, it is acceptable to call it "baptism" by the Greek usage of the word. It is also clear from the Didache that early Christians believed this too.
I went over this before but it looks like I must do it again. Something not in the NT is the practices of the Jews concerning hygene laws and can be found in the OT.

Before eating the “kosher” Jew had to wash their hands in water before eating. They did not use forks, spoons, and knives to eat with as is common in the USA today, they used their hands.

Like I said before you must consider the whole Bible.

Let us look at the verses of interest:
(1) The Pharisees and some of the scribes who had come from Jerusalem gathered around Jesus. (2) They noticed that some of his disciples were eating with unclean hands, that is, without washing (G3538) them. (3) (For the Pharisees and indeed all the Jewish people don't eat unless they wash (G3538) their hands properly, following the tradition of their elders. (4) They don't eat anything from the marketplace unless they dip (G907) it in water. They also observe many other traditions, such as the washing (G909) of cups, jars, brass pots, and dinner tables.) (5) So the Pharisees and the scribes asked Jesus, "Why don't your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders? Instead, they eat with unclean hands."

and the corresponding verses in:

(1) Then some Pharisees and scribes came from Jerusalem to Jesus and said, (2) "Why do your disciples disregard the tradition of the elders? For they don't wash (G3538) their hands when they eat."

You are probably more used to the KJV of Mark 7:4 where the word used is wash instead of dip. The only word then of interest is in Mark 7:4, wash (dip) G907; correct? The sentence in v4 is “They don't eat anything from the marketplace unless they dip (G907) it in water.”

Funny, I see no problem because they baptized (immersed) what they were going to eat, usually in water, to make what they were eating clean before eating it.
I thought my point was obvious; Philip used a part of the whole Bible to support his teaching the eunuch about JC.
Let me rephrase then - I recognised your point, I just didn't see the relevance of it. I agree with you. I have never suggested that any part of the Bible was not useful for teaching. I have only disputed your apparent assertion that only the Bible is useful for this purpose.
Certainly, there are other sources we can use to help us understand the Bible better be it a Greek or Hebrew lexicon of OT/NT words, alternate translations, or discussions such as this. The assertion is, do we really need anything other than the Bible we now have? If the Bible we now have has all the instructions for salvation and worship (and I think it does) why do we need anything else?
1. The list of the 66 books that you are talking about must be somewhere in the Bible, or
2. The list of the 66 books is not needed. Which is the case?
I cannot respond to a false dichotomy.

Everything we need concerning salvation and worship is contained in the 66 “books” we call the Bible.
I wasn't asking you to respond to a false dichotomy. I was asking you to respond to a true dichotomy.

It is patently obvious that if everything concerning worship and salvation is found in the Bible, then it is pretty important to know exactly which books belong in the Bible and which books do not belong in the Bible. So in which book of the Bible do you find this list of books? Moreover, where does it say in the Bible that everything necessary for worship and salvation is found in the Bible?
I assume you would like to compile your own bible. What additional documents would you include?

Faith is a difficult thing to explain is it not? Atheists ask us all the time to prove God exists. We are always stuck in the discussion with a circular argument or “I believe what the Bible says” and “I believe because of faith.” These are the alternatives you leave me as well.

What is necessary for salvation? How are we to worship? This is what we are talking about, no? Try the words of JC from, Mark 16:16 and John 4:23-24.


When we were discussing the “second final authority” I was working off of your statement:

“In summary, I agree that Scripture is a final authority, but not the only final authority.”

In the absence of the divine revelation we take the Bible to be, I believe there have been no further “divine revelations” since the end of the first century.

I am in agreement with: “…our only disagreement is how God's authority is manifest in the world.”
To use your rebutal; in the absence of God in the flesh, JC, we can only rely on the agreed inspired word of God, the Bible.
Agreed upon by whom though, VFarris? That is the key question. Not everyone agrees that the Bible is the inspired word of God - some think that the Qu'ran is. And not all Christians agree on which books belong in the Bible.
Irenaeus was pretty confident of, as I recall, 19 of the 27 “accepted” NT writings and included them in the 50 Bibles he assembled for Constantine's churches.
Or perhaps you believe that the only history that is true is that which is recorded in the Bible, and anything that is not recorded in the Bible did not really happen?
Holy smoke screen Batman!! Talk about a straw man! You cannot misrepresent my position, refute it then believe you have refuted my actual position.
If you are claiming that this is a strawman, does this mean that you are admitting that not all true history is found in the Bible?
The lead-off question is rediculous. Of course I believe the history recorded in the Bible is true but not all history is recorded in the Bible.

History is not the issue.

Is everything I need to know to be saved and worship God contained in the Bible? Absolutely!

You admit the perferred method of baptism is full-body immersion, why should we do anything else? Because it is more convenient to pour water over someone’s head?

JC’s commandment is to be baptized (immersed) and I’m not going to be the one to violate the ultimate authority’s command. If you want to change the tittles and jots, be my guest.
Certainly, Martin Luther “founded” Lutheranism; this is a verifiable fact. On the other hand it is not a verifiable fact Peter founded the church in Antioch; this is an “urban legend.”
Please explain to me what the difference is that makes one of them an urban legend and the other a "verifiable fact".
The “facts” surrounding ML can be found somewhere other than in “church” history.
Yes. Nothing in history is ever certain.
Are you absolutely sure there are no absolutes?
If you were a prosecution lawyer do you believe you could get a murder conviction based on “pretty certain” and “most likely?”
Yes, actually. The principle that law courts work on "is beyond reasonable doubt" - not "with absolute certainty". It is beyond reasonable doubt that Peter and Paul were involved with the early Church at Rome.
Your standard of proof is obviously slightly lower than mine.

I have a reasonable doubt Peter was ever in Rome because information from church history is clouded with words like “most likely” and “pretty certain.” For me, this is “reasonable” doubt.
You need proof to convince me; so far you have presented none.
There doesn't seem to be any point giving you the historical evidence, because you have already made up your mind that whatever evidence I produce is unreliable. But anyway, from Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book III (http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-60.htm), chapter 3, v2:

...and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul...

What reason do you have to suspect that Irenaeus was mistaken about this? He was much closer to the events in both time and space than you are.
I am sure you are aware Irenaeus was the first to propose a NT canon. You seem prepared to accept his account of Peter but not his NT canon.

From my perspective this is akin to how RCs routinely accept the writings of the ECF in support of their argument and reject those opposed.

Either way, it is not important if Peter was in Rome or not. If you say he was, fine.

[Jezz]

Greetings Friends, We should both restrain ourselves, Christians do not fight; we discuss.
That's cool, I just wanted you to know that from my point of view, we were always discussing things, and if my words sounded like fighting, then you either misunderstood them or I intended them as a joke. :smile:

While I know we will never come to an agreement on all points of our discussion, it has been stimulating and informative.
Well, even if you think that we will never come to an agreement, I don't see that we shouldn't at least strive for that end. I want to know if my view is correct, and if it is not I want to know that too.

I should have limited the way you could respond the same as you did me.
Yes.

This is the question you asked me and how I was allowed to answer it:

If something is not found in the Bible, does that mean that it is not true? A simple yes or no please.

Now be realistic, how can anyone answer such an open question?
An "open question" is one that does not have a fixed set of options for the answer. Ironically, your complaint here seems to be that you did only have a restricted set of options from which to choose - ie, that it is a closed question.

In answer to your question: how can anyone answer such a question? Well, that's easy: either you answer it "yes", or "no". By your next statement, you obviously realise that the correct answer is "no", so I'm going to assume that that's your answer for now.

If I answer “yes” you might respond with “the speed of light being 299,792,458 m/s must not be true because it is not in the Bible;” if I answer “no” I make your argument by default.
In other words, as I said - you're worried about answering my question because you're afraid that it might prove me to be right, and demonstrate the flaw in your reasoning. This is what's known as an "appeal to consequences", and it is a fallacy.

You are not correct, btw - answering "no" (which is the correct answer) does not make my answer by default. It forces you to refine your argument so that it is more precise, a la:

As I more than adequately responded, everything we need to know concerning faith, salvation, and worship is in the collection of writings we call the Bible.
Ok, we're getting somewhere.

I have a new question for you: it would seem to me that your above statement depends on knowing exactly what the collection of writings is that form the Bible, right? That would seem to be a pretty important part of your process, isn't it? Yes or no? (Note: you're allowed to give reasons for your answer - but the answer must be "yes" or "no".)

Your question continues to be a false dichotomy because its premise fails to recognize that there are other possibilities about what is true. Certainly there are things not in the Bible we know to be true and they can be verified through observation, experimentation, and other records.
My question was not a false dichotomy, as there were no other possibilities. You acknowledged in your second sentence there that the answer to my question was "no" - not everything true is found in the Bible. We are making progress.

Yes, it is. How about if we state the question this way:

Is everything we need to know concerning faith, salvation, and worship is in the collection of writings we call the Bible?

I say, “yes.” How say you? Finish this before you respond.
No, I don't think the Bible is complete. That is my entire point. And in asking you the questions I'm asking, I'm trying to get you to see the inconsistency in your position (and I know it's there, because it's a position that I had until very recently).

The Bereans were making sure “those things were so” as I expect you to do.

I do not want or expect you to take my word for it.
I did search the Scriptures. I found that they did not say what you were claiming them to say. And now, I'm asking you to search the Scriptures to see if what I said is true.

Using the same reasoning, Peter did not say every true tradition would not be written down. You might say Peter said every true tradition had not been written down yet.
The society in which the NT was written and the Gospel was spread was predominantly an oral society - strange as it may seem to us, they considered oral communication more reliable than written. This makes it a-priori more likely that not all of the teachings would have been written down. Couple this with the fact that the Bible writers in various places give strong indications that not all of the traditions were written down in what was to form the NT, the burden of proof lies very firmly with you if you wish to assert otherwise.

Peter’s writing is not the youngest document included in the NT BTW.
It matters not. You're still begging the question when you try and define what Peter meant when he said "Scriptures". Note that this problem is compounded by the fact that the Greek word for "Scripture" was also a generic word for "writing".

I fail to see how my example of Purgatory is a straw man.
I thought it was a strawman because I did not believe Purgatory to be true. I see more clearly now the point you are trying to make though - you want to know how we know that Purgatory is not true. Answer below.

Purgatory is a “tradition” not found in the Bible espoused as truth. What makes Purgatory false and baptism by non-full-body immersion true?
What makes Purgatory false and baptism by non-full-body immersion true?

...if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

According to Paul, the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth - not the Bible. Purgatory is false because the Church said it was false. Non-full-body immersion is an acceptable form of baptism because the Church said it was.

Good for you, I too think the beliefs of the EO are closer to the truth than the RC.
Hah, so do I. I happen to think that the beliefs of the EO, in matters of doctrine and faith, are not merely "closer to the truth", but are the truth. Because as Paul himself said, the church is the pillar and ground of truth.

Purgatory was not ML’s idea and the “tradition” is fairly ancient.
The tradition is ancient, but equally ancient are those in the Church who disputed it (and still do to this day). That's how we know that it's false.

Btw, I did not say that ML invented the idea of purgatory. I said that ML invented the idea of sola scriptura - this is a false tradition that he introduced (like purgatory is a false tradition).

Here is where you are mistaken. Certainly, it is true Paul addressed two letters to the Thessalonians, however, nearly all of the letters of Peter, Paul, John, James, Jude, and the Gospels were copied and circulated throughout the various churches. This fact is not recorded anywhere in the NT, however, it is verifiable. How else would Peter (wherever he was) know of the contents of Paul’s letters?

Did the various recipients of the letters say, “Hey, we better keep this letter for posterity, I bet someone will want to include it in a testamony of JC some day.”
That was a strawman. I completely agree with the above (none of what you wrote was included in the Bible, btw...)

You originally said that 1 Thessalonians 5:21 proves that the Thessalonians were instructed to test everything against Scripture. I pointed out that the verse in question does not say what the Thessalonians were supposed to test everything against - specifically, it does not say that the Thessalonians were supposed to test everything against Scripture, as you asserted. In fact, the 2nd letter indicates that some of the Thessalonians' teaching was received orally - thus it is likely that they were supposed to test everything against the oral tradition in addition to the written (ie, Scriptural).

This argument seems rather circular and a well stuffed straw man. You know I cannot use one to prove the other.
Are you saying that nowhere in Scripture does it say that all the apostles' teachings were written down and included in the Bible?

The bottom line is, is the Bible sufficient? I believe it is; therefore, writings outside of the Bible are unnecessary to complete Christian doctrine.
I disagree, and I think that your position is naive. We all rely on writings outside the Bible to complete Christian doctrine. There can be no understanding without interpretation, and there can be no interpretation without context.

A red herring IS a non-sequitur; look it up.
I took your advice and looked it up (see here (http://www.ccsn.nevada.edu/english/lab/FALLACY.htm)):

Non sequitur: conclusion has no logical connection to evidence offered
Red herring: introducing a side issue or an irrelevant issue to divert attention from the real issue

It seems I was correct. But just to make sure, I checked out a second source (here (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html)):

Non sequitur: A non sequitur is an argument where the conclusion is drawn from premises which aren't logically connected with it.
Red herring: This fallacy is committed when someone introduces irrelevant material to the issue being discussed, so that everyone's attention is diverted away from the points made, towards a different conclusion.

It seems I was correct again. Perhaps you should have taken some of your own advice? :wink:

I will give you 5 pearls if you admit that you were wrong on this one, instead of simply glossing over your error.

And my statement is neither a straw man nor a red herring (non-sequitur) no matter how hard you try to argue it is.
I agree, now that I understand more properly what you were trying to argue. It was not a red herring. I've given my answer above.

I went over this before but it looks like I must do it again. Something not in the NT is the practices of the Jews concerning hygene laws and can be found in the OT.

Before eating the “kosher” Jew had to wash their hands in water before eating. They did not use forks, spoons, and knives to eat with as is common in the USA today, they used their hands.

Like I said before you must consider the whole Bible.
No disagreement so far. The word for "wash", of course, was baptizo, and thus it indicates that one could undergo a "baptism" without dipping the whole body in water - dipping part of the body could still be called "baptism".

Let us look at the verses of interest: [snip verses from Matthew and Mark]

Funny, I see no problem because they baptized (immersed) what they were going to eat, usually in water, to make what they were eating clean before eating it.
You do not know Greek or how the passive voice works, or you would not be making this argument. Rather than derail this post (which is already too long), I started a new thread (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=23938) to address this topic.

Certainly, there are other sources we can use to help us understand the Bible better be it a Greek or Hebrew lexicon of OT/NT words, alternate translations, or discussions such as this. The assertion is, do we really need anything other than the Bible we now have? If the Bible we now have has all the instructions for salvation and worship (and I think it does) why do we need anything else?
This is naive. These other sources are not merely useful to aiding understanding, they are essential for gaining proper understanding. If you don't use your Greek lexicon properly (witness the argument over "baptizo"), then you will not properly understand the Bible, and you will make mistakes in interpretation.

I figured this out some time ago - that "context" is not merely useful, but indispensible for correct interpetation. Then I realised that this is exactly what the EO and the RCC meant when they said "the Bible cannot be properly interpreted outside of Church Tradition". So I examined the claims of these two churches side-by-side, and came to the conclusion that it was the EO who had faithfully preserved that context (ie, the Tradition) for us.

I assume you would like to compile your own bible. What additional documents would you include?
I do not wish to compile my own Bible (the Protestants already did that when they took out a whole bunch of books!) I wish to place the Bible into the authoritative context in which it was written - the Tradition of the Church.

Faith is a difficult thing to explain is it not? Atheists ask us all the time to prove God exists. We are always stuck in the discussion with a circular argument or “I believe what the Bible says” and “I believe because of faith.” These are the alternatives you leave me as well.
Faith is difficult to explain sometimes, yes. But as a person who doggedly adheres to sola scriptura, you make it hard for yourself. But I do not leave you with only those two alternatives - I give you another: trust in that which Paul himself said was the pillar and ground of all truth. Trust in the Church.

What is necessary for salvation? How are we to worship? This is what we are talking about, no? Try the words of JC from, Mark 16:16 and John 4:23-24.
The Church is necessary for salvation. We are to worship as the Church tells us to worship. The meanings of Mark 16:16 and John 4:23-24 are incomplete without the explanation of the Church to tell you what the details mean.

In the absence of the divine revelation we take the Bible to be, I believe there have been no further “divine revelations” since the end of the first century.
Question: when the NT canon was formed - was that guided by divine revelation or not?

I am in agreement with: “…our only disagreement is how God's authority is manifest in the world.”
:thumb:

Irenaeus was pretty confident of, as I recall, 19 of the 27 “accepted” NT writings and included them in the 50 Bibles he assembled for Constantine's churches.
:lol: I don't think so. Irenaeus died over 100 years before Constantine became a Christian. Irenaeus did not make Bibles for Constantine.

I agree that Irenaeus started the formation of the NT canon, however - in response to Marcion and other heretics who tried to start their own canons.

The lead-off question is rediculous. Of course I believe the history recorded in the Bible is true but not all history is recorded in the Bible.
Then your demand for scriptural support to prove that Peter was involved with the early Church at Rome was a ridiculous demand, wasn't it?

History is not the issue.
History is precisely the issue. YHWH is a God who revealed Himself to His chosen people in history. We trust the Bible because we believe it is accurate history.

Is everything I need to know to be saved and worship God contained in the Bible? Absolutely!
See above. The Bible itself does not make this claim - and nor did the people who assembled it.

You admit the perferred method of baptism is full-body immersion, why should we do anything else? Because it is more convenient to pour water over someone’s head?
Yes, I admit that full immersion is preferred. But why should someone be prevented from being baptised just because there is not enough water around for them to be fully immersed?

JC’s commandment is to be baptized (immersed) and I’m not going to be the one to violate the ultimate authority’s command. If you want to change the tittles and jots, be my guest.
That begs the question of whether or not partial immersion (aka sprinkling) violates Jesus' command. The Greek does not seem to suggest that it does (see the other thread), and nor did the early Christians seem to think that it did. I do not think those who perform sprinkling are violating God's command.

The “facts” surrounding ML can be found somewhere other than in “church” history.
Why does history suddenly become unreliable because it is "church" history? That seems like arbitrary bias to me. It is actually a form of ad hominem attack.

Are you absolutely sure there are no absolutes?
Strawman. I am not a relativist. I am a critical realist. I believe that truth is absolute, but our window onto that truth is subjective.

Your standard of proof is obviously slightly lower than mine.
No, my standard of proof is consistent, whereas yours is biased. As we shall see later.

I have a reasonable doubt Peter was ever in Rome because information from church history is clouded with words like “most likely” and “pretty certain.” For me, this is “reasonable” doubt.
Nearly all historians - RCC, EO, Protestant, and secular - would disagree with you here. But hey, what would they know...

I am sure you are aware Irenaeus was the first to propose a NT canon. You seem prepared to accept his account of Peter but not his NT canon.
You've shot yourself in the foot here by constructing a strawman. I never claimed that I didn't accept Irenaeus' canon - that's my entire point! Because I trust Irenaeus enough to begin setting the canon for me, I also trust him when he says that the early church in Rome was organised by Peter and Paul. Especially as he is not the only ECF who makes this claim.

The question then becomes for you: if you trust Irenaeus when he talks about the formation of an early canon, then why don't you trust him when he says Peter and Paul organised the early church in Rome?

From my perspective this is akin to how RCs routinely accept the writings of the ECF in support of their argument and reject those opposed.
The delicious irony...

Why is it that you accept parts of Irenaeus that support your argument (eg, the NT canon) and reject those opposed (eg, the testimony of Peter and Paul being involved in the early church at Rome)?

Either way, it is not important if Peter was in Rome or not. If you say he was, fine.
If it's not important, then why are you so insistent that it's not true?

[Tobias Reiper]

That's all fine and well if the apostles were Catholic, but that has no bearing on those who follow Christ directly, who was Baptist. After all, if being baptised by a Catholic priest makes you Catholic, then wouldn't being baptised by a Baptist (in this case John the Baptist) make you Baptist?

[VFarris01]

That's all fine and well if the apostles were Catholic, but that has no bearing on those who follow Christ directly, who was Baptist. After all, if being baptised by a Catholic priest makes you Catholic, then wouldn't being baptised by a Baptist (in this case John the Baptist) make you Baptist?(11) My brothers, some members of Chloe's family have made it clear to me that there are quarrels among you. (12) This is what I mean: Each of you is saying, "I belong to Paul," or "I belong to Apollos," or "I belong to Cephas," or "I belong to Christ." (13) Has Christ been divided? Paul wasn't crucified for you, was he? You weren't baptized in Paul's name, were you? (14) I thank God that I did not baptize any of you except Chrispus and Gaius, (15) lest anyone can say that you were baptized in my name. (16) (Yes, I also baptized the family of Stephanus. Beyond that, I'm not sure whether I baptized anyone else.) (17) For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, not with eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

[Jude3b]

The church of God is the Body of Christ:

"And hath put all things under his (Christ's) feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all" (Eph. 1:22, 23).

The body of which Christ is the head is the church of God that he built; yea, "the church of God which he hath purchased with his own blood" (Acts 20:28). This is the only church taught in the New Testament. Check out the Bible, read it for yourself. Do not trust fallible sinful men to tell you the truth.

Romanism is not taught in the New Testament, except in prophecy of the apostasy that was to come. True Bible Christians like we find in the Apostolic church of God - were not Roman Catholics and there was not even a Roman Catholic church system until about 270 A.D.

The apostles were not Roman Catholics. They were Christians who believed on Jesus Christ. The Roman Catholic Cult did not even exist at the time of the Apostles.

[D.R.R.]

The apostles were not Roman Catholics. They were Christians who believed on Jesus Christ. The Roman Catholic Cult did not even exist at the time of the Apostles.

What about info. on the Didache in my first post? (Or am I just engaging in futility again?)

[Tobias Reiper]

(11) My brothers, some members of Chloe's family have made it clear to me that there are quarrels among you. (12) This is what I mean: Each of you is saying, "I belong to Paul," or "I belong to Apollos," or "I belong to Cephas," or "I belong to Christ." (13) Has Christ been divided? Paul wasn't crucified for you, was he? You weren't baptized in Paul's name, were you? (14) I thank God that I did not baptize any of you except Chrispus and Gaius, (15) lest anyone can say that you were baptized in my name. (16) (Yes, I also baptized the family of Stephanus. Beyond that, I'm not sure whether I baptized anyone else.) (17) For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, not with eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.



The part about Jesus being Baptist was thrown in there to show how absurd these discussions can get, but your passage made my point exactly.

I don't care if the apostles were Catholic. That has no bearing on me. I do not follow Peter, Paul, Thomas, or anyone else. I follow Jesus.

The apostles could have gone loony after the crucifixion and started believing that the gate to Heaven was hidden in the innards of a mummified possum for all I care. I don't follow them.

[VFarris01]

While I know we will never come to an agreement on all points of our discussion, it has been stimulating and informative.
Well, even if you think that we will never come to an agreement, I don't see that we shouldn't at least strive for that end. I want to know if my view is correct, and if it is not I want to know that too.
It would be nice to reach total agreement, yet, I am sure we will reach some agreement, as we already have.
This is the question you asked me and how I was allowed to answer it:

If something is not found in the Bible, does that mean that it is not true? A simple yes or no please.

Now be realistic, how can anyone answer such an open question?
An "open question" is one that does not have a fixed set of options for the answer. Ironically, your complaint here seems to be that you did only have a restricted set of options from which to choose - ie, that it is a closed question.

In answer to your question: how can anyone answer such a question? Well, that's easy: either you answer it "yes", or "no". By your next statement, you obviously realise that the correct answer is "no", so I'm going to assume that that's your answer for now.
Stop that! Pay attention to my “.” I know the question had a “fixed” choice of answers. I am saying the question cannot be answered by “yes” or “no” just as the questions I posed cannot be answered “yes” or “no.”
If I answer “yes” you might respond with “the speed of light being 299,792,458 m/s must not be true because it is not in the Bible;” if I answer “no” I make your argument by default.
In other words, as I said - you're worried about answering my question because you're afraid that it might prove me to be right, and demonstrate the flaw in your reasoning. This is what's known as an "appeal to consequences", and it is a fallacy.

You are not correct, btw - answering "no" (which is the correct answer) does not make my answer by default. It forces you to refine your argument so that it is more precise, a la:more than adequately [/i]responded, everything we need to know concerning faith, salvation, and worship is in the collection of writings we call the Bible.
I was never worried about answering you question, it just cannot be answered “yes” or “no.” The question is still a false dichotomy (false delemma) because to ask, “If something is not found in the Bible, does that mean that it is not true? Yes or no; “yes” is incorrect because many true things are not found in the Bible and “no” is incorrect because I believe “everything we need to know concerning faith, salvation, and worship is in the collection of writings we call the Bible.” Call faith a relativist fallacy if you like but it does not apply only to me.
It would seem to me that “everything we need to know concerning faith, salvation, and worship is in the collection of writings we call the Bible” depends on knowing exactly what the collection of writings is that form the Bible, right? That would seem to be a pretty important part of your process, isn't it? Yes or no? (Note: you're allowed to give reasons for your answer - but the answer must be "yes" or "no".)
I am going to answer “yes” to this question because I believe, based on faith, the Bible contains everything I need to know concerning salvation and worship. Again, this is a relativist fallacy but because you feel the Bible does not contain everything you need to know is not my problem.
My question was not a false dichotomy, as there were no other possibilities. You acknowledged in your second sentence there that the answer to my question was "no" - not everything true is found in the Bible. We are making progress.
Yes it WAS! As your friend Mr. Spock likes to point out, there are always possibilities (more possibilities than simply yes or no).
No, I don't think the Bible is complete. That is my entire point. And in asking you the questions I'm asking, I'm trying to get you to see the inconsistency in your position (and I know it's there, because it's a position that I had until very recently).
That is your perogative. Again, the concept of faith comes to mind.

Trick question: Do you believe in God? Why? You can only answer “yes” or “no” to each question.
I did search the Scriptures. I found that they did not say what you were claiming them to say. And now, I'm asking you to search the Scriptures to see if what I said is true.
The Bible cannot confirm itself. Jesus could not bear witness to Himself. John the Baptist said:
(7) He came as a witness to testify about the light, so that all might believe through him. (8) He was not the light, but he came to testify about the light.
And Jesus said:
(31) "If I testify about myself, my testimony is not true. (32) There is another who testifies about me, and I know that the testimony he gives about me is true. (33) You have sent messengers to John, and he has testified to the truth. (34) I myself do not accept human testimony, but I am saying these things so that you may be saved. (35) That man was a lamp that burns and brightly shines, and for a while you were willing to rejoice in his light. (36) But I have a greater testimony than John's, for the works that the Father has given me to complete, the very works that I am doing, testify on my behalf that the Father has sent me. (37) Moreover, the Father who sent me has himself testified on my behalf. You have never heard his voice or seen his appearance, (38) nor do you have his word abiding in you, because you do not believe in the one whom he sent. (39) You examine the Scriptures carefully because you suppose that in them you have eternal life. Yet they testify about me. (40) But you are not willing to come to me to have life. (41) "I do not accept human praise. (42) I know that you do not have the love of God in you. (43) I have come in my Father's name, and you do not accept me. Yet if another man comes in his own name, you will accept him. (44) How can you believe when you accept each other's praise and do not look for the praise that comes from the only God? (45) Do not suppose that I will be the one to accuse you before the Father. Your accuser is Moses, on whom you have set your hope. (46) For if you believed Moses, you would believe me, for it was about me that he wrote. (47) But if you do not believe what he wrote, how will you believe my words?
The society in which the NT was written and the Gospel was spread was predominantly an oral society - strange as it may seem to us, they considered oral communication more reliable than written. This makes it a-priori more likely that not all of the teachings would have been written down. Couple this with the fact that the Bible writers in various places give strong indications that not all of the traditions were written down in what was to form the NT, the burden of proof lies very firmly with you if you wish to assert otherwise.
You cannot shift all of the burden of proof on me. You must accept your part and prove your position as well. You are still unwilling (or unable) to provide proof these “oral traditions” are valid.
Peter’s writing is not the youngest document included in the NT BTW.
It matters not. You're still begging the question when you try and define what Peter meant when he said "Scriptures". Note that this problem is compounded by the fact that the Greek word for "Scripture" was also a generic word for "writing".
Are you not paying attention? I noted without reservation “scripture(s)” as used in the NT refers to the OT. I believe the NT “scripture(s)” are as equally “God-breathed” as the OT “scripture(s).” It is a matter of FAITH.
Purgatory is a “tradition” not found in the Bible espoused as truth. What makes Purgatory false and baptism by non-full-body immersion true?

What makes Purgatory false and baptism by non-full-body immersion true?
According to Paul, the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth - not the Bible. Purgatory is false because the Church said it was false. Non-full-body immersion is an acceptable form of baptism because the Church said it was.
...in case I am delayed so that you may know how one is to behave in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.
The Church is indeed the pillar and foundation (ground) of the truth; that is the Church is the base and support (an immovable institution) for the Word of God.

Paul did not say the Church is the interpreter and arbitrator of God’s Word; the only entity I know who did was the "church."

The Church cannot, on its own accord or for convenience, change the “God-breathed” (2 Timothy 3:16) Word of God; to do so is to make the Church the “ultimate authority” and not God.

This is the reason Purgatory is a false doctrine.
You originally said that 1 Thessalonians 5:21 proves that the Thessalonians were instructed to test everything against Scripture. I pointed out that the verse in question does not say what the Thessalonians were supposed to test everything against - specifically, it does not say that the Thessalonians were supposed to test everything against Scripture, as you asserted. In fact, the 2nd letter indicates that some of the Thessalonians' teaching was received orally - thus it is likely that they were supposed to test everything against the oral tradition in addition to the written (ie, Scriptural).
Can you do me a favor and say “what” again? I do not recall saying “the Thessalonians were supposed to test everything against Scripture.” If so, that is not what I meant (I do not have the time to check, but you may). I would more likely have said the Thessalonians were instructed to test everything they were taught against Scripture the way the Bereans did (Why would they want or need to test the quality of a piece of cloth against scripture?).
Are you saying that nowhere in Scripture does it say that all the apostles' teachings were written down and included in the Bible?
Yes, so? Nowhere in the Scriptures does it say all the apostles’ teaching were not written down and included in the Bible. You say they were not; I say they were. Neither position can be definitively proven.
The bottom line is, is the Bible sufficient? I believe it is; therefore, writings outside of the Bible are unnecessary to complete Christian doctrine.
I disagree, and I think that your position is naive. We all rely on writings outside the Bible to complete Christian doctrine. There can be no understanding without interpretation, and there can be no interpretation without context.
I think you are at least equally naïve. I have been over this before in other places but I will go over it again. Problems are routinely encountered when translating from a first language into a second language or third language. Typically, as in most languages, problems occur in the translation from Hebrew (or Aramaic) to Greek, Hebrew to English, and Greek to English. We need help in proper translation; why is there a problem with doing this.

The Church is set up as the pillar and foundation (ground) of the truth; that is the Church is the base and support (an immovable institution) for the Word of God.

Paul did not say the Church is the interpreter and arbitrator of God’s Word; the only entity I know who did was the "church."

The Church cannot, on its own accord or for convenience, change the “God-breathed” (2 Timothy 3:16) Word of God; to do so is to make the Church the “ultimate authority” and not God.
I will give you 5 pearls if you admit that you were wrong on this one, instead of simply glossing over your error.
Look deeper. A red herring is a form of non-sequitur; but do not take my word for it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy). Sucks to know you are wrong, does it not? Over time you will learn you are wrong on many things. I do not want the pearls; so do not bother.
I do not wish to compile my own Bible (the Protestants already did that when they took out a whole bunch of books!) I wish to place the Bible into the authoritative context in which it was written - the Tradition of the Church.
So, are you saying the Bible contains the “Traditions of the Chruch?”
I give you another: trust in that which Paul himself said was the pillar and ground of all truth. Trust in the Church.
I think Paul would disagree. Paul put his trust somewhere else:
(11) For the sake of this gospel I was appointed to be a preacher, an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles. (12) That is why I suffer as I do. However, I am not ashamed, for I know the one in whom I have put my trust, and I'm convinced that He is able to protect what He has entrusted to me until that day.
The Church is necessary for salvation. We are to worship as the Church tells us to worship. The meanings of Mark 16:16 and John 4:23-24 are incomplete without the explanation of the Church to tell you what the details mean.
You need the Church to tell you what to believe? Why? Can you talk like Forrest Gump becaue you must not be a very smart man?
Question: when the NT canon was formed - was that guided by divine revelation or not?
This is another question of faith. I do not believe the Bible was assembled by those who put it together by devine revelation; I believe God guided those who assembled the Bible without their knowledge. There is a difference.
Irenaeus died over 100 years before Constantine became a Christian. Irenaeus did not make Bibles for Constantine.

I agree that Irenaeus started the formation of the NT canon, however - in response to Marcion and other heretics who tried to start their own canons.
I was working off of memory here, I am not infallible.
Then your demand for scriptural support to prove that Peter was involved with the early Church at Rome was a ridiculous demand, wasn't it?
I do not remember demanding Scriptural proof of Peter ever being in Rome. I do remember saying it cannot be proven from the Scriptures Peter was ever in Rome.
Yes, I admit that full immersion is preferred. But why should someone be prevented from being baptised just because there is not enough water around for them to be fully immersed?
How important do you believe baptism to be? Is it vital? Ie, can one not be saved without it?
JC’s commandment is to be baptized (immersed) and I’m not going to be the one to violate the ultimate authority’s command. If you want to change the tittles and jots, be my guest.
That begs the question of whether or not partial immersion (aka sprinkling) violates Jesus' command. The Greek does not seem to suggest that it does (see the other thread), and nor did the early Christians seem to think that it did. I do not think those who perform sprinkling are violating God's command.
It begs no question at all. You admit full immersion is the perferred method and the original meaning of G907 in the first century. Which is it?
Why does history suddenly become unreliable because it is "church" history? That seems like arbitrary bias to me. It is actually a form of ad hominem attack.
Actually, it might be closer to poisioning the well, which too is an ad hominem. There are times, if you consider the background of the RCC, when “church” history is unrelaible because the “church” wishes to preserve its “traditions” rather than admit a mistake; consider Purgatory.
Are you absolutely sure there are no absolutes?
I am not a relativist. I am a critical realist. I believe that truth is absolute, but our window onto that truth is subjective.
Then my relativist fallacy must be Ok then.
Your standard of proof is obviously slightly lower than mine.
No, my standard of proof is consistent, whereas yours is biased.
Are you related to Mary Poppins? P.P.I.E.W.
I have a reasonable doubt Peter was ever in Rome because information from church history is clouded with words like “most likely” and “pretty certain.” For me, this is “reasonable” doubt.
Nearly all historians - RCC, EO, Protestant, and secular - would disagree with you here. But hey, what would they know...
“Nearly all;” does this means there are some who disagree? Might this be an appeal to popularity; most scholars believe Peter helped organize the church in Rome, therefore Peter must have been in Rome.
The question then becomes for you: if you trust Irenaeus when he talks about the formation of an early canon, then why don't you trust him when he says Peter and Paul organised the early church in Rome?
I never said I trusted Irenaeus either way. He was not the only person to suggest a NT Canon. I trust that God guided those who eventually did assemble the Canon as I said before.
Either way, it is not important if Peter was in Rome or not. If you say he was, fine.
If it's not important, then why are you so insistent that it's not true?
Why are you so insistent on misquoting me? I did not say Peter was never in Rome, I said it cannot be proven Peter was ever in Rome.

[Jezz]

It would be nice to reach total agreement, yet, I am sure we will reach some agreement, as we already have.
:thumb:

I was never worried about answering you question, it just cannot be answered “yes” or “no.” The question is still a false dichotomy (false delemma) because to ask, “If something is not found in the Bible, does that mean that it is not true? Yes or no; “yes” is incorrect because many true things are not found in the Bible and “no” is incorrect because I believe “everything we need to know concerning faith, salvation, and worship is in the collection of writings we call the Bible.”
Your second statement implies that "no" is the correct answer to my question. Your refined claim does not change the fact that the answer to the original question is "no" - just like my answer to your question "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" is also "no".

It remains a fact that my question was not an open question, btw.

Call faith a relativist fallacy if you like but it does not apply only to me.
Faith as you are defining it is a relativist fallacy.

The problem with your view of Christianity, though, is not just that it is a relativist fallacy, but that it is internally inconsistent. You are insistent that everything essential to Christianity is found the Bible. Clearly, you believe that the Bible is essential to Christianity. Yet the Bible itself does not define the Biblical canon (and even if it did

It is a matter of historical fact that it was the Church - that pillar and ground of truth, as Paul called it - decided upon the Biblical canon. It was by the authority of the Church that the NT which we have today was recognised as Scripture. If you believe that the Church had the authority to determine what Scripture is, then why do you not believe that they have the authority to determine how it is to be interpreted?

I am going to answer “yes” to this question because I believe, based on faith, the Bible contains everything I need to know concerning salvation and worship. Again, this is a relativist fallacy but because you feel the Bible does not contain everything you need to know is not my problem.
In other words, you realise that your position is fallacious but all you're going to do about it is shrug your shoulders and ignore the problem...

Here's how to "break the circle" of your begged question of Biblical authority:

1. Jesus had authority from God.
2. Jesus gave authority to the apostles (inc. Paul).
3. Paul declared that the Church was the pillar and ground of truth.
4. This same Church declared that the Bible was the inspired Word of God.

But this argument, if you are to be consistent, also requires that you accept the Church's authority in other matters of faith - eg, in formulating the Nicene Creed, and in separating true tradition from false tradition.

Yes it WAS! As your friend Mr. Spock likes to point out, there are always possibilities (more possibilities than simply yes or no).
This is false. A closed question has only a fixed set of possibilities. A question framed such that there is only a yes/no answer has only "yes/no" as possible answers.

That is your perogative. Again, the concept of faith comes to mind.
This reminds me of the Muslim with their blind faith in the Qu'ran, or the atheist with their blind faith in "On the Origin of the Species". You'll excuse me if I do not feel comfortable accepting my faith so blindly. My standards must be higher than yours. :wink:

If you can't progress your argument any further than "I just have faith", then there is no point continuing this argument. If your belief is not based on reason, there's no sense trying to reason with you.

Trick question: Do you believe in God? Why? You can only answer “yes” or “no” to each question.
1. Yes. 2. This is an open question, and cannot be answered "yes or no". This is a strawman, though, because the dichotomies I asked you were not open questions.

The Bible cannot confirm itself. Jesus could not bear witness to Himself. John the Baptist said:(7) He came as a witness to testify about the light, so that all might believe through him. (8) He was not the light, but he came to testify about the light.
And Jesus said: [snip]
I'm glad you realise that the Bible cannot confirm itself. So what confirms it then? Answer: the Church confirms it. And what confirms the Church? Paul. Who confirmed Paul? The other apostles. Who confirmed the apostles? Jesus. Who confirmed Jesus? God (in His resurrection).

You cannot shift all of the burden of proof on me. You must accept your part and prove your position as well. You are still unwilling (or unable) to provide proof these “oral traditions” are valid.
I have met my burden of proof. I have provided several arguments to show that it was likely that all the traditions weren't written down. Let me recap:

1. It was an oral society. They preferred oral communication to written. They didn't tend to write everything down.
2. Compounding the above: writing was expensive.
3. Compounding the above: literacy rates were low.
4. Paul gives several indications that his audiences had been taught the faith orally and not through Scripture, and that the oral teaching was considered just as authoritative as the written. An example is 2 Thessalonians 2:15
5. In John's gospel, they explicitly say that Jesus said and did much more than could have ever been written down.

So far, the extent of your rebuttal is: "Ah, but they might have all been written down." That is special pleading.

Are you not paying attention? I noted without reservation “scripture(s)” as used in the NT refers to the OT.
No, I did not see where you noted that. However, I feel that I have been paying you close attention - please point out where you said it.

I believe the NT “scripture(s)” are as equally “God-breathed” as the OT “scripture(s).” It is a matter of FAITH.
Why do you not consider the Qu'ran as equally "God-breathed"? Why not have the same kind of blind FAITH in the Qu'ran?

If you're content for your faith to be that blind, then I guess there's not much that I can do. I, on the other hand, will continue to believe that the NT is God-breathed, because the Church deemed it to be so.

...in case I am delayed so that you may know how one is to behave in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

The Church is indeed the pillar and foundation (ground) of the truth; that is the Church is the base and support (an immovable institution) for the Word of God.
Glad to get that much of an admission from you. Note that Paul never says that "Scripture is the pillar and ground of all truth." Thus, my opinion that the Church is our sole authority for salvation has better Biblical support than your opinion that the Bible is our sole authority for salvation.

Paul did not say the Church is the interpreter and arbitrator of God’s Word; the only entity I know who did was the "church."
Precisely. The Church said that the Church was the interpreter and arbitrator of God's Word. Now tell me, is this teaching of the Church true or not? And if not, then can you explain how the "pillar and ground of truth" could teach something untrue?

Note also that Paul did not say that VFarris is the interpreter and arbitrator of God's Word either; the only entity I know who did was "VFarris"...

The Church cannot, on its own accord or for convenience, change the “God-breathed” (2 Timothy 3:16) Word of God; to do so is to make the Church the “ultimate authority” and not God.
The Church does not change Scripture (remembering that by "Church", I mean the Orthodox). It merely interprets it. Just like you do. Except the Church's interpretation is correct, and yours is not.

The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church (of which the Orthodox Church is the visible face) our ultimate authority, because it alone is the instrument that God chose to be the pillar and ground of truth, and through which He would exercise His authority and bring His Truth to the world. What better arbiter of the Truth could there be, than the pillar and ground of truth?

This is the reason Purgatory is a false doctrine.
No, the reason Purgatory is a false doctrine is because it is a doctrine that has never been accepted by the Orthodox Church.

Can you do me a favor and say “what” again?
"what".

I do not recall saying “the Thessalonians were supposed to test everything against Scripture.” If so, that is not what I meant (I do not have the time to check, but you may). I would more likely have said the Thessalonians were instructed to test everything they were taught against Scripture the way the Bereans did (Why would they want or need to test the quality of a piece of cloth against scripture?).
You've made a distinction without essential difference. The fact is the Thessalonians were taught to test everything (that they were taught) in 1 Thessalonians 5:21, but it does not say in that verse what they were supposed to test against. You inserted the idea that they were supposed to test everything that they were taught against Scripture. In 2 Thessalonians 3:15, Paul makes it clear that they were supposed to test everything that they were taught against the tradition that they had received - whether that tradition was oral or written.

Yes, so? Nowhere in the Scriptures does it say all the apostles’ teaching were not written down and included in the Bible. You say they were not; I say they were. Neither position can be definitively proven.
I already did provide good evidence above to prove that not all of the apostles' teachings were written down. If you don't like the conclusion, you need to provide me with counter-evidence or a counter-argument, rather than wishful thinking or argument by assertion.

I think you are at least equally naïve. I have been over this before in other places but I will go over it again. Problems are routinely encountered when translating from a first language into a second language or third language. Typically, as in most languages, problems occur in the translation from Hebrew (or Aramaic) to Greek, Hebrew to English, and Greek to English. We need help in proper translation; why is there a problem with doing this.
There is no problem in doing this. It is essential. That is my entire point. You cannot interpret the Bible without external references. If you cannot interpret the Bible, you cannot understand it. You cannot be saved by the Bible if you don't understand it. And therefore, the Bible does not contain everything that is necessary for salvation. Q.E.D.

The Church is set up as the pillar and foundation (ground) of the truth; that is the Church is the base and support (an immovable institution) for the Word of God.

Paul did not say the Church is the interpreter and arbitrator of God’s Word; the only entity I know who did was the "church."

The Church cannot, on its own accord or for convenience, change the “God-breathed” (2 Timothy 3:16) Word of God; to do so is to make the Church the “ultimate authority” and not God.[/quote]
This is a cut and paste from above. See above for my response, rather than have me reproduce it here.

Look deeper. A red herring is a form of non-sequitur; but do not take my word for it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy).
:lol: When you say "look deeper", you mean "ignore the plurality of sources that you quoted that disagree with me, and look at the one source that agrees with me".

Look again. The Wikipedia page on logical fallacies has been corrected to match the other two sources that I quoted.

A non-sequitur is simply when the conclusion does not logically follow (ie is not "in sequence") from the premise.

A red-herring is when a conclusion is arrived at which is not the conclusion that was originally intended to be proven. For example, suppose I start from the axioms of number theory with the goal of proving that there are an infinite number of even numbers. Suppose that instead I prove (using flawless, sequential logic) that there are an infinite number of odd numbers. In this case, I have committed a red herring - even though (as my reasoning was flawless and sequential) I committed no non-sequiturs, I arrived at a conclusion other than the one that I set out to prove. Thus, a red herring need not be a non-sequitur. QED.

Sucks to know you are wrong, does it not? Over time you will learn you are wrong on many things. I do not want the pearls; so do not bother.
:lol: No, I love to find out when I am wrong, because when I do it means I am getting closer to the truth. And I love the Truth with all my heart, mind, and soul (Jesus said "I am the way, the truth and the life..."). I will gladly admit when I am wrong, and have done many times in the past (I'll give you links if you want). My pearl offer will stand - and if you can prove me wrong instead then I will still give you the pearls.

So, are you saying the Bible contains the “Traditions of the Chruch?”
No, I am saying that the Traditions of the Church contains the Bible as its preeminent (but not sole) source of Tradition.

I think Paul would disagree. Paul put his trust somewhere else:
(11) For the sake of this gospel I was appointed to be a preacher, an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles. (12) That is why I suffer as I do. However, I am not ashamed, for I know the one in whom I have put my trust, and I'm convinced that He is able to protect what He has entrusted to me until that day.

[quote]You need the Church to tell you what to believe? Why? Can you talk like Forrest Gump becaue you must not be a very smart man?
I happen to believe that I am extremely smart person. However, despite that, I am not so arrogant to think that I am smarter or more "in tune" with God than the sum total of the generations of members of the Church who have gone before me. I have only one lifetime and one mind with which to figure out everything that there is to know about God and Christianity - the Orthodox Church has had two millenium and millions of minds. That is why I need the Church - why reinvent the wheel? It's the smart thing to do, but it takes humility. If one lacks humility, they can make very stupid mistakes to bolster their own pride - generally, the smarter they think they are, the greater the pride, and the greater the stupidity of their mistakes...

I can equally turn this around on you: You think you know God better than the Church - whose decisions were arrived at as the consensus of millions of Godly people throughout the ages, many of whom were far smarter than either of us will ever hope to be? Why? Are you that arrogant?

This is another question of faith. I do not believe the Bible was assembled by those who put it together by devine revelation; I believe God guided those who assembled the Bible without their knowledge. There is a difference.
Either way, you recognise the process of the formation of the Bible as one that was guided by God so that it got the outcome He wanted. Now, surely you realise that the Church was the earthly institution that formed the Bible, so what you are saying is that the Church was the earthly institution that God guided and used to form the Biblical canon.

If God guided the Church to make this decision, then for what reason would you believe that He didn't guide the Church when it made their other decisions? You just "have faith" that He didn't?

I was working off of memory here, I am not infallible.
If you're not infallible, then what business do you have trying to interpret the infallible word of God?

I do not remember demanding Scriptural proof of Peter ever being in Rome. I do remember saying it cannot be proven from the Scriptures Peter was ever in Rome.
You said way back in this post (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=23375&page=3&pp=16#post508046) that: "the Apostles were not associated or part of the Roman Catholic Church." I claimed in this post (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=23375&page=4#post508169) that Paul and Peter were. In response, you said:

Peter never founded a church in Rome… oh, right, the Bible does not say he did not so we (the RCC) through “tradition” can say he did.

It cannot be proven from the Bible Peter was ever in Rome… oh, right, the Bible does not say he was never in Rome so we (the RCC) through “tradition” can say he was.
I'm sorry if I misunderstood, but your sarcasm there seemed to imply that you would not believe that Peter had been involved with the church in Rome unless it could be proven from Scripture.

The fact is that the historical evidence placing Peter in Rome very early on is probably just as good as the historical evidence for the NT canon, and definitely just as good as the evidence for the authorship of (eg) the Gospels. Why would you believe one part of history but not the other?

How important do you believe baptism to be? Is it vital? Ie, can one not be saved without it?
Whether or not one can be saved without it depends. The thief on the cross was saved without it. It is up to the mercy of God.

It begs no question at all. You admit full immersion is the perferred method and the original meaning of G907 in the first century. Which is it?
I admit that full immersion is the preferred method. But I do not admit that the original meaning of G907 is "full immersion", as in the entire body. As we have established in the other thread (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=23938), the meaning was indeed "immersion", but not necessarily of the entire body.

I'd rather not waste time in this thread with further distractions about baptism. Please start a new thread on it if you wish to discuss it in more detail.

Actually, it might be closer to poisioning the well, which too is an ad hominem. There are times, if you consider the background of the RCC, when “church” history is unrelaible because the “church” wishes to preserve its “traditions” rather than admit a mistake; consider Purgatory.
Strawman and guilt by association. I do not believe that the RCC is the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. I believe that it was a part of the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church for many centuries, but it started to became apostate after the 7th ecumenical council when it started to introduce new traditions (eg, Purgatory, papal supremacy, the filioque, etc). This gradually developed into full schism.

Are you related to Mary Poppins? P.P.I.E.W.
Supercalafregalisticexpialadocious... the word that you say when you don't know what to say... :huh:

“Nearly all;” does this means there are some who disagree? Might this be an appeal to popularity; most scholars believe Peter helped organize the church in Rome, therefore Peter must have been in Rome.
Yes, this means that there are some who disagree. There are some who think that Jesus never existed, too, so merely pointing out that some disagree does not overturn the consensus.

No, this is not an appeal to popularity fallacy - it is a legitimate appeal to authoritative consensus. If you want to overturn scholarly consensus, you need to do better than "I'm not convinced".

I never said I trusted Irenaeus either way. He was not the only person to suggest a NT Canon. I trust that God guided those who eventually did assemble the Canon as I said before.
Irenaeus was not the only person to suggest that Peter and Paul were in Rome either. But I can see how you work - you trust that God guided those decisions which you have a-priori decided (by "faith", as you put it) were correct decision. Funny - are you aware that the early Church included the OT apocrypha when they decided on the canon of Scripture? What gave the Protestants the authority to remove it?

Why are you so insistent on misquoting me? I did not say Peter was never in Rome, I said it cannot be proven Peter was ever in Rome.
I misunderstood what you meant when you said "the apostles were not involved with the RCC". I took that to mean that they were not associated with the Roman church at all. I have since realised that you think the Roman Church and the RCC are two different churches - which in fact they are not. Like it or not, the RCC has historical continuity with the Roman Church of the first century - where both Peter and Paul were involved with its early founding.

[romepunk]

The part about Jesus being Baptist was thrown in there to show how absurd these discussions can get, but your passage made my point exactly.

I don't care if the apostles were Catholic. That has no bearing on me. I do not follow Peter, Paul, Thomas, or anyone else. I follow Jesus.

The apostles could have gone loony after the crucifixion and started believing that the gate to Heaven was hidden in the innards of a mummified possum for all I care. I don't follow them.
This is quite irrational. The Bible didn't fall out of the sky on Pentecost. It was written by the Apostles (most of it anyway.) Jesus commissioned his followers to spread the Gospel. If you can't trust them, then you can't trust anything we "know" about Jesus. Yes, you follow Jesus. As do I. But we follow Jesus as he is preached by Peter and Paul. So the question of whether Peter and Paul were Catholic, Baptist, Presbyterian or Unitarian is an extremely important one.

[jason]

What about info. on the Didache in my first post? (Or am I just engaging in futility again?)What did you think was particulary relevant about it ?

Jason

[VFarris01]

I love the Truth with all my heartYou are a clever liar.

The rest of your post is BS too.

Forgive me if I fail to respond to any more of your posts in this thread.:eek:

[D.R.R.]

What did you think was particulary relevant about it ?

Jason

That it proved the Apostles were Catholics.

[jason]

That it proved the Apostles were Catholics.How do you think it does that ? I had a read of it and don't think it proves that.

Jason

[D.R.R.]

How do you think it does that ? I had a read of it and don't think it proves that.

Jason

The Eucharist ain't Catholic?

[Jezz]

The Eucharist ain't Catholic?
The Eucharist is Catholic. It is also Orthodox. Likewise, the Apostles were also Catholic and Orthodox, as were the ECFs. I agree with you there.

However, since the schism between East and West, the RCC has been neither Catholic nor Orthodox. The Apostles were not members of the apostate church that you are defending today, which ceased to be part of the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church when it split from the other churches ~1000 AD.

[Jezz]

You are a clever liar.
If you're going to call me a liar, you will need to provide proof of me lying. Otherwise, you need to retract that statement. Not that it particularly bothers me that you think I'm a liar, but it is part of our campus decorum that we do not allowed to lay such strong accusations against other people without proof. I'm sure you understand why we can't allow these things to go unchecked.

If you don't either back up your allegation or retract it, you might find yourself the subject of moderator attention.

The rest of your post is BS too.
Gee, well I guess you sure showed me... :lol:

Whatever happened to wanting to be nice to each other? :shrug:

Forgive me if I fail to respond to any more of your posts in this thread.:eek:
You're forgiven... don't worry about that. I'm a very forgiving person.

[jason]

The Eucharist ain't Catholic?The problem is that it doesn't prove what you want it to prove.

All you have here is a very early christian document using the word Eucharist, and a present day RC practice called the Eucharist.

You have to do more than point to this and then claim that one is equal to the other.

I read the didache again about a week ago, and their is instructions for what is to be done during the eucharist and AFAIK the RC practice today is not the same as that.

Your going to have to demonstrate that one is equivalent to the other to get any mileage out of this as a claim.

You might be able to, but the bald claim is not going to be enough.

Lets have a look at the relevant section of the didache

Chapter 9. The Eucharist.

Now concerning the Eucharist, give thanks this way. First, concerning the cup:
We thank thee, our Father, for the holy vine of David Thy servant, which You madest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever..

And concerning the broken bread:
We thank Thee, our Father, for the life and knowledge which You madest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever. Even as this broken bread was scattered over the hills, and was gathered together and became one, so let Thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Thy kingdom; for Thine is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever..



But let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist, unless they have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord has said, "Give not that which is holy to the dogs."



Chapter 10. Prayer after Communion.



But after you are filled, give thanks this way: We thank Thee, holy Father, for Thy holy name which You didst cause to tabernacle in our hearts, and for the knowledge and faith and immortality, which You modest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever. Thou, Master almighty, didst create all things for Thy name's sake; You gavest food and drink to men for enjoyment, that they might give thanks to Thee; but to us You didst freely give spiritual food and drink and life eternal through Thy Servant. Before all things we thank Thee that You are mighty; to Thee be the glory for ever. Remember, Lord, Thy Church, to deliver it from all evil and to make it perfect in Thy love, and gather it from the four winds, sanctified for Thy kingdom which Thou have prepared for it; for Thine is the power and the glory for ever. Let grace come, and let this world pass away. Hosanna to the God (Son) of David! If any one is holy, let him come; if any one is not so, let him repent. Maranatha. Amen.

But permit the prophets to make Thanksgiving as much as they desire.

Now you are welcome to point me to where their is any mention of hocus pocus in this (5 pearls to the first person who knows the reference being made in the words hocus pocus, it is after all a joke and not a dig).

I can't see it anywhere, so at least at the outset a claim that this Eucharist and the RCC Eucharist is not one that holds up under a little scrutiny.

Jason

[D.R.R.]

The problem is that it doesn't prove what you want it to prove.

All you have here is a very early christian document using the word Eucharist, and a present day RC practice called the Eucharist.

You have to do more than point to this and then claim that one is equal to the other.

I read the didache again about a week ago, and their is instructions for what is to be done during the eucharist and AFAIK the RC practice today is not the same as that.

Your going to have to demonstrate that one is equivalent to the other to get any mileage out of this as a claim.

You might be able to, but the bald claim is not going to be enough.

Lets have a look at the relevant section of the didache

Chapter 9. The Eucharist.

Now concerning the Eucharist, give thanks this way. First, concerning the cup:
We thank thee, our Father, for the holy vine of David Thy servant, which You madest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever..

And concerning the broken bread:
We thank Thee, our Father, for the life and knowledge which You madest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever. Even as this broken bread was scattered over the hills, and was gathered together and became one, so let Thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Thy kingdom; for Thine is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever..



But let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist, unless they have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord has said, "Give not that which is holy to the dogs."



Chapter 10. Prayer after Communion.



But after you are filled, give thanks this way: We thank Thee, holy Father, for Thy holy name which You didst cause to tabernacle in our hearts, and for the knowledge and faith and immortality, which You modest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever. Thou, Master almighty, didst create all things for Thy name's sake; You gavest food and drink to men for enjoyment, that they might give thanks to Thee; but to us You didst freely give spiritual food and drink and life eternal through Thy Servant. Before all things we thank Thee that You are mighty; to Thee be the glory for ever. Remember, Lord, Thy Church, to deliver it from all evil and to make it perfect in Thy love, and gather it from the four winds, sanctified for Thy kingdom which Thou have prepared for it; for Thine is the power and the glory for ever. Let grace come, and let this world pass away. Hosanna to the God (Son) of David! If any one is holy, let him come; if any one is not so, let him repent. Maranatha. Amen.

But permit the prophets to make Thanksgiving as much as they desire.

Now you are welcome to point me to where their is any mention of hocus pocus in this (5 pearls to the first person who knows the reference being made in the words hocus pocus, it is after all a joke and not a dig).

I can't see it anywhere, so at least at the outset a claim that this Eucharist and the RCC Eucharist is not one that holds up under a little scrutiny.

Jason

And of the broken Bread: 'We give Thee thanks, our Father, for the Life and knowledge which Thou hast made known to us through Jesus Thy Child; to Thee be glory for ever.' So the broken Bread is "the Life and knowledge which Thou hast made known to us through Jesus Thy Child." Thus, the broken Bread must be Jesus Christ, which what the Catholic Church teaches.

[jason]

And of the broken Bread: 'We give Thee thanks, our Father, for the Life and knowledge which Thou hast made known to us through Jesus Thy Child; to Thee be glory for ever.' So the broken Bread is "the Life and knowledge which Thou hast made known to us through Jesus Thy Child." Thus, the broken Bread must be Jesus Christ, which what the Catholic Church teaches.The RCC teaches transubstantiation of the bread, which is a lot more than that quote implies even on a charitable reading of it.

Suffice to say i'm not sure your going to be able to get out of this what you want to.

And I see no reference at all to hocus pocus.(I'm refereing to Hoc Est Corpus Maem, although my latin is poor to non-existent so I may have that wrong).

Jason

[D.R.R.]

The RCC teaches transubstantiation of the bread, which is a lot more than that quote implies even on a charitable reading of it.

Suffice to say i'm not sure your going to be able to get out of this what you want to.

Transubstantiation merely defined the Real Presence in Aristotlean terms, but the actual idea of the Real Presence has been taught since apostolic times.

[jason]

Transubstantiation merely defined the Real Presence in Aristotlean terms, but the actual idea of the Real Presence has been taught since apostolic times.Their is a very real difference between consubstantiation and transubstaniation.

Lutherans and EO's (who essentially hold to consubstantiation although they just say "mystery") would reject RCC teaching on this.

So it really is not the same thing.

Jason

[VFarris01]

Dear, Dear, Dear Christian Friend,
You are a clever liar.
If you're going to call me a liar, you will need to provide proof of me lying. Otherwise, you need to retract that statement. Not that it particularly bothers me that you think I'm a liar, but it is part of our campus decorum that we do not allowed to lay such strong accusations against other people without proof. I'm sure you understand why we can't allow these things to go unchecked.

If you don't either back up your allegation or retract it, you might find yourself the subject of moderator attention.
I apologize for the harsh rhetoric but you really do not want to go there.

The proof is in this and other threads.

Everytime you take my statements (or anyone’s for that matter) out of context, you are lying.

It is a lie because it deliberately misrepresents my (or that persons) true position. Thus calling you a "clever" liar.

Any moderator will tell you that it is an argumental fallacy; being an m.a. you should know this too.

Perhaps you do not think this is what you are doing; doubtful.

How many times has it been so far?

Am I really supposed to be afraid of a moderator?

What are they going to do, suspend me, kick me off, report me to God?

:haha: You have me quaking in my socks.:bawl:
Whatever happened to wanting to be nice to each other?
I have been extremely nice, until now.

Reading through your last response proved to me how bias and hypocritical your views really are.
Forgive me if I fail to respond to any more of your posts in this thread.
You're forgiven... don't worry about that. I'm a very forgiving person.
With the exception of this one, thank you.

I will consider a rebutal to your last response but do not wait up.

[Jezz]

I apologize for the harsh rhetoric but you really do not want to go there.
Apology accepted... I think...

As for not wanting to go there... if you didn't want to go there, you should not have brought it up.

Everytime you take my statements (or anyone’s for that matter) out of context, you are lying.

It is a lie because it deliberately misrepresents my (or that persons) true position. Thus calling you a "clever" liar.
I don't care if you called me a "clever" liar or just a plain ordinary "liar", you still called me a liar. As you pointed out, to be "lying" means that one must have been acting deliberately. If it is true that I have misrepresented you at all, then I was not doing it deliberately - hence, I was not lying.

As for whether or not I actually have misrepresented you - well, I remain unconvinced that this is the case. Sometimes I take a person's premises (implied or explicit), and draw logical conclusions from them that they may not have considered, yet which they find absurd. This technique of debating is known as "reductio ad absurdum" (reduction to absurdity), and it is a legitimate debate technique. Unfortunately, most of the time when people are presented with a "reductio ad absurdum" and recognise the absurdity of the conclusion, they simply assume that their premises have been misrepresented... after all, "I wouldn't believe something if it was absurd."

Of course, the possibility remains that I have misrepresented you, in which case I apologise. But this does not make me a liar - this makes me mistaken.

Any moderator will tell you that it is an argumental fallacy; being an m.a. you should know this too.
Assuming that I have misrepresented your position, then yes - I know that it is an argumental fallacy. Reductio ad absurdum is not a logical fallacy, however - it is a valid debate technique.

Perhaps you do not think this is what you are doing; doubtful.
In other words, you are insinuating that I think I am misrepresenting your position, ie, "lying", according to what you have said above. Is this what you call an apology? Coz if it is, you're not very good at it...

Am I really supposed to be afraid of a moderator?

What are they going to do, suspend me, kick me off, report me to God?

:haha: You have me quaking in my socks.:bawl:
Yes - you should be afraid of a moderator (when they are acting in a moderator capacity, which I am not doing in this thread). Lack of fear implies a lack of respect. The Bible teaches us to respect those in positions of authority (eg, the moderators in these forums), does it not?

As for reporting you to God... well, I doubt that that will be necessary. He knows already.

Reading through your last response proved to me how bias and hypocritical your views really are.
Am I biased? Of course! Everyone is biased - including Jesus Christ Himself. The question is not whether one is biased, but whether one's bias is a product of what they know, or if one's bias is the source of what they know. As Jesus was the embodiment of Wisdom and Truth, he falls into the former category. As sinful human beings, we sometimes stray to the latter category.

The most dangerous person is one who thinks that they have no bias at all... :teeth:

I will consider a rebutal to your last response but do not wait up.
Ok. Respond (or not) at your leisure. :smile:

[dizzle]

VFarris, you have called Jezz a liar several times now in this thread. I do not wish to paint the thread in red to delete them all and Jezz has responded. However, you must cease this practice unless you provide full and complete proof of any "lie" complete with quotes and links so that a Moderator may review. Any further posts containing such an unsupported accusation will be subject to editing or deletion in full.

[D.R.R.]

Their is a very real difference between consubstantiation and transubstaniation.

Lutherans and EO's (who essentially hold to consubstantiation although they just say "mystery") would reject RCC teaching on this.

So it really is not the same thing.

Jason

What does consubstantiation have to do with what we're talking about?

[jason]

What does consubstantiation have to do with what we're talking about?Everything.

There is a significant difference between the claims.

1. Transubstantiation - The bread and wine become the actual body and blood of christ via magic

vs

2. Consubstantiation - The bread and the wine have the presence of Christ in them but are still just bread and wine.

You can't get 1 from the text of the didache.

Jason

[D.R.R.]

Everything.

There is a significant difference between the claims.

1. Transubstantiation - The bread and wine become the actual body and blood of christ via magic

Via the grace of God.


2. Consubstantiation - The bread and the wine have the presence of Christ in them but are still just bread and wine.

I already showed you where you find the Real Presence in the Didache.

[Jezz]

I already showed you where you find the Real Presence in the Didache.
Jason's point is that merely showing that Real Presence is taught in the Didache does not prove that the Apostles taught the same thing that the Roman Catholic Church teaches today. It could be that they were teaching the same thing as the Lutherans or the Orthodox (which, as Jason pointed out, is more-or-less the same thing).

I reiterate: the apostles were both Catholic and Orthodox, but the RCC is no longer either. The Apostles were not members of the RCC in the sense that you think that they were.

[jason]

Jason's point is that merely showing that Real Presence is taught in the Didache does not prove that the Apostles taught the same thing that the Roman Catholic Church teaches today. It could be that they were teaching the same thing as the Lutherans or the Orthodox (which, as Jason pointed out, is more-or-less the same thing).That is it exactly. I am not even sure you can get to the "Real Presence" from the quote in question except on an assumption that it is the case, but that is a another discussion. Even conceding that point here about the real presence does not turn this eucharist into the RCC Eucharist.

Jason

[Jude3b]

What about info. on the Didache in my first post? (Or am I just engaging in futility again?)

I can't find any Didache in the Bible, what verse is that?

[D.R.R.]

I can't find any Didache in the Bible, what verse is that?

See opening post.

[Jude3b]

See opening post.

Didache is not part of the Bible as I am sure you already know. One cannot depend on Romanism's version of history, since they have been know to change it on more than one occasion. If you want to use historical references, try Josephus. For me the Word of God is what I believe and there are no Roman Catholics in the Bible. There is no Papacy in the Bible.
The Apostles and their followers were Christians, not Roman Catholics and there is not one verse of Scripture to indicate otherwise.

[shunyadragon]

St. Cyprian of Carthage:

"If any will consider this, there is no need of a long treatise and of arguments. 'The Lord saith to Peter: 'I say unto thee that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it; to thee I will give the keys to the kingdom of heaven, and what thou shalt have bound on earth shall be bound in heaven, and what thou shalt have loosed shall be loosed in heaven.' Upon one He builds His Church, and though to all His Apostles after His resurrection He gives an equal power and says: 'As My Father hath sent Me, even so send I you: Receive the Holy Ghost, whosesoever sins you shall have remitted they shall be remitted unto them, and whosesoever sins you shall have retained they shall be retained', yet that He might make unity manifest, He disposed the origin of that unity beginning from one. The other Apostles were indeed what Peter was, endowed with a like fellowship both of honour and of power, but the commencement proceeds from one, that the Church may be shown to be one. This one Church the Holy Ghost in the person of the Lord designates in the Canticle of Canticles, and says, One is My Dove, My perfect one, one is she to her mother, one to her that bare her. He that holds not this unity of the Church, does he believe that he holds the Faith? He who strives against and resists the Church, is he confident that he is in the Church?"

"Extra ecclesiam nulla salus" - "Outside the Church there is no salvation" (Ep. 73, 21).

St. Irenaeus (born in the first half of the second century):

In Adversus haereses, he speaks of the Holy Eucharist, and the primacy of the Roman Church.

St. Ignatius of Antioch, who was very probably a disciple of St. John the Apostle, (d. c. 115):

Some Catholic doctrines in his writings: "Among the many Catholic doctrines to be found in the letters are the following: the Church was Divinely established as a visible society, the salvation of souls is its end, and those who separate themselves from it cut themselves off from God (Philad., c. iii); the hierarchy of the Church was instituted by Christ (lntrod. to Philad.; Ephes., c. vi); the threefold character of the hierarchy (Magn., c. vi); the order of the episcopacy superior by Divine authority to that of the priesthood (Magn., c. vi, c. xiii; Smyrn., c. viii;. Trall., .c. iii);the unity of the Church (Trall., c. vi;Philad., c. iii; Magn., c. xiii);the holiness of the Church (Smyrn., Ephes., Magn., Trall., and Rom.); the catholicity of the Church (Smyrn., c. viii); the infallibility of the Church (Philad., c. iii; Ephes., cc. xvi, xvii); the doctrine of the Eucharist (Smyrn., c. viii), which word we find for the first time applied to the Blessed Sacrament, just as in Smyrn., viii, we meet for the first time the phrase "Catholic Church", used to designate all Christians; the Incarnation (Ephes., c. xviii); the supernatural virtue of virginity, already much esteemed and made the subject of a vow (Polyc., c. v); the religious character of matrimony (Polyc., c. v); the value of united prayer (Ephes., c. xiii); the primacy of the See of Rome (Rom., introd.). He, moreover, denounces in principle the Protestant doctrine of private judgment in matters' of religion (Philad. c. iii), The heresy against which he chiefly inveighs is Docetism. Neither do the Judaizing heresies escape his vigorous condemnation" (www.newadvent.org).

The Didache (the doctrine of the Twelve Apostles, written in 1st century, earliest known Christian writing outside of Scripture, "catechetical summary of Christian sacraments, practices, and morality" (Introduction to Catholicism, Midwest Theological Forum, 2003) ):

Pt.2, ch. ix: "Concerning the Eucharist, thus shall you give thanks: 'We give Thee thanks, our Father, for the holy Vine of David Thy Child, which Thou hast made known to us through Jesus Thy Child; to Thee be the glory for ever'. And of the broken Bread: 'We give Thee thanks, our Father, for the Life and knowledge which Thou hast made known to us through Jesus Thy Child; to Thee be glory for ever. For as this broken Bread was dispersed over the mountains, and being collected became one, so may Thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Thy kingdom, for Thine is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever.' And let none eat or drink of your Eucharist but those who have been baptized in the Name of Christ; for of this the Lord said: 'Give not the holy Thing to the dogs'."

Pt.3 says that 'the breaking of bread and Thanksgiving [Eucharist] is on Sunday, "after you have confessed your transgressions, that your Sacrifice may be pure", and those who are at discord must agree, for this is the clean oblation prophesied by Malachias, i, 11, 14. "Ordain therefore for yourselves bishops and deacons, worthy of the Lord . . . for they also minister to you the ministry of the prophets and teachers." ' (www.newadvent.org).

The Orthodox believer told me the apostles belonged to their church. Another person told me they were underground Lutherans, and another said they were definitely Baptists.

[Jude3b]

True Christians today, just like the Christians in New Testament times know what the final authority is:
There were no Roman Catholics in the New Testament apostolic church of God because Roman Catholicism did not exist. But of some of the Christians it is said:
"These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether these things were so." (Acts. 17:11) Notice they received the word and searched the scriptures daily.

Jesus says of His Words:
"...If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings..." (John 14:23-24). Will you obey God or Rome?

"Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?" (Matt. 15:3). Will you obey God or practice Roman Catholic traditions?

"Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God." (Matt. 22:29). Have you ever really read the whole Bible and determined to believe and obey it?

God's unchanging Word has always been the final authority, never the traditions of sinful religious men:
"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the traditions of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." (Col. 2:8).

You can be set free from Romanism or whatever other "ism" you are a part of. Give your life to Christ. Trust Him and His Word. He loves you and wants you to be in Heaven forever with Him and His church - the body of Christ. Won't you receive Him now?? (Acts 16: 30 & 31)

[shunyadragon]

Didache is not part of the Bible as I am sure you already know. One cannot depend on Romanism's version of history, since they have been know to change it on more than one occasion. If you want to use historical references, try Josephus. For me the Word of God is what I believe and there are no Roman Catholics in the Bible. There is no Papacy in the Bible.
The Apostles and their followers were Christians, not Roman Catholics and there is not one verse of Scripture to indicate otherwise.Josephus is not a good historical reference to Christ. It is simply a second hand reference if genuine.

The Roman Church compiled the scripture you believe in and made it canon. They determined the Apostles Creed as canon and the theology of the Trinity.

The True church(s):ahem: consider the Protestants a bunch of rowdy Anglo-Germanic pagan heritics.

Now there is an interesting dispute between the Roman and Orthodox church as to who the Apostles and their followers would consider their succesors.

[VFarris01]

Josephus is not a good historical reference to Christ. It is simply a second hand reference if genuine.And any of the ECFs are?
The True church(s):ahem: consider the Protestants a bunch of rowdy Anglo-Germanic pagan heritics.Close... Correctly, the True Church(s) consider Roman Catholicism as Christianity corrupted by errant Italians incorporating paganism into worship of God.
Now there is an interesting dispute between the Roman and Orthodox church as to who the Apostles and their followers would consider their succesors.The Apostles had no successors.

[Jude3b]

Josephus is not a good historical reference to Christ. It is simply a second hand reference if genuine.

The Roman Church compiled the scripture you believe in and made it canon. They determined the Apostles Creed as canon and the theology of the Trinity.

The True church(s):ahem: consider the Protestants a bunch of rowdy Anglo-Germanic pagan heritics.

Now there is an interesting dispute between the Roman and Orthodox church as to who the Apostles and their followers would consider their succesors.

God gave us His Word. It is His owners manual given to us in Love. Romanism didn't exist until 270 A.D. which is long after the Word of God came into existence.

"Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever." (Psalm 119:160) Did Romanism give us this verse or did God?

How about this one? "The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever." (Psalm 12:6-7). God is fully responsible and capable of giving us His Word and preserving it for us.

Now who will you believe? Rome or God? The Bible bodly declares that it and only it is the final authority: "Sanctify them through thy truth, thy word is truth." (John 17:17)

[shunyadragon]

God gave us His Word. It is His owners manual given to us in Love. Romanism didn't exist until 270 A.D. which is long after the Word of God came into existence.

"Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever." (Psalm 119:160) Did Romanism give us this verse or did God?

How about this one? "The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever." (Psalm 12:6-7). God is fully responsible and capable of giving us His Word and preserving it for us.

Now who will you believe? Rome or God? The Bible bodly declares that it and only it is the final authority: "Sanctify them through thy truth, thy word is truth." (John 17:17)
Since I am not a member of the Roman Church, Orthodox Church or a Protestant Church, all I have to go on is the objective view of history.

(1) The Bible did not exist before Rome compiled the Bible we have.

(2) The Bible does not refer to itself as the Word of God much less the inerrant word of God.

(3) People who believe in the Roman Church feel they are following God.

[Jude3b]

Since I am not a member of the Roman Church, Orthodox Church or a Protestant Church, all I have to go on is the objective view of history.

(1) The Bible did not exist before Rome compiled the Bible we have.

(2) The Bible does not refer to itself as the Word of God much less the inerrant word of God.

(3) People who believe in the Roman Church feel they are following God.

First, you do not know church history!

Second - Jesus Christ Himself told everyone to "Search the Scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me" (John 5:39). Jesus Christ knew that the Old Testament was completed and had been completed for about 500 years - when he said that!. The New Testament was put together by God and He used Apostles - inspired by the Holy Spirit to write those books of the New Testament. "Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost" (2 Peter 1:21). The last book of the New Testament was written down in 80 A.D.

We have, in several musems, copies of mauscripts of the books of the Bible that date back to 105 A.D.. Now Roman Catholicism did not start until 270 A.D. and was not fully developed for nearly 300 years after that.

The Bible is indeed the very Word of God!

[shunyadragon]

First, you do not know church history!

Second - Jesus Christ Himself told everyone to "Search the Scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me" (John 5:39). Jesus Christ knew that the Old Testament was completed and had been completed for about 500 years - when he said that!. The New Testament was put together by God and He used Apostles - inspired by the Holy Spirit to write those books of the New Testament. "Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost" (2 Peter 1:21). The last book of the New Testament was written down in 80 A.D.

We have, in several musems, copies of mauscripts of the books of the Bible that date back to 105 A.D.. Now Roman Catholicism did not start until 270 A.D. and was not fully developed for nearly 300 years after that.

The Bible is indeed the very Word of God!
The Bible as we have it (in different versions.) did not exist at any time when these words were spoken. There is no evidence the OT was as we have it was available in 500 AD. Compilation of the NT by the Roman Church is the first known compilation of any kind. There is no evidence that complete OT scriptures were available to Christ or that Christ refered to them as we know them today.

No complete books of the NT are know to date back to 105 AD. Some of the books of the OT are found at that time.

Can you provide documentation for this with copies of all these OT books dating to 80 AD? The current Bible scholars from all over the world have not been able to do this? There is signiicant evidence that many more different codexes concerniing Christianity were around in the first hundred years.

There is not any documented evidence for Christ or any NT scripture before 50 AD.

The Bible of the Roman Church, Orthodox Church and the Protestant Church are different.

[Jude3b]

Jesus Christ read the Scriptures in the temple. That is recorded in the New Testament and that shows the Old Testament existed.

While it is true that all the original manuscripts of the Bible have perished, we do have some very ancient copies:

The Codex Sinaiticus, originally a codex of the Greek Bible belonging to the fourth century. Purchased from the Soviet Republic of Russion in 1933 by Great Britain and is now in the British Museum.

The Codex Alexandrinus, probably written in the fifth century, now in the British Museum. It contains the whole Greek Bible with the exception of forty lost leaves.

The Codex Vaticanus, in the Vatican library at Rome, originally contained the whole Bible but parts are lost. Written about the fourth century.

The Septuagint Version. The Translantion of the Old Testament Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, made at Alexandria about 285 B.C.

Peshito or Syriac. The whole Bible translated into the common language of certain portions of Syria, dated to the first or second century A.D.

The Vulgate. The entire Bible translated into the Latin language, by Jerome at Bethlehem. Completed about 400 A.D.

[Timothy Leary]

Don't forget the Masoretic Manuscripts, such as the Aleppo and Leningrad Codex, which are the basis for every Hebrew Bible in existence today.

[shunyadragon]

Jesus Christ read the Scriptures in the temple. That is recorded in the New Testament and that shows the Old Testament existed.

While it is true that all the original manuscripts of the Bible have perished, we do have some very ancient copies:

The Codex Sinaiticus, originally a codex of the Greek Bible belonging to the fourth century. Purchased from the Soviet Republic of Russion in 1933 by Great Britain and is now in the British Museum.

The Codex Alexandrinus, probably written in the fifth century, now in the British Museum. It contains the whole Greek Bible with the exception of forty lost leaves.

The Codex Vaticanus, in the Vatican library at Rome, originally contained the whole Bible but parts are lost. Written about the fourth century.

The Septuagint Version. The Translantion of the Old Testament Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, made at Alexandria about 285 B.C.

Peshito or Syriac. The whole Bible translated into the common language of certain portions of Syria, dated to the first or second century A.D.

The Vulgate. The entire Bible translated into the Latin language, by Jerome at Bethlehem. Completed about 400 A.D.The sky is blue. All this well known history of scripture, except for your reference to Peshito or Syriac, and it does not address my questions concerning the existence of a coherent body of believers and scripture before let's say 300 AD that could be identified with a protestant belief and opposed to Rome. These scriptures you mentioned are clearly identified with the Roman Church.

Peshito or Syriac??? There is no evidence the whole bible was translated and available in its entirety between 100 and 200 AD.

[Jude3b]

The sky is blue. All this well known history of scripture, except for your reference to Peshito or Syriac, and it does not address my questions concerning the existence of a coherent body of believers and scripture before let's say 300 AD that could be identified with a protestant belief and opposed to Rome. These scriptures you mentioned are clearly identified with the Roman Church.

Peshito or Syriac??? There is no evidence the whole bible was translated and available in its entirety between 100 and 200 AD.

Do you have a New Testament? The New Testament is full of Christians who believed the Word of God. Read the book of Acts, Romans, I and II Corinthians, etc. and find numerous examples of New Testament Christians. These were not Roman Catholics and they were not Protestants. They certainly were Christians and part of "the church of God which he hath purchased with his own blood" (Acts. 20:28). The body of which Christ is the head is the church that he built and it is the only church taught in the New Testament. They believed that Jesus is Lord, just like true Christians living today do.

The body of Christ, is the only true church of God. The universal body of true believers constitutes the church for which Christ died. You can not have salvation, can not be a member of Christ, without being thereby a member of the body of Christ; for "now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him" (I Cor. 12:18). Inversely, it is impossible to be a member of the body of Christ without being a member of Christ himself.

Salvation is the mode of membership in the church of God - the body of Christ. "For by one Spirit are we all baptized (or inducted) into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit" (I Cor. 12:13).

Since into the body, or the church, is the work of the Spirit of God himself, it is evident that no one but the saved can possibly find admittance. Christ conveyed this truth here: "I am the door: by me if any man enterr in, he shall be saved" (John 10:9). "Except a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God" (John 3:3).

Have you been born again? Would you like to be?

You'll have to answer your own questions about Protestants before 300 AD. As far as I know - Protestants didn't come around until the 16th Century Reformation. Where did you hear that Protestants date back to before 300 AD?

[billy_pilgrim]

Popery, yes...Jude's quite the lexicographer.
"Popery" is a word, meaning simply the doctrine and practices of the RC church. I think the word Jude means, though, is Papistry, which has a more disparaging connotation. Both words were used frequently during the Puritan Revolutionary-era in England, when anti-Catholicism was at its height. Actually, Catholicism was an underground religion in England at the time (Guy Fawkes plot to blow up Parliament was a Catholic "terrorist" response to Protestant oppression). At the time, because Catholics were basically practicisng their religion in cupboards under stairs, "popery" and "papistry" were applied more to Anglicanism because of its close resemblance to Catholicism. The fact that Jude uses these antique words suggests something about his antique and bigoted mindset.

[VFarris01]

... it does not address my questions concerning the existence of a coherent body of believers and scripture before let's say 300 AD that could be identified with a protestant belief and opposed to Rome. These scriptures you mentioned are clearly identified with the Roman Church.The Church JC established was "protestant" and composed of a "coherent body of believers." "Protestant" beliefs are based on the Bible. Perhaps you forgot to read this in another thread:
The NT clearly defines the teachings, function, and organization of the c(C)hurch. Any church following them (the examples of the NT) are clearly teaching, functioning, and organized as the churches of the first century and therefore Christian churches. The RCC clearly does not teach, function, or is organized according to NT scriptures... the same scriptures they (the RCC) say are held above man's traditions.This is the foundation and framework the Roman church strayed from and what the "protestant" churches endevored to return the church.

That the Roman church "compiled" the NT is irrelavent; the individual "books" were available and read in the churches long before there was any such thing as a RCC. Letters of Paul, Peter, John, and the others were distributed to all churches not just those to whom they were addressed.

The Roman church usurped the authority given to the individual churches claiming it and it alone had the power to interpret the Bible and establish doctrine.

(15) But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
Notice here "church" is not capitalized.

There was never a "central" church hierarchy until Rome "took" it... get to know the history of the "whore."

Peshito or Syriac??? There is no evidence the whole bible was translated and available in its entirety between 100 and 200 AD.Why is this important... see above.

[VFarris01]

The fact that Jude uses these antique words suggests something about his antique and bigoted mindset.That J3b chooses to base his beliefs on the Bible instead of traditions of the RCC, many with their origin in paganism, shows his true character; a man in the mold of the Bereans of Acts 17.

[Jezz]

Since I am not a member of the Roman Church, Orthodox Church or a Protestant Church, all I have to go on is the objective view of history.

(1) The Bible did not exist before Rome compiled the Bible we have.
That is not an objective view. It was not just the church at Rome that compiled the Bible we have. The canon of Scripture had input from all the churches. Even today, not all churches have the same canon (the Peshitta, used by Syriac-speaking churches, does not have 2 John, 3 John, 2 Peter, Jude or Revelation, for example).

(2) The Bible does not refer to itself as the Word of God much less the inerrant word of God.
Not completely true. 2 Timothy refers to "the Scriptures" as being God-breathed - ie, God-inspired (the word for "breathe" and "inspire" are the same in Greek). Though it is likely that not all of what we now call the NT had yet been called Scripture, some of it had been (eg, 1 Timothy quotes to Luke as Scripture on par with the Torah).

(3) People who believe in the Roman Church feel they are following God.
True. And unlike Jude3b, I would agree that for the most part, they are following God.

[Socrates]

The Bible as we have it (in different versions.) did not exist at any time when these words were spoken. There is no evidence the OT was as we have it was available in 500 AD.
Stick to burying your head in the earth. The Jewish canon was the same as the Protestant OT Canon, but with a different arrangement.

No complete books of the NT are know to date back to 105 AD.
No manuscript of Caesar, Thucidydes, Plato or Tacitus dates before AD 900. Maybe we can't trust the extant texts of these authors either, by this "reasoning".

There is not any documented evidence for Christ or any NT scripture before 50 AD.
Are you a Christ-myther as well?

[Socrates]

Josephus is not a good historical reference to Christ. It is simply a second hand reference if genuine.
It's an excellent historical reference from someone living not too long after the events. If you throw out this, then throw out Jesus' contemporary Tiberius, who is best known only from writings even further removed from this time (Tacitus, AD c. 115; Suetonius, AD c. 120; Cassius Dio, AD 230).

Josepphus' quote shows that certain of Jesus' claims were well known that even His enemies didn't dispute them. As for their genuineness, the evidence is overwhelming. When it comes to "brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James", no manuscripts lack it, and it is nothing like what a Christian interpolator would say. The other one, 'Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man," also seems genuine; just some of the other stuff there may have been interpolated but that's far from proven. See Josephus: A Double Dose of the Messiah (http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_01_01_01_JOS.html).

[shunyadragon]

That is not an objective view. It was not just the church at Rome that compiled the Bible we have. The canon of Scripture had input from all the churches. Even today, not all churches have the same canon (the Peshitta, used by Syriac-speaking churches, does not have 2 John, 3 John, 2 Peter, Jude or Revelation, for example).
This is true. It actually lends support to my view that what is the Word of God and the true scripture is open to question among the early churches.


Not completely true. 2 Timothy refers to "the Scriptures" as being God-breathed - ie, God-inspired (the word for "breathe" and "inspire" are the same in Greek). Though it is likely that not all of what we now call the NT had yet been called Scripture, some of it had been (eg, 1 Timothy quotes to Luke as Scripture on par with the Torah).
Reference to scripture does not refer to the Bible compiled in the manner the books were later selected and determined by the Roman Church and the other churches. It is questionable which scripture was considered the word of God at the time. Referring to the Word of God does not necessarily refer to the Bible.

[shunyadragon]

Stick to burying your head in the earth. The Jewish canon was the same as the Protestant OT Canon, but with a different arrangement.[quote]

There is no evidence that the Jewish Canon was the same as the OT Canon before the OT was compiled by the Roman Church and later the Hebrew Canon was compiled and printed in Italy. The protestant OT Canon was decided much later. If you have any evidence that the Protestant NT or OT cannon existed before 300 AD please present it in any order.


[QUOTE] No manuscript of Caesar, Thucidydes, Plato or Tacitus dates before AD 900. Maybe we can't trust the extant texts of these authors either, by this "reasoning". I do not necessarily accept any of those as necessarily original or accurate. All these documents are subject to literary and historical skepticism. None of them claim to be the literal word of God. The main dispute is the Bible, because you and others claim that it is absoutely original, accurate and literal. I think it is in dispute because of the lack of original documents and the witness of history.


Are you a Christ-myther as well?No, I believe in Christ, but I do not think the stand of the Bible being the literal and original word for word Word of God cannot be substantiated except by faith. The Bible is historical evidence for the existence of Christ and some other events in history, over all accuracy is in serious question. There are many other ancient historical documents that have a more accurate historical documentation with older original documents like Gilgamesh and the works of Confucous and Lao Tze in China. These documents are not necessarily considered totally accurate or literal, but their documentation in history is far better than the Bible. Even though they are better documented, none is considered completely literal and originally accurate as many Christians consider the Bible.

Please observe forum guidelines:This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and theists.

[Jude3b]

That J3b chooses to base his beliefs on the Bible instead of traditions of the RCC, many with their origin in paganism, shows his true character; a man in the mold of the Bereans of Acts 17.

Thank you VFarris01 for the kind words. I appreciate that. Jude 3b

[shunyadragon]

The Church JC established was "protestant" and composed of a "coherent body of believers." "Protestant" beliefs are based on the Bible. Perhaps you forgot to read this in another thread:
This is the foundation and framework the Roman church strayed from and what the "protestant" churches endevored to return the church.
As I asked before to provide some documentation for this claim.

That the Roman church "compiled" the NT is irrelavent; the individual "books" were available and read in the churches long before there was any such thing as a RCC. Letters of Paul, Peter, John, and the others were distributed to all churches not just those to whom they were addressed.
It is very relavent because you claim there is Protestant scripture that predates this. Do you have some documentation as to which books these were.

The Roman church usurped the authority given to the individual churches claiming it and it alone had the power to interpret the Bible and establish doctrine.

(15) But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
Notice here "church" is not capitalized.

There was never a "central" church hierarchy until Rome "took" it... get to know the history of the "whore."

Why is this important... see above.
I do not think capitalization was a part of the Greek scripture at the time this was written. At what time did it appear in the small case appear as scripture.

[VFarris01]

Shuny, you are fighting the same battle in this thread and "Is Roman Catholicism a False Cult... choose one and let us stay there.
The Church JC established was "protestant" and composed of a "coherent body of believers." "Protestant" beliefs are based on the Bible. Perhaps you forgot to read this in another thread:
This is the foundation and framework the Roman church strayed from and what the "protestant" churches endevored to return the church.
As I asked before to provide some documentation for this claim.I suppose you do not understand what words in quotations mean. I did provide documentation for my "claim;" the Bible.
That the Roman church "compiled" the NT is irrelavent;
It is very relavent because you claim there is Protestant scripture that predates this. Do you have some documentation as to which books these were.Might I be sarcastic... can you not read!

"Protestant" Scripture is Scripture.

The individual "books" were available and read in the churches long before there was any such thing as a RCC. Letters of Paul, Peter, John, and the others were distributed to all churches not just those to whom they were addressed.
Notice here "church" is not capitalized.I do not think capitalization was a part of the Greek scripture at the time this was written. At what time did it appear in the small case appear as scripture.Point conceded.

It is common practice today to use church to denote individual congregations and Church to denote the entire body of believers.

[VFarris01]

That J3b chooses to base his beliefs on the Bible instead of traditions of the RCC, many with their origin in paganism, shows his true character; a man in the mold of the Bereans of Acts 17.Thank you VFarris01 for the kind words. I appreciate that. Jude 3bYou are very welcome.


While I believe you are too dogmatic at times, we do share an understanding of the Bible I wish others had as well.

Keep on keeping the faith...

... Vic

[Jude3b]

You are very welcome.


While I believe you are too dogmatic at times, we do share an understanding of the Bible I wish others had as well.

Keep on keeping the faith...

... Vic



Will do, John

[shunyadragon]

Shuny, you are fighting the same battle in this thread and "Is Roman Catholicism a False Cult... choose one and let us stay there.
I suppose you do not understand what words in quotations mean. I did provide documentation for my "claim;" the Bible.
Might I be sarcastic... can you not read!

"Protestant" Scripture is Scripture.
I can read very well, but I do not agree. Sarcasm and 'claims' do not help. I want to see evidence.

I am not a member of the Roman Church, but I do follow biblical history very closely on many websites. I fully realize that you believe that the Protestant Bible is the absolutely one and only true Bible, but historically it is well known that the other Bibles used by the Orthodox and other churches selectively evolved from the Roman Church Bible. The Protestant Bible evolved from the selection made by Martin Luther removing some books from the Bible.

The individual "books" were available and read in the churches long before there was any such thing as a RCC. Letters of Paul, Peter, John, and the others were distributed to all churches not just those to whom they were addressed.
There is absolutely no evidence exactly which books were 'available' or distributed to the early churches. In fact when the Roman Church held the Councils for determining scripture and doctrine the individual churches brought there books to the Councils. They essentially participated in the forming of the Bible. What I am presenting is known history.

What I am asking is for any documentation that the Protestant Bible was in anything close to its present form between 50 and 350 AD. The bottom line is there is no evidence that such a compilation of scripture existed.

Forum guidelines state that this is an area for Christian discussion.

[Just The Facts]

hi

I love the title of this thread.

the term catholic did not even come into use until the late fourth century.

So to say they were Catholic is ..well it is laughable

[VFarris01]

hi

I love the title of this thread.

the term catholic did not even come into use until the late fourth century.

So to say they were Catholic is ..well it is laughableNo brag... just the facts.

[Jude3b]

The church of God is the Body of Christ:

"And hath put all things under his (Christ's) feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all" (Eph. 1:22, 23).

The body of which Christ is the head is the church of God that he built; yea, "the church of God which he hath purchased with his own blood" (Acts 20:28). This is the only church taught in the New Testament. Check out the Bible, read it for yourself. Do not trust fallible sinful men to tell you the truth.

Romanism is not taught in the New Testament, except in prophecy of the apostasy that was to come. True Bible Christians like we find in the Apostolic church of God - were not Roman Catholics and there was not even a Roman Catholic church system until about 270 A.D.

The problem is not with the word "Catholic" which simply means "universal" - the problem is with "ROMAN Catholic!"

The true church of God - the body of Christ - which consists of all true Christians alive today and all those who were truly Christian and who have already gone to heaven - is a "Universal" or Catholic faith. But, it is not and never has been "Roman!"

[shunyadragon]

The problem is not with the word "Catholic" which simply means "universal" - the problem is with "ROMAN Catholic!"

The true church of God - the body of Christ - which consists of all true Christians alive today and all those who were truly Christian and who have already gone to heaven - is a "Universal" or Catholic faith. But, it is not and never has been "Roman!"
I agree, but historically the Romans compiled the first Bible and set the doctrine for the apostles Creed and the future of Christianity.

[VFarris01]

I agree, but historically the Romans compiled the first Bible and set the doctrine for the apostles Creed and the future of Christianity.I always thought God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit had more to do with these things than "the Romans."

[Benedict]

Nor is the Catholic Church today properly referred to as Roman.

[VFarris01]

Nor is the Catholic Church today properly referred to as Roman.The Roman Catholic Church and its followers are not Roman Catholic!!!! (Isn't it astonishing???)

[Jude3b]

The problem is not with the word "Catholic" which simply means "universal" - the problem is with "ROMAN Catholic!"

The true church of God - the body of Christ - which consists of all true Christians alive today and all those who were truly Christian and who have already gone to heaven - is a "Universal" or Catholic faith. But, it is not and never has been "Roman!"

Futhermore, there is no "Roman Catholic church" in the Word of God, except in the prophecies in Thessalonians and Revelation that talk about antichrist and the apostasy that was to afflict the church of God.

So, it isn't astonishing that the Apostles and their Followers were Christians, not Roman Catholics. That is simply what the Word of God so clearly reveals! "Let God be true and every man a liar" Amen!

[Timothy Leary]

Stop quoting yourself.

[Jude3b]

Futhermore, there is no "Roman Catholic church" in the Word of God, except in the prophecies in Thessalonians and Revelation that talk about antichrist and the apostasy that was to afflict the church of God.

So, it isn't astonishing that the Apostles and their Followers were Christians, not Roman Catholics. That is simply what the Word of God so clearly reveals! "Let God be true and every man a liar" Amen!

Please let me make this point perfectly clear: there is no "Roman Catholic church" taught in the Wod of God - as being the church of God. Amen.
Come out of her, my people.

[WebToaster]

I did provide documentation for my "claim;" the Bible.

Which Bible do you refer when you say 'the' Bible? Catholic, Orthodox, Ethiopian, or Protestant? They are all different. If God alone provided the Bible, then why are there so many different versions of it?

[Jude3b]

Which Bible do you refer when you say 'the' Bible? Catholic, Orthodox, Ethiopian, or Protestant? They are all different. If God alone provided the Bible, then why are there so many different versions of it?

Question please? When you say the versions are all different. Would you mind pointing out some of the significant differences that your referring to? Have these differences caused you to believe a certain way or not to believe?

[WebToaster]

Question please? When you say the versions are all different. Would you mind pointing out some of the significant differences that your referring to? Have these differences caused you to believe a certain way or not to believe?

The 'significant' differences aren't as much a matter of content as a matter of process. Although, its interesting to see how different interpretations arise based upon the differences in content (e.g. purgatory) this a secondary issue in my opinion. The interesting part is WHY they are different, so my answer to your question is yes, these differences have caused me to believe a certain way.

Protestants insist they are inerrant. Catholics insist they are inerrant. They can't both be correct, and to take the inerrant view of either condemns the majority of Christianity to an errant Bible. The various flavors of Orthodox aren't quite as hung up on inerrancy, and the Ethiopian 'Bible' is perhaps the most interesting of all because they had some ability to form a canon outside the secular power of the Roman and Byzantine states. We've lost the Gnostic 'Bible' but that would have been the most interesting in terms of content.

[Jude3b]

The 'significant' differences aren't as much a matter of content as a matter of process. Although, its interesting to see how different interpretations arise based upon the differences in content (e.g. purgatory) this a secondary issue in my opinion. The interesting part is WHY they are different, so my answer to your question is yes, these differences have caused me to believe a certain way.

Protestants insist they are inerrant. Catholics insist they are inerrant. They can't both be correct, and to take the inerrant view of either condemns the majority of Christianity to an errant Bible. The various flavors of Orthodox aren't quite as hung up on inerrancy, and the Ethiopian 'Bible' is perhaps the most interesting of all because they had some ability to form a canon outside the secular power of the Roman and Byzantine states. We've lost the Gnostic 'Bible' but that would have been the most interesting in terms of content.

Concerning the inerrancy issue and Catholics and Protestants: The Roman Catholics have added the Apocraphal books to their translation of the Bible. Protestants have not and for good reasons. It is in the Apocraphal section of the Roman Catholic Bible that Romanism trys to give a scriputural basis to the doctrine of purgatory. The doctrine of purgatory is of course false because of the numerous passages in other parts of the Bilbe that contradict such a concept and false doctrine.

Can you tell me what are your beliefs that have been formulated based upon the version of the Bible that you have read and believed?

As far as Catholics viewing their Bible as inerrant and Protestants the same. Except for the Apocraphal book additions to the Roman Catholic Bible - it is inerrant just like the Bible translations that Protestants read. You can use a Roman Catholic Bible or a Protestant Bible and if you study both carefully - the same meaning is there. It is the traditions of men that Romanism adds to their translation of the Bible, that makes them so different to most Protestant Christians.

[WebToaster]

Concerning the inerrancy issue and Catholics and Protestants: The Roman Catholics have added the Apocraphal books to their translation of the Bible. Protestants have not and for good reasons. It is in the Apocraphal section of the Roman Catholic Bible that Romanism trys to give a scriputural basis to the doctrine of purgatory. The doctrine of purgatory is of course false because of the numerous passages in other parts of the Bilbe that contradict such a concept and false doctrine.

Now, let me ask a question. Do you truly believe that the Roman Catholics 'added' the deuteros to their 'translation' of the Bible? Can you explain why the Orthodox and Ethiopians also 'added' the deuteros? The Orthodox and Catholics split in the 11th century and the Ethiopians probably completely severed their relationships with the western Church far earlier than that, and there are other canons which I haven't even discussed. Everyone except for the Protestants, who are themselves a split from the western Roman Catholic Church, includes these books in their Bible. If I look at the most famous Bible in history produced prior to the reformation, the Gutenberg Bible of which there are still several *original* copies remaining, I find that it includes the deuteros.

Isn't it far more likely the Protestants removed these books in the reformation? My answer is obviously yes, the Protestants removed those books. And now we have otherwise intelligent Protestants insisting upon bizarre conspiratorial explanations of how the 'Popery' created 'errant' Bibles by adding flawed text. I'm not sure what the motive might be for the 'Popery' but I'm sure its insidious and evil. How did the Orthodox 'add' the text and what might their motives be?

Can you tell me what are your beliefs that have been formulated based upon the version of the Bible that you have read and believed?

The different bibles were formed by different groups of humans based upon the religious, societal and geo-political situations in which they found themselves.

As far as Catholics viewing their Bible as inerrant and Protestants the same. Except for the Apocraphal book additions to the Roman Catholic Bible - it is inerrant just like the Bible translations that Protestants read. You can use a Roman Catholic Bible or a Protestant Bible and if you study both carefully - the same meaning is there. It is the traditions of men that Romanism adds to their translation of the Bible, that makes them so different to most Protestant Christians.

How can the Catholic Bible be 'inerrant' except for the erroneous 'addition' of such 'obviously' errant text?

[shunyadragon]

The 'significant' differences aren't as much a matter of content as a matter of process. Although, its interesting to see how different interpretations arise based upon the differences in content (e.g. purgatory) this a secondary issue in my opinion. The interesting part is WHY they are different, so my answer to your question is yes, these differences have caused me to believe a certain way.

Protestants insist they are inerrant. Catholics insist they are inerrant. They can't both be correct, and to take the inerrant view of either condemns the majority of Christianity to an errant Bible. The various flavors of Orthodox aren't quite as hung up on inerrancy, and the Ethiopian 'Bible' is perhaps the most interesting of all because they had some ability to form a canon outside the secular power of the Roman and Byzantine states. We've lost the Gnostic 'Bible' but that would have been the most interesting in terms of content.
Only fundimentalist Protestants insist on inerrancy and I do not consider the Roman Church belief as inerrant. The inerancy view in the belief of Fundimentalist Protestants holds to the word of word literal interpretation. For example Genesis. The Roman Church excepts the Theistic Evolution view, and the flood as an analogy and symbolic.

The extra books that the Roman Church Bible has does not fit in the Protestant view of inerrancy. These books are known back as far as 200 AD and do contribute to differences in belief between Protestant and Roman theology. The books were first removed by Martin Luther and later Protestant Bibles also remmoved them.

[spl_cadet]

Actually, the Catholic Church does believe in the inerrancy of Scripture. (www.catholic-cadet.com/apol/inerrancy.html)

[WebToaster]

Only fundimentalist Protestants insist on inerrancy and I do not consider the Roman Church belief as inerrant. The inerancy view in the belief of Fundimentalist Protestants holds to the word of word literal interpretation. For example Genesis. The Roman Church excepts the Theistic Evolution view, and the flood as an analogy and symbolic.

I should have said specified 'inerrancy of the canon' itself. Both Catholics and Protestants believe their canon to be inerrant, while the Orthodox are quite a bit more flexible on the canon itself. There's an interesting passage from the promulgation of the Pope at the council of Trent that declares anyone varying the canon from that of the Catholic Church to be anathema. The council of Trent was toned down quite a bit at Vatican II, but since the Pope is believed to be infallible, its impossible to declare Pope Paul III's promulgation in 1542 to be in 'error.'

I'm not really picking on the Catholics, we can see the opposing Protestant viewpoint on any number of threads right here on Tweb (including this one) where Catholics are declared to be apostate, a lost people, the anti-Christ, etc...

Cadet's article proposes an interesting position. If Catholics believe the story of the talking snake of Genesis to be inerrant, yet it is not literal, what exactly does that mean? Was there a talking snake? Or does it mean the truths revealed by the story of the talking snake are inerrant?

Couldn't I just as well say the story of Zeus' disgorging of his siblings from the belly of Cronos to be inerrant because there is truth behind it? I don't know, perhaps Cadet can help out with that distinction.

I'm of the opinion that declaring anything to be inerrant is a risky proposition, but I'm sure there are even Baha'is who believe the Baha'i writings and institutions to be inerrant.

[shunyadragon]

I should have said specified 'inerrancy of the canon' itself. Both Catholics and Protestants believe their canon to be inerrant, while the Orthodox are quite a bit more flexible on the canon itself. There's an interesting passage from the promulgation of the Pope at the council of Trent that declares anyone varying the canon from that of the Catholic Church to be anathema. The council of Trent was toned down quite a bit at Vatican II, but since the Pope is believed to be infallible, its impossible to declare Pope Paul III's promulgation in 1542 to be in 'error.'

I'm not really picking on the Catholics, we can see the opposing Protestant viewpoint on any number of threads right here on Tweb (including this one) where Catholics are declared to be apostate, a lost people, the anti-Christ, etc...

Cadet's article proposes an interesting position. If Catholics believe the story of the talking snake of Genesis to be inerrant, yet it is not literal, what exactly does that mean? Was there a talking snake? Or does it mean the truths revealed by the story of the talking snake are inerrant?

Couldn't I just as well say the story of Zeus' disgorging of his siblings from the belly of Cronos to be inerrant because there is truth behind it? I don't know, perhaps Cadet can help out with that distinction.

I'm of the opinion that declaring anything to be inerrant is a risky proposition, but I'm sure there are even Baha'is who believe the Baha'i writings and institutions to be inerrant.
Inerrancy is of course is defined differently by different people. In the Baha'i Faith inerrancy has a distinctive more flexible relavant meaning that changes with time.

The fundimentalist Christian would have nothing to do with this concept. It would be too wishy washy.

The Roman Church has to some degree assumed a stance in Vatican II similar to the Baha'i view, but with considerable less flexibility. The purpose was to try and give some room to set doctrine in a uniform way resolving some inconsistencies of the past.

The reality is if Vatican II is taken as a whole the purpose was not to make the Roman Church more modern, relevant and open the door more to eccumenism, as many people hoped and some still believe. The purpose of Vatican II was to set in concrete the work not Completed in Vatican I. In reality the church became less flexible and more doctrine oriented after Vatican II. The church view toward Eccumenism was spelled out in more detail. The purpose was never to compromise, but to bring the lost sheep back to the one true fold.

[Jude3b]

The 'significant' differences aren't as much a matter of content as a matter of process. Although, its interesting to see how different interpretations arise based upon the differences in content (e.g. purgatory) this a secondary issue in my opinion. The interesting part is WHY they are different, so my answer to your question is yes, these differences have caused me to believe a certain way.

Protestants insist they are inerrant. Catholics insist they are inerrant. They can't both be correct, and to take the inerrant view of either condemns the majority of Christianity to an errant Bible. The various flavors of Orthodox aren't quite as hung up on inerrancy, and the Ethiopian 'Bible' is perhaps the most interesting of all because they had some ability to form a canon outside the secular power of the Roman and Byzantine states. We've lost the Gnostic 'Bible' but that would have been the most interesting in terms of content.

??????????? Aside from the discussion about one Bible translation being inerrant verses another translation, can you share with me what beliefs the you now hold and which translation those beliefs are based on.?? I'm not asking you to list every point of doctrine. But I am curious about the most significant ones - especially salvation beliefs. For example - beliefs that formulate the basis of your salvation experience or beliefs on the sugject and how the translation that you trust has affected that belief.

[Cowgoesmoo]

I should have said specified 'inerrancy of the canon' itself. Both Catholics and Protestants believe their canon to be inerrant, while the Orthodox are quite a bit more flexible on the canon itself. There's an interesting passage from the promulgation of the Pope at the council of Trent that declares anyone varying the canon from that of the Catholic Church to be anathema. The council of Trent was toned down quite a bit at Vatican II, but since the Pope is believed to be infallible, its impossible to declare Pope Paul III's promulgation in 1542 to be in 'error.'

I'm not really picking on the Catholics, we can see the opposing Protestant viewpoint on any number of threads right here on Tweb (including this one) where Catholics are declared to be apostate, a lost people, the anti-Christ, etc...

Cadet's article proposes an interesting position. If Catholics believe the story of the talking snake of Genesis to be inerrant, yet it is not literal, what exactly does that mean? Was there a talking snake? Or does it mean the truths revealed by the story of the talking snake are inerrant?

Couldn't I just as well say the story of Zeus' disgorging of his siblings from the belly of Cronos to be inerrant because there is truth behind it? I don't know, perhaps Cadet can help out with that distinction.

I'm of the opinion that declaring anything to be inerrant is a risky proposition, but I'm sure there are even Baha'is who believe the Baha'i writings and institutions to be inerrant.
If I had access to my chatchism at the moment I would clarify some of this a bit clearer but I will try any way. When the Cannon of scripture was being compiled way back in 200 ad if not before, (cant remember the exact dates.) there were many many books considered to be included. These included things like a gosple account attributed to Peter, numerous letters etc (Many of which can still be found a read today and are quite interesting). For some reason the council of the church at the time with the guidance and help of the Holy Spirit deciced that only certain books were to be included and regarged as the inerrant word of God. Essentially the cannon was compiled to support a pre known faith. Anything that could be seen to contradict that faith was ommited. Anything needed to suport that faith was included.

A key point is the belief in the guidance of the Holy Spirit. It essentially says that the bible was compiled by God through the council of the Church. If this is true the for obvous reasons anyone who removes or adds to the scriptures should treated as Anathema

The Church still holds to the inerrancy of scripture and the cannon. The wording of the Catachism is a little tricky in certain areas. Take for example the creation of the world in Genesis. The Catachism actually stops short of saying yes it was a 7 day week or yes it was 115 mil years. What it does say is that as long as the essential truths that God made the world, that it was all good, that man was made in the image of God etc (lists a few others that I cant remember) are held then it doesn't really matter if it was seven days of 115 mil years. Essentially its politics.

This sort of politics is appied everywhere though. (however sadly in the Church there are many who do this teaching children that the whole old testiment is some kind of "Story"- I will be the first to say that in many places the RCC is in serious trouble.)

The Church definatly holds that Adam and Eve are our first parents. And that the devil tempted Eve in the garden. Wether the devil was in the form of a snake or not is not really relivant. A view expressed by good friend of mine is that "The bible is so true that we cant even understand how it can be true."

[WebToaster]

??????????? Aside from the discussion about one Bible translation being inerrant verses another translation, can you share with me what beliefs the you now hold and which translation those beliefs are based on.?? I'm not asking you to list every point of doctrine. But I am curious about the most significant ones - especially salvation beliefs. For example - beliefs that formulate the basis of your salvation experience or beliefs on the sugject and how the translation that you trust has affected that belief.
Jude, I've already stated it isn't the difference in content of the various versions of the Bible, and certainly not the quality of some specific translation, (e.g. the KJV) rather it was the process by which each of the different canons were formed.

As Cowgoesmoo mentions, it is believed the Holy Spirit directed the compilation of the canons. Which leaves me with the question of why the various canons are different if they were all directed by the same Holy Spirit. Note, there are several conclusions you can reach from this. One conclusion is that they are all simply conflicting works by human compilers,. Another conclusion is that only one of these are 'right' (the Catholic and Protestant view). Yet another conclusion is that the Holy Spirit directed the Greek Orthodox a little differently from the Catholics, who were directed differently from the Protestants, and it is the latter conclusion that I tend to believe.

[Jude3b]

[QUOTE=bahai_guy]Jude, I've already stated it isn't the difference in content of the various versions of the Bible, and certainly not the quality of some specific translation, (e.g. the KJV) rather it was the process by which each of the different canons were formed.

As Cowgoesmoo mentions, it is believed the Holy Spirit directed the compilation of the canons. Which leaves me with the question of why the various canons are different if they were all directed by the same Holy Spirit. Note, there are several conclusions you can reach from this. One conclusion is that they are all simply conflicting works by human compilers,. Another conclusion is that only one of these are 'right' (the Catholic and Protestant view). Yet another conclusion is that the Holy Spirit directed the Greek Orthodox a little differently from the Catholics, who were directed differently from the Protestants, and it is the latter conclusion that I tend to believe.[/QUOT

Well, that is not what I am asking you. I understand what you are saying, but that is not what I asked you. Let me ask another question. What are your basic beliefs? Are you a Christian? Are you saved? When you die are you going to heaven? Are you sure? Why?

[WebToaster]

Well, that is not what I am asking you. I understand what you are saying, but that is not what I asked you. Let me ask another question. What are your basic beliefs? Are you a Christian? Are you saved? When you die are you going to heaven? Are you sure? Why? Jude: I will answer your questions, but please answer my questions above so we can have a dialog (also, perhaps this is best suited for another thread).

What are my basic beliefs? My beliefs are founded in Christianity and I am a Baha'i. There's an excellent summary of Baha'i beliefs here (http://www.planetbahai.org/resources/intro/reintroa.html), and be sure to ping Shunydragon on Tweb who is much better at explaining the Baha'i faith. Essentially I accepted the Baha'i faith after an examination of the validity of other religions, most of whom I believe are from God. For example, how could God discriminate against the Canaanites, Druids, Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, etc...? Questions such as those put me on a gut-wrenching search for one God, for one humanity. My concept of God is much different from my previous trinitarian based beliefs, so it gets a little complicated and I'm not sure I could explain it very well, so again I'll refer you to Shunydragon.

Am I a Christian? Yes! I believe Jesus was the Messiah, I pray to Christ for forgiveness of my sins, and I believe he was crucified and resurrected.

Am I saved? My beliefs in salvation are probably closer to the Jewish beliefs of salvation of Israel, except that this concept is applied to the entire world. Salvation is a gift from God for all people who choose to accept it.

When you die are you going to heaven? Only God knows the answer, I have beliefs that I exist in some eternal place.

Are you sure? Well, I believe that only God knows.

[Jude3b]

Jude: I will answer your questions, but please answer my questions above so we can have a dialog (also, perhaps this is best suited for another thread).

What are my basic beliefs? My beliefs are founded in Christianity and I am a Baha'i. There's an excellent summary of Baha'i beliefs here (http://www.planetbahai.org/resources/intro/reintroa.html), and be sure to ping Shunydragon on Tweb who is much better at explaining the Baha'i faith. Essentially I accepted the Baha'i faith after an examination of the validity of other religions, most of whom I believe are from God. For example, how could God discriminate against the Canaanites, Druids, Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, etc...? Questions such as those put me on a gut-wrenching search for one God, for one humanity. My concept of God is much different from my previous trinitarian based beliefs, so it gets a little complicated and I'm not sure I could explain it very well, so again I'll refer you to Shunydragon.

Am I a Christian? Yes! I believe Jesus was the Messiah, I pray to Christ for forgiveness of my sins, and I believe he was crucified and resurrected.

Am I saved? My beliefs in salvation are probably closer to the Jewish beliefs of salvation of Israel, except that this concept is applied to the entire world. Salvation is a gift from God for all people who choose to accept it.

When you die are you going to heaven? Only God knows the answer, I have beliefs that I exist in some eternal place.

Are you sure? Well, I believe that only God knows.

You sound very sincere and that is good, providing you stay open to the truth. A few comments, I will mention:
1) Bahai faith is false because of its foundational belief that God is unknowable. That is a lie straight from the pit of Hell, spread by that Father of lies - Satan himself. Therefore, being part of such a Cult may very well cause you from every knowing and accepting the truth and therefore from every really receiving Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior. It is not enough to say I believe in Jesus. Satan also believes in Jesus and he is not saved. It is not enough to say, well I pray to Jesus. First off, if you don't have the real Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior - praying to another Jesus will not do you any good. True Christians don't just believe in Jesus, in the sense that they know a historical person existed named Jesus and he was a Prophet and a good Man. True Christians believe ON Jesus Christ the Messiah at their personal Lord and Savior. In part that at least means they fully trust in and attempt to obey everything their Master has provided for their salvation and instructed them to do in His Word the Bible.
2) A true Christian will accept what God has revealed of Himself in His Word and in the Person of Jesus Christ. A true Christian is willing to obey every part of the Word of God and longs to do just that.
3) A true Christian will separate from every false way, when they learn from His Word that the group or Cult they hang around with is wrong.
4) A true Christian knows they are going to heaven, because they "believe" and "believe on" (Acts 16:30 & 31) what God has declared and revealed to them. (also see I John 5:13 for example).

[WebToaster]

You sound very sincere and that is good, providing you stay open to the truth.
I answered your points in a new thread (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?p=586037) so now I would appreciate it if you answered my questions in this thread. Do you truly believe that the Roman Catholics 'added' the deuteros to their 'translation' of the Bible? Can you explain why the Orthodox and Ethiopians also 'added' the deuteros?

[Jude3b]

I answered your points in a new thread (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?p=586037) so now I would appreciate it if you answered my questions in this thread. Do you truly believe that the Roman Catholics 'added' the deuteros to their 'translation' of the Bible? Can you explain why the Orthodox and Ethiopians also 'added' the deuteros?

I don't know why they added the Apocraphal books to the Roman Catholic translations or even if the Ethiopians or the Orthodox do, as you have stated. I really do not care. Since it does not meet the qualifications to be part of the canon of Scripture, it does not affect me. I have read the apocraphal books and they did not affect my understanding of the Word of God at all or change the meaning of it to me. I can pick up the Roman Catholic Bible or the Protestant Bible and read it and my beliefs that Jesus Christ is my personal Savior and Lord does not change. I see the same good news in both translations.

Have you ever read the whole Bible in any translation? What parts of the Bible(s) that you have read, if any, do you consider false? What parts of the Bible(s), if any, do you consider true?

[WebToaster]

I don't know why they added the Apocraphal books to the Roman Catholic translations or even if the Ethiopians or the Orthodox do, as you have stated. I really do not care.
Don't you think its odd that all other major groups of Christianity include the books you exclude? Yet I often find posts of yours that are highly critical of Catholicism.

Since it does not meet the qualifications to be part of the canon of Scripture, it does not affect me. I have read the apocraphal books and they did not affect my understanding of the Word of God at all or change the meaning of it to me. I can pick up the Roman Catholic Bible or the Protestant Bible and read it and my beliefs that Jesus Christ is my personal Savior and Lord does not change. I see the same good news in both translations.
For my part, I can agree and add that I can pick up the Qur'an and see the God's revealed word as well.

Have you ever read the whole Bible in any translation? What parts of the Bible(s) that you have read, if any, do you consider false? What parts of the Bible(s), if any, do you consider true?
I've read the KJV and the NASB translations, but asking whether parts of it are true or false is quite similar to asking me which parts of the Iliad are true and false. Some of it is probably mythical, but that doesn't mean it is valueless or 'false.'

[Jude3b]

Don't you think its odd that all other major groups of Christianity include the books you exclude? Yet I often find posts of yours that are highly critical of Catholicism.


For my part, I can agree and add that I can pick up the Qur'an and see the God's revealed word as well.


I've read the KJV and the NASB translations, but asking whether parts of it are true or false is quite similar to asking me which parts of the Iliad are true and false. Some of it is probably mythical, but that doesn't mean it is valueless or 'false.'

To call the Holy Word of God "mystical" and to compare it with the Iliad or the Qur'an shows clearly that you do not believe the Bible to be true. Satan has you blinded. Did you cooperate willingly with him or did he trap you into cultic religion?

[WebToaster]

To call the Holy Word of God "mystical" and to compare it with the Iliad or the Qur'an shows clearly that you do not believe the Bible to be true. Satan has you blinded. Did you cooperate willingly with him or did he trap you into cultic religion?
Jude, look up the word "mystical" and then read:

19 For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, And bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent." 20 Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? 21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe,

Paul is saying you can not know God without basing this belief upon mystical wisdom. When you read the Bible using only the wisdom of this world, you lose its meaning.

[Jude3b]

Jude, look up the word "mystical" and then read:

19 For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, And bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent." 20 Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? 21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe,

Paul is saying you can not know God without basing this belief upon mystical wisdom. When you read the Bible using only the wisdom of this world, you lose its meaning.



The person who is not willing to believe the Word of God and its author God as final authority will not understand the hidden truths, because they are spiritually discerned. The "natural man" perceiveth not the things of the spirit of God. Thats the problem with religious people and being involved with religion - you are a natural man - not spiritual, trapped in something that is satanic inspired. A truly spiritual person first and formost will believe and accept the truth from God and not argue with it. God's Word is True and Jesus Christ alone is Lord!

[WebToaster]

The person who is not willing to believe the Word of God and its author God as final authority will not understand the hidden truths, because they are spiritually discerned. The "natural man" perceiveth not the things of the spirit of God. Thats the problem with religious people and being involved with religion - you are a natural man - not spiritual, trapped in something that is satanic inspired. A truly spiritual person first and formost will believe and accept the truth from God and not argue with it. God's Word is True and Jesus Christ alone is Lord!
You've stated that anyone that doesn't accept the Bible as the Word of God, can not be spiritual. This definition can not be applied to Paul or the disciples because they were clearly spiritual people and they existed before the Bible was written. So you have a problem in that definition, nobody within the Bible itself can be a spiritual person according to your definition.

However, I do believe the Bible is God's word, I just think you have misinterpreted it.

[Jude3b]

You've stated that anyone that doesn't accept the Bible as the Word of God, can not be spiritual. This definition can not be applied to Paul or the disciples because they were clearly spiritual people and they existed before the Bible was written. So you have a problem in that definition, nobody within the Bible itself can be a spiritual person according to your definition.

However, I do believe the Bible is God's word, I just think you have misinterpreted it.

A little history lesson will help - hopefully! Every Jewish temple in existence at the time of Christ had a completed Old Testament. Paul was a Pharisee and very loyal to the Word of God. It had been completed for some 500 years before Christ was born of the Virgin in Behtlehem.

[Benedict]

So are you saying that the Old Testament is sufficient?

Also, what of Moses and the many, many people mentioned in the Old Testament who lived before it was written?

[Jude3b]

So are you saying that the Old Testament is sufficient?

Also, what of Moses and the many, many people mentioned in the Old Testament who lived before it was written?

Everyone who is saved, gets saved the same way. The Old Testament saint got saved by looking forward to the coming of Messiah. The New Testament saint gets saved by looking back to the coming of Messiah and His finished work on the cross at Calvary. Jesus Christ is the Way, the Truth and The Life. No one comes to the Father except by Jesus!

Moses, Job and David all were looking for the coming of Messiah. Read your Old Testament - you can't miss that part!

[WebToaster]

A little history lesson will help - hopefully! Every Jewish temple in existence at the time of Christ had a completed Old Testament. Paul was a Pharisee and very loyal to the Word of God. It had been completed for some 500 years before Christ was born of the Virgin in Behtlehem.
You know, if you're going to be condescending, then its better to get your facts straight. The Jewish canon of the OT was not even established until 90 A.D, and until then the books of the OT varied from temple to temple. The Christians really didn't finalize their canon until the 4th century.

And by the way, its highly likely that Christ, the disciples, and especially Paul accepted the LXX which contains the very books you've tossed out as apocrypha.

[Jude3b]

Everyone who is saved, gets saved the same way. The Old Testament saint got saved by looking forward to the coming of Messiah. The New Testament saint gets saved by looking back to the coming of Messiah and His finished work on the cross at Calvary. Jesus Christ is the Way, the Truth and The Life. No one comes to the Father except by Jesus!

Moses, Job and David all were looking for the coming of Messiah. Read your Old Testament - you can't miss that part!

In Matthew 5:18 and Luke 16:17 we see our Lord assuring us that the Old Testament text in common use among Jews during His earthly ministry was an absolutely trustworth reproduction of the original text written by Moses and the other inspired authors.

During His earthly life, the Lord Jesus Christ appealed unreservedly to the very words of the Old Testament text (Matt. 22:42-45; John 10:34-36), thus indicating His confidence that this text had been accurately transmitted.

As a believer, I know that the Scriptures are inspired, and that the Gospel message is true, by the internal witness of the Holy Spirit.

[Benedict]

In Matthew 5:18 and Luke 16:17 we see our Lord assuring us that the Old Testament text in common use among Jews during His earthly ministry was an absolutely trustworth reproduction of the original text written by Moses and the other inspired authors.

During His earthly life, the Lord Jesus Christ appealed unreservedly to the very words of the Old Testament text (Matt. 22:42-45; John 10:34-36), thus indicating His confidence that this text had been accurately transmitted.

As a believer, I know that the Scriptures are inspired, and that the Gospel message is true, by the internal witness of the Holy Spirit.

The Old Testament text in common use among the Jews during Jesus's earthly ministry was the Septuagint, which included the books Protestants reject as 'apocrypha'. The Old Testament quotes found in the earliest New Testament manuscripts are all from the Septuagint text. How can you proclaim what you have just said and still deny the Septuagint? It would be hypocritical.

[Jude3b]

The Old Testament text in common use among the Jews during Jesus's earthly ministry was the Septuagint, which included the books Protestants reject as 'apocrypha'. The Old Testament quotes found in the earliest New Testament manuscripts are all from the Septuagint text. How can you proclaim what you have just said and still deny the Septuagint? It would be hypocritical.


I never said that I had a problem with the Septuagint text, although I do not recognize the apocryphal books as being on the same level as the rest of the Word of God.

[Benedict]

Yet Jesus used the Septuagint text that included the deuterocanonical books, rather than a Hebrew text that did not include them.

[Jude3b]

Yet Jesus used the Septuagint text that included the deuterocanonical books, rather than a Hebrew text that did not include them.

So?

Jesus did not quote from the Apocraphal books. He did quote from the Old Testament texts and fulfilled the prophecies contained in those books.