The Neverending Story (The New Christian Chronicles)

Southern Baptists ending talks with Catholic Church ^ | 3/24/01 | AP

[IMRight]

I owe you a verse obviously (I think it is in Daniel), but the prophest said that the conquered nation would become the home of "God's Church" or perhaps "God's Kingdom on Earth"? I'll be away from my books for a couple days, remind me later this week to look it up for you.

[malakhi]

Fire at will.

bass, you've been gone for a while, so you've obviously forgotten. Augustine and Cyprian merely present their personal opinions. These are not the official teachings of the Catholic Church.

[malakhi]

Oh please. The Messiah had to be Jewish, you know that. Methinks you are pulling my leg.

...And there weren't any Jews in Rome? ;o)

[the808bass]

I know :-) However, the later stuff I posted pointed out that the doctrines of the church were formed on the unanimous writings of the Fathers. Ain't no such animal as unanimous writings of the Father. And at what point do the writings of the leaders of the Church fail to represent Church doctrine to the extent that the church is unrecognizable by its chief adherents. (Poorly worded, but I think my point comes through)

[SoothingDave]

If and when GWB wins the war agaist Afganistan will he move his headquarter there?

No, but he is operating from a position of power. Ask it the other way. If the Afghans defeated America, would they come live here? Darn tootin'.

The Church "took over" the Empire in the sense that they were able to use its far flung power and interests to bring people to Christ. This would not have been nthe case if they never set up shop in the capital in the first place. Their impact would have been limited to their region.

As I said with the keys and the power of God it shouldn't matter where the headquarters are, actually it should. It should be in a place established, where there is you can be relativly sure of safty.

This isn't proven. In the capital city of the Empire you can be reasonable assurd of safety and can spread your message. What is the deal with Jerusalem? It is the capital of the Jews. Christianity is a religion for all peoples. The best way to get all peoples on board is to go where they are.

I am talking about THE HEADQUARTERS, THE VATICAN. Or did all that come after Peter.

Peter certainly didn't build St Peter's Bascillica. I don't think that any of us are arguing that Peter went to Rome and established a huge burequcratic organization. The structure and the order came as the Church grew. This was necessary and is not a bad thing. Structure is not bad.

But Peter was there and the people he left behind, appointed to succeed him were able to use their location to the advantage of the growth of the Church.

SD

[SoothingDave]

...And there weren't any Jews in Rome?

That's right. I haven't seen any evidence of there being Jews in Rome. :-)

Actually, if Jesus did grow up in Rome, then the journey to Bethlehem to get registered would have taken a lot longer and Mary might have had Jesus somewhere else. :-)

SD

[SoothingDave]

However, the later stuff I posted pointed out that the doctrines of the church were formed on the unanimous writings of the Fathers. Ain't no such animal as unanimous writings of the Father.

"Unanimous" doesn't appear to mean what we would think it means. I don't think it ever did mean that every one of the Church fathers had to agree on something.

SD

[al_c]

Actually, it was in Galilee that he encountered the most unbelief.

yep.

[IMRight]

This was necessary and is not a bad thing. Structure is not bad.

You must not have come into work when you were sick and puttered around waiting for three people (who are not subject matter experts) to read two pages you wrote two weeks ago so that you can send it out to 6000 people who needed to know last week.

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

If Peter had not been so throughly Jewish, I MIGHT be able to see it this way. But Peter was still very Jewish even though he was christian.

Far as the afgans moving here if they won the war I don't think so. They would most definitly send troops here to run us, but there headquarters, their Vatican, if you will, (no disrespect intended) would be in Afganistan. IMO.

Becky

[malakhi]

Yeah, I think I said that, or at least hinted at it.

I know, I was agreeing with you and providing the cite.

[trad_anglican]

Look it up for yourself ---- spelling is all important

From the Sewanee School of Theology:

Theotokos This Greek term comes from the controversy with Nestorius, a controversy which culminated in the Council of Ephesus. It means "God bearer". The orthodox party argued that the Virgin Mary was "Theotokos" or the bearer of God. Nestorius argued that she was "Anthrophoros".

That's the only way I've ever seen it spelled.

[D-fendr]

A more interesting question, to me, about Jesus's birth is how the jewish village reacted to the news that a betrothed yet unconjugated woman was pregnant and how she and her family were treated.

[OLD REGGIE]

But Peter was there and the people he left behind, appointed to succeed him were able to use their location to the advantage of the growth of the Church.

I'm still waiting for you to show who he appointed as his succesor. Dates and biographies. Are you ducking?

[SoothingDave]

They would most definitly send troops here to run us, but there headquarters, their Vatican, if you will, (no disrespect intended) would be in Afganistan.

I don't know about that. It's kind of a silly thing to conjecture about, but remember the story of the bomber being in a strip club the night before Sept 11?

I think that given the choice of living in a tent and sleeping on a rock, that they would prefer to live on your ranch, where the drive to civilization to by milk isn't so hard.

SD

[malakhi]

Actually, it was in Galilee that he encountered the most unbelief.

Your such a nice boy. :)

LOL! I suppose it depends upon whose line of reasoning I am undermining. ;o)

[SoothingDave]

I'm still waiting for you to show who he appointed as his succesor. Dates and biographies. Are you ducking?

Quack.

I can give you the current belief, but archaeological evidence can always change that.

SD

[malakhi]

And at what point do the writings of the leaders of the Church fail to represent Church doctrine

If its useful to support the present teaching, it is used as evidence. If not, it is mere opinion.

[trad_anglican]

No. The point is a gift, not an office.

I agree. The point is the gift. Which according to Paul was "in you through the laying on of my hands. The gift is not the office. The gift is the grace to perform the duties of the office.

[malakhi]

"Unanimous" doesn't appear to mean what we would think it means. I don't think it ever did mean that every one of the Church fathers had to agree on something.

Uh oh. Is there a special Catholic definition of 'unanimous' that is different from Webster's?