The Neverending Story (The New Christian Chronicles)

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

[RobbyS]

the inconsistencies that are so obvious to so many. So obvious that they were ignored for a thousand years? Why not admit that the Scriptures can be read in a way that is different from the way you read them? Remember how dumbfounded Luther was when he encountered Zwingli, who said, Well, it all depends on what the meaning of "is" is.

[hopefulpilgrim]

Heresy—I’ve never heard so much heresy in so small a compass as you are getting in this particular area. You can at one time preach the Bible and then at another time can deny everything that is said in the Bible. But how can you believe one and reject the other?

Amen. Time to cleanse our minds of the soot left behind. I nominate Rev. 19:11-16 for our edification!!!

"And I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse, and He who sat upon it is called Faithful and True; and in righteousness He judges and wages war. And His eyes are a flame of fire, and upon His head are many diadems; and He has a name written upon Him which no one knows except Himself. And He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood; and His name is called The Word of God. And the armies which are in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and clean, were following Him on white horses. And from His mouth comes a sharp sword, so that with it He may smite the nations; and He will rule them with a rod of iron; and He treads the wine press of the fierce wrath of God, the Almighty. And on His robe and on His thigh He has a name written, 'KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS."

Question: Three times His name is mentioned. What are His names?
-- Hopefulpilgrim

[RobbyS]

If Paul or Peter had heard any of that, they would have popped a blood vessel teaching against it!

How would you know?

[nobdysfool]

Remember how dumbfounded Luther was when he encountered Zwingli, who said, Well, it all depends on what the meaning of "is" is

Zwingli was an ancestor of Bill Clinton's??? Amazing!

[hopefulpilgrim]

Those supposed "doctrines" were not codified until quite some time after the Apostles. If Paul or Peter had heard any of that, they would have popped a blood vessel teaching against it! In the time between the Apostles and the time these so-called "doctrines" were codified, there was more than enough time for errors and heresy to creep in. Your statement doesn't prove anything.

ping!

[apologist]

One thing I DO find ironic about the whole thing, is that here you have a person (Rabbi Schneerson - [apologist]) who we all agree was merely a man. And yet some years after his death, some of his followers are speaking of him as the messiah and in near-divine terms. HMMMM... who else had followers who proclaimed similar things about him after his death? IMO, this raises some interesting questions about the early Christian movement and the development of teachings about Jesus.

(sorry for the late reply....)

1. Jesus' followers didn't agree he was merely a man.
2. To the best of my knowledge, Rabbi Schneerson passed on much longer than 3 days ago and there's yet to be a claim of resurrection.

So, while your analogy between the Lubavitcher's and early Christianity is entertaining, it fails on several key points ;-)

[RobbyS]

can deny everything that is said in the Bible. That's the problem. Your "everything" is nothing specific. The "protestant principle" is global rather than any specific text.

[RobbyS]

Zwingli was an ancestor of Bill Clinton's??? Amazing! Zwingli was as much a politician as Pope Julius. He was killed in battle, you know. Luther didn't think much of him, because he was so worldly but because he was as much or more of a rationalist as Erasmus.

[hopefulpilgrim]

So obvious that they were ignored for a thousand years?

Who says they were ignored??? And if they were, it might be because the RCC kept them in the dark as to what the scriptures actually taught. Once the scriptures were more widely distributed, I'm sure the inconsistencies were NOT ignored.

Also, as Nobdysfool pointed out, "Those supposed [catholic] 'doctrines' were not codified until quite some time after the Apostles." So, how could wise believers possibly object to traditions the first thousand years which were not even being taught yet?
-- Hopefulpilgrim

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

Question: Three times His name is mentioned. What are His names?

“King of kings”

“Faithful and True”

“Word of God”

BigMack

[RobbyS]

In the time between the Apostles and the time these so-called "doctrines" were codified, there was more than enough time for errors and heresy to creep in. And between then and Now, even more, SO? But the protestant principle doesn't seem to have effected the return to THE true faith, does it. Instead we only have endless squibbling over texts.

[hopefulpilgrim]

If Paul or Peter had heard any of that, they would have popped a blood vessel teaching against it!

How would you know?

Because it is so contrary to their focus on Christ Himself.

[hopefulpilgrim]

“King of kings”

“Faithful and True”

“Word of God”

Oh shoot!!! I meant to say that His name is mentioned FOUR times. So, Big Mack, what is the fourth one????

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

Oh shoot!!! I meant to say that His name is mentioned FOUR times. So, Big Mack, what is the fourth one????

"Lord of Lords"

What is the name that no one knows? Well, I have a suggestion. Perhaps it corresponds to Luke’s gospel in which He is presented as Jesus, the Son of Man.

BigMack

[hopefulpilgrim]

But the protestant principle doesn't seem to have effected the return to THE true faith, does it. Instead we only have endless squibbling over texts.

It has affected the return to the true faith in those "who have ears to hear the word of the Lord."
-- Hopefulpilgrim

[RobbyS]

And if they were, it might be because the RCC kept them in the dark as to what the scriptures actually taught. No, the RCC--and the Greeks- do not agree with what Luther taught, just as they did not agree with what Arius taught. Let us not forget that the battles between the Catholics and the Arians was basically a dispute over the meaning of Scripture. You assume--falsely-- that the Churchmen of the 4th Century were ignorant of Scripture. Yet men like Ambrose were steeped in it.(We need not mention Jerome) Yet he accepted doctrines that you reject but were already Catholic doctrine a thousand years before Luther. Why should I accept Luther's (or your) interpretations rather than his?

[hopefulpilgrim]

I had in mind including "LORD OF LORDS" with "KING OF KINGS," which would've left "the name written upon Him which no one knows except Himself" as the fourth. At any rate, you noticed the "secret" name, which is what I was getting at. Just curious about that name....what COULD it be???!!! And why was it even mentioned if no one knows it? Maybe just to make us wonder?!

[RobbyS]

It has affected the return to the true faith in those "who have ears to hear the word of the Lord." "The word of God" being, of course, your opinion about what the Bible says.

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

that the Churchmen of the 4th Century were ignorant of Scripture. Yet men like Ambrose were steeped in it.(We need not mention Jerome) Yet he accepted doctrines that you reject but were already Catholic doctrine a thousand years before Luther. Why should I accept Luther's (or your) interpretations rather than his?

As for the New Testament: By the end of the first century, all the books of the New Testament had been written and were circulating in the church. May I say that the gradual assembling of these books was superintended by the Holy Spirit.

By the fourth century the New Testament was intact, and by that time certain books were already excluded, although they are still found in Roman Catholicism today. For instance, you will never find anything about purgatory in the New Testament. If you ask Roman Catholics where they get their doctrine of purgatory, they will cite one of the books that had been excluded early on—one of the apocryphal books, you see. Purgatory is not mentioned in the 27 books of the New Testament at all.

For several hundred years the church was neither Protestant nor Roman Catholic, nor did it bear resemblance to any church today. It was in that congregation of believers which we call the early church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, that the New Testament came together. May I say that when you read the apocryphal books and you read the books of the Word of God, you can see the difference immediately!

Therefore when we come to the fourth century, we find the complete canon of Scripture as we have it today, 66 wonderful books in which we can have absolute confidence.

BigMack

[OLD REGGIE]

Certainly they did not think thee doctrines--such as the perpetual virginity of Mary, or her standing as theotokos, or the invocation so Mary and the saints were inconsistent with the Scripture.

Something to think about:

The Nicene Church and the Marian Doctrines.

If the Papacy is not evident at Nicæa, surely the Marian dogmas that define Roman Catholic worship are even more conspicuous by their absence from the same time period. One need only consult the work of Roman Catholic theologian Ludwig Ott (hardly a liberal!) to realize this. For example, with reference to the Immaculate Conception Ott admits on page 201:

"Neither the Greek nor the Latin Fathers explicitly teach the Immaculate Conception of Mary."

Instead, he asserts an "implicit" teaching based upon Mary’s holiness and the contrast between her and Eve. Yet, I note that J.N.D. Kelly asserts that Ireneaus, Tertullian, and Origen all felt Mary had sinned and doubted Christ (Early Christian Doctrines, 493).

In any case, Ott asserts on the same page that the first explicit assertion of the doctrine as believed today is found in the British monk Eadmer at the beginning of the 12th century! Even then, he notes it ran into much opposition, including the rejection of Bernard of Clairvaux. Certainly, it’s a doctrine absent from the early 4th century and the Church of Nicæa.

Likewise, the Bodily Assumption of Mary is a doctrine unknown to the Fathers of the Council of Nicæa. Ott says of it, "The idea of the bodily assumption of Mary is first expressed in certain transitus-narratives of the fifth and sixth centuries. Even though these are apocryphal they bear witness to the faith of the generation in which they were written despite their legendary clothing" (pp. 209-210).

What Ott does not note is that these "transitus-narratives" were deemed heretical by the Church of the day and anathematized by Gelasius, bishop of Rome! Hence, the first documentable reference to the doctrine is from a heretical source, and that at least two and a half centuries after the Council of Nicæa! The doctrine, plainly, had no part in the Church in A.D. 325, and hence, again, the point is proven: the Church of Nicæa was not the Church of Rome.

The Nicene Church and the Marian Doctrines.