Posted on 11/23/2011 11:11:08 AM PST by marshmallow
Whee. Let's hear it for the Joel Osteens and the Rick Warrens and the Robert Schullers who live in ostentatious splendour. The Pope has less money and possessions than you do. Think on that.
Darn. How about you in your infinite wisdom correct me?
I don't 'believe god'. I believe God. I believe that God Created His Church for us men. I don't believe that men created their own churches for Him.
How does one believe the most incredible claim of scripture..the resurrection and yet doubt the ability of God to preserve absolute truth in His word??
I don't doubt the ability of God to preserve Truth. He Has - in the institution of the Church. It is the institutions of men - the legacy of the Reformation - that take away from the transmission of God's word to men.
However, rebaptism is only for pagans. I wonder if this will conclude as I suspect...
Only the god in the mirror is as wise as they are...
Unfortunately no, just usual.
Bingo!!!!
Now you are just being ridiculous. The initial construct of the modern Catholic Liturgy was documented in the early 1st century in the Didache and more extensively documented in the writings of St. Clement of Rome in the late 1st century. St. Justin Martyr tells us that the basic structure of the Mass was already in place by the year 150.
Your fabrication about a priesthood in the early Church has been very thoroughly refuted in many threads so I won't go into it again except to say that the diaconate, priesthood and Episcopacy was present in the first century.
Christian altars are cited in 1 Corinthians 10:21; where St. Paul differentiates the "table of the Lord" (trapeza Kyriou) on which the Eucharist is offered, with the pagan "table of devils" altars.
Trapeza continued to be the term for altar among the Greek Fathers and in Greek liturgies. The Epistle to the Hebrews (13:10) refers to the Christian altar as thysiasterion, the word by which the Septuagint alludes to Noah's altar. This term occurs in several of the Epistles of St. Ignatius.
Confession was commissioned by Jesus Himself in John 20:22-23. You would do well to reconcile.
Nah, if a person doesn’t even grasp the track of the conversation it’s just not worth the time.
It didn’t take the RCC to come up with that when any other scholar could and did conclude the same thing.
1. He was evidently a contemporary of the events described:
The writer was personally known to the High Priest and entered his residence along with Jesus on the night when Jesus was arrested (18:15). This author alone mentions the fact that it was the servant of the High Priest who had his ear cut off by Peter (18:10). This author deals with questions which are relevant to the period prior to AD 70 and not with controversies which were occurring in the second century connected with the Gnostic and Ebionite groups. (cf 6:15; 11:47-50) Many other details indicate contempoaneity with the events described.
2. He was Jew of Palestine:
The opening words of the book demonstrate an acquaintance with Hebrew (cf Genesis 1:1). On three occasions there are quotes from the Hebrew (12:40; 13:18; 19:37). There is intimate knowledge displayed regarding the Hebrew festivals viz. the Festival of Booths (7:2 Tabernacles KJV) the Feast of Dedication (10:22) and the Passover (21:13,23; 6:4; 13:1;18:28). Jewish customs and ways of thinking are familiar to the author eg. questions about purification (3:25;11:55), marriage customs, especially the method of arranging the waterpots (2:1-10); customs relating to burial (11:38,44; 19:31,40). Knowledge of the geography of Palestine is demonstrated such as the descent from Cana to the Sea of Galilee (2:12) and also the fact that Jacob's well is deep (4:11). Specific places such as Ephraim (11:54), Mount Gerizim (4:20), Jerusalem and the Kidron valley (18:1), Bethsaida and Siloam (5:2; 9:7), and Golgotha (19:17 etc).
3. He was John, the beloved disciple.
This can be deduced in a general sense from the above facts. He indicates the precise hours when particular events took place (1:39; 4:6,52; 19:14). He records quotations of the disciple Philip (6:7; 14:8), Thomas (11:16;14:5), Judas (14:22), and Andrew (6:8-9). He leaned on the breast of Jesus at supper on the night of the betrayal (13:23-25) and was among the three 'inner circle' of Peter, James, and John. Peter is distinguished from this author by name in 1:41-42;13:6,8 and James had become a martyr very early, long before the Gospel was written (Acts 12:2). He has a particular way of introducing himself (John 13:23; 19;26; 20:2; 21:7,20). These facts cumulatively make it difficult to come to any other conclusion, but that John was the author of the Gospel which bears his name.
Source: The New Unger's Bible Dictionary, Merril F. Unger, Moody, Chicago. 1988. p 701.
There was no priests in the new church.it was about 300 AD before the first priesthood appeared..
Greg Dues has written Catholic Customs & Traditions, a popular guide (New London: Twenty Third Publications, 2007). On page 166 he states, "Priesthood as we know it in the Catholic church was unheard of during the first generation of Christianity, because at that time priesthood was still associated with animal sacrifices in both the Jewish and pagan religions."
"A clearly defined local leadership in the form of elders, or presbyteroi, became still more important when the original apostles and disciples of Jesus died. The chief elder in each community was often called the episkopos (Greek, 'overseer'). In English this came to be translated as 'bishop' (Latin, episcopus). Ordinarily he presided over the community's Eucharistic assembly."
"When the Eucharist came to be regarded as a sacrifice, the role of the bishop took on a priestly dimension. By the third century bishops were considered priests. Presbyters or elders sometimes substituted for the bishop at the Eucharist. By the end of the third century people all over were using the title 'priest' (hierus in Greek and sacerdos in Latin) for whoever presided at the Eucharist."
No priesthood, no sacrifice, no "liturgy" (unless one calls singing liturgy), no altar... The Catholic mass, and system is found NO WHERE in the Biblical NT church ..sorry you have been had
Were the people that John baptized re baptized?
how nice of ya :)
So how do you pick and choose what is preserved truth and what is fable in the Bible mark?? How do you know the church is an institution of God??
Capitalizing the G is good.. but believing His word ...is what is God expects of us...
1Cr 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.
That NT church had no mass, There was no priesthood, no altars. The Lords table was not considered a sacrifice in the early church, so there were no need for those things that one needs for a sacrifice. no “eucharist, no vestments , no confessions, no 7 sacraments, no priesthood, no pope, no immaculate conception , no assumption, no relics, no purgatory, no indulgences, no “holy water”, no such animal as “apostolic succession... nada... nothing .....
There was no Roman catholic church until the 300’s even then there was no “mass” no “sacrifice” , no purgatory , etc...
If you can show me any of these things in scripture practiced in the NT church please do... if you can show me where jesus told the apostles their “gifts” were transferable please do...
Fundamentalists have more confidence in their own personal infallibility than they do in serving God or others.
That NT church had no mass, There was no priesthood, no altars. The Lords table was not considered a sacrifice in the early church, so there were no need for those things that one needs for a sacrifice. no “eucharist, no vestments , no confessions, no 7 sacraments, no priesthood, no pope, no immaculate conception , no assumption, no relics, no purgatory, no indulgences, no “holy water”, no such animal as “apostolic succession... nada... nothing .....
There was no Roman catholic church until the 300’s even then there was no “mass” no “sacrifice” , no purgatory , etc...
>>The burden of proof is on you. Prove it.
>>What is your evidence that the Church of Rome wasn’t founded until the 300s?
Show me where Eusebius says the Church of Rome was founded in the 300s. I’m not a Roman Catholic, so I don’t live or die by Rome’s claims.
The only thing you stated that is true is there weren’t any indulgences, but I want you to prove to us exclusively using patristic texts.
You might start by reading Dom Gregory Dix’s book “Shape of the Liturgy”. I’ll add that he was an Anglican.
http://bit.ly/ry2ZLX
I know how ignorant I am, so prove it without making use of the Bible. That’s my challenge to you.
You are infallible too, so I want to bask in your intellect.
I RARELY post my interpretation, rather let Scripture speak for itself.
>>From what I can see that’s all you do. You have your interpretation of Scripture and the Church Fathers have theirs.
You proclaim your interpretation of the Bible based on your selective quotation of scripture outside of historical, linguistic, and other contexts that any trained exegete of scripture would use.
So my argument is with your 21st century reinterpretation of scripture in the light of the sectarian Tradition you were raised in.
Had you been raised, say as a Lutheran, you’d be singing a slightly different tune.
Take the Power of the Keys for example, which Lutherans like Catholics and Eastern Orthodox claim give priests and ministers the authority to remit sins. Lutherans say its based on Sola Scriptura, but you don’t.
John 20:21 for example is the scriptural basis for sacramental absolution. Martin Luther even taught this. I didn’t accept confession and absolution as a Catholic. I learned it as a Lutheran.
http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/encyc/encyc06/htm/iii.lxv.htm
But in your TRADITION, it’s unbiblical. So that comes down to your private opinion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confession_in_the_Lutheran_Church
Face it, you have appointed yourself Pope and Ecumenical Council and have endowed yourself with the gift of infallibility.
There’s hardly any difference from your last post to me and an ex cathedra statement from the Pope of Rome or the Council of Nicaea’s declaration on the divinity of Christ.
I don’t claim infallibility for myself, but it seems you have done so implicitly.
Don’t tell me what is Biblical and what isn’t because that judgment is your private judgment.
It smacks of spiritual pride and arrogance. James 2:24.
The Argumentum ad Constaninem doesn’t explain why the Oriental Orthodox and Assyrian Church of the East remain so close to Catholicism despite the fact they broke with Rome in rebellion against Constantine’s successors.
The Constantine folks seem to forget that his immediate successors persecuted people like St. Athanasius for his orthodox confession of faith.
Perhaps the Evangelicals who bash Constantine are closet Arians. :)
tc:>>The burden of proof is on you. Prove it.
Read the Book of Acts. Show us where any of that was practiced in the early church.
Please also provide Scripture instructing believers to perform those specific duties, and show us the Scriptural evidence of the doctrines of the immaculate conception, assumption of Mary, holy water, the confessional, for example.
In addition, it's not possible to prove a negative. Prove that they did have it.
Nobody is obligated to believe any claim of something having happened without proof of it. Say so doesn't constitute proof.
The mentality of *It's true until you prove it isn't because we claim it* is the last resort of those who have NO argument or evidence to support their claims.
Epic fail.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.