Posted on 04/07/2015 11:37:31 AM PDT by RnMomof7
NOT the 'teachings of the bishops and martyrs'!
Good grief.
Who do you think taught 1st century bishops and martyrs? The Apostles. Who laid hands on men to become 1st century bishops and martyrs? The Apostles. As there was no “New Testament” at the time, what do you propose they taught?
The answer? The Scriptures, which at that time, was the Septuagint, as well as all of the teachings of Jesus Christ as given to them by the Apostles.
For review, Jesus’ Apostles created bishops by the laying on of hands, giving them the authority to teach. Before the laying on of hands, these men were taught by the Apostles. Currently, we are discussing the teachings of these men, which pre-date the New Testament, and were students of the Apostles.
So, did Jesus lack the authority to send the Apostles preaching and teaching? Did the Apostles lack the authority to appoint bishops (successors)? How is/was the truth of Jesus Christ to be spread authoritatively without the provision to appoint qualified successors?
Finally, who is more credible as a source of teaching, a disciple of the Apostles, or someone separated from the Church by choice and 1500 years (Calvin, Luther, etc.)? Again, who is more credible: someone taught by a man who physically learned at the feet of Jesus Christ himself, or someone denying the truth that had been taught for over 1500 years?
Clearly, when one decides anyone can have their own version of Christianity, then there is a problem. This was demonstrated in the early part of the Reformation, when denominationalism spread. Different Protestant leaders were dis-fellowshipping other Protestant leaders and sects because they weren’t in agreement. Clearly, with each man being his own judge, relativism is sure to follow.
When one believes they alone are the final arbiter of Scripture, then there is no possibility of unity, the unity Paul called for in 1 Cor 1:10-13.
Peter already called Paul's writings scripture.
>>Currently, we are discussing the teachings of these men, which pre-date the New Testament, and were students of the Apostles.<<
1 John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
>>Finally, who is more credible as a source of teaching, a disciple of the Apostles, or someone separated from the Church by choice and 1500 years<<
By the time John wrote Revelation in 96AD six of the seven churches were already in error. Paul had to publicly shame Peter because he whimped out when he was eating with Gentiles and Jews showed up. Who are you kidding by trying to get us to trust anyone later than that?
But somehow, we are supposed to trust you???
No, trust scripture. It's why I post scripture.
Your interpretation of the Scripture.
Evidently NOT!!!
Pope Stephen VI (896–897), who had his predecessor Pope Formosus exhumed, tried, de-fingered, briefly reburied, and thrown in the Tiber.[1]
Pope John XII (955–964), who gave land to a mistress, murdered several people, and was killed by a man who caught him in bed with his wife.
Pope Benedict IX (1032–1044, 1045, 1047–1048), who "sold" the Papacy
Pope Boniface VIII (1294–1303), who is lampooned in Dante's Divine Comedy
Pope Urban VI (1378–1389), who complained that he did not hear enough screaming when Cardinals who had conspired against him were tortured.[2]
Pope Alexander VI (1492–1503), a Borgia, who was guilty of nepotism and whose unattended corpse swelled until it could barely fit in a coffin.[3]
Pope Leo X (1513–1521), a spendthrift member of the Medici family who once spent 1/7 of his predecessors' reserves on a single ceremony[4]
Pope Clement VII (1523–1534), also a Medici, whose power-politicking with France, Spain, and Germany got Rome sacked.
Which was CAUSED by the folks above!!
What a copout way to IGNORE what Scripture PLAINLY says.
5 Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.”
6 The apostles and elders met to consider this question. 7 After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8 God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9 He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10 Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? 11 No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”
12 The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them. 13 When they finished, James spoke up. “Brothers,” he said, “listen to me. 14 Simon[a] has described to us how God first intervened to choose a people for his name from the Gentiles. 15 The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:
16 “‘After this I will return
and rebuild David’s fallen tent.
Its ruins I will rebuild,
and I will restore it,
17 that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord,
even all the Gentiles who bear my name,
says the Lord, who does these things’[b]—
18 things known from long ago.[c]
19 “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20 Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21 For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”
The apostles and elders, your brothers,
To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia:
Greetings.
24 We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. 25 So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul— 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. 28 It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29 You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.
Farewell.
30 So the men were sent off and went down to Antioch, where they gathered the church together and delivered the letter. 31 The people read it and were glad for its encouraging message. 32 Judas and Silas, who themselves were prophets, said much to encourage and strengthen the believers. 33 After spending some time there, they were sent off by the believers with the blessing of peace to return to those who had sent them. [34] [d] 35 But Paul and Barnabas remained in Antioch, where they and many others taught and preached the word of the Lord.
Acts wasn’t written in English, now was it? That is a great starting point. Second, it isn’t just the literal translation from the original language, rather, it is the understanding of the context, references, and double and triple meanings at the time of writing.
As I have quoted Scripture, on several occasions, and on several different threads, the response is generally the same; to claim it isn’t what it says.
Case in point, John 6. Jesus clearly says we must eat of His physical body and drink His blood, yet most non-Catholics don’t believe that.
What?
Can't you do any better than that?
Let's ignore all of your popes that did/do not speak English!
Let's ignore LATIN!!!
You'll have to do a lot better than this to try to brush away what the text plainly says.
Scripture interprets scripture and the Holy Spirit guides to truth.
That my friend, is known as a circular reasoning, and is not sound.
No, claims have been made that individuals interpretations of “plain” Scripture are the most accurate. I clearly demonstrated that is not the case. If Scriptural interpretation were as easy as claimed, why do we have so many non-Catholic Christian denominations?
A person can paste as many chapters or verses as they wish, commenting as to what they think they mean, and one can find any number of people who will disagree. This has been the fatal flaw of Protestantism. With each claiming to hold the truth, someone has to be wrong.
Going back to the original piece, I have demonstrated those who were taught by the Apostles taught the fullness of Christian truth, as well as the truths of the Blessed Mother. This was BEFORE the New Testament was written. Regardless, the Old Testament supports the Marian doctrines, which can be easily proven.
All of these other blind alleys about bad popes, Sola Scriptura, etc., are just that, blind alleys. Believe as one wishes, but belief outside of the teachings of the Catholic Church are fraught with error. I pray for the conversion of all souls.
LOL Like the Catholic Church claiming authority because it says it has authority? Scripture is God's word and as such is sufficient.
The Church has authority because it was given by Jesus Christ Himself, as found in Scripture, Matthew 16:18, from KJV:
18And I say also 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. 19And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
We also see Peter speaking with authority at the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15), and then the council sending Barsabas and Silas with Paul and Barnabas to Antioch. Prior to that, in Acts 14:22, Paul and Barnabas ordain priests, demonstrating the authority to do so.
In each case stated above, Peter and the Apostles were given authority by Jesus to preach, teach, ordain, lay on hands, and give rules.
Please also consider the following passages demonstrating authority held by the Apostles: Matthew 16:19, Matt 18:18, Mark 3:15, John 20:21, and John 20:23
Finally, here are passages which demonstrated how the authority from Christ cascaded through the Apostles to the rest of the Church:
Titus 1:7-11
For a bishop, as God’s steward….. must hold firm to the sure word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to confute those who contradict it. For there are many insubordinate men, empty talkers and deceivers….they have no right to teach.
Hebrews 13:17
Obey your leaders and submit to them; for they are keeping watch over your souls, as men who will have to give account. Let them do this joyfully, and not sadly, for that would be of no advantage to you.
2 Cor 13:10
I write this while I am away from you, in order that when I come I may not have to be severe in my use of the authority…
Titus 2:15
Declare these things; exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one disregard you.
3 John 1:9
I have written something to the church; but Diotrephes, who likes to put himself first, does not acknowledge my authority.
Acts 14:23
And when they had appointed elders for them in every church, with prayer and fasting, they committed them to the Lord in whom they believed.
Acts 15:2
And when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question.
1 Cor 12:28-30
And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, then healers, helpers, administrators, speakers in various kinds of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles?
Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret?
1 Tim 3:1-5
THE SAYING is sure: If any one aspires to the office of bishop, he desires a noble task. Now a bishop must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, sensible, dignified, hospitable, an apt teacher, no drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, and no lover of money. He must manage his own household well, keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way; for if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how can he care for God’s church?
Again, here is the Scripture to prove the statement. Do you accept what is clearly taught here, in plain language, or do you refute it?
How many times do Catholics have to be shown that the Rock is Christ and not Peter? God Himself said "is there any other Rock? I know of none".
>>We also see Peter speaking with authority at the Council of Jerusalem<<
Nonesense! Peter simply relayed a message. It was James who made the declaration NOT Peter.
>>In each case stated above, Peter and the Apostles were given authority by Jesus to preach, teach, ordain, lay on hands, and give rules.<<
Acts 15:8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; 9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
>>1 Tim 3:1-5 THE SAYING is sure: If any one aspires to the office of bishop, he desires a noble task. Now a bishop must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, sensible, dignified, hospitable, an apt teacher, no drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, and no lover of money. He must manage his own household well, keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way; for if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how can he care for God’s church?<<
Catholic leadership doesn't even qualify. Besides, there is no such thing as a priest in the New Testament ekklesia other than the priesthood of all believers with Christ as the High Priest. The Catholic Church is a usurper and a false religion. It is nicolaitan which God hates.
You are making my point, which is that you don’t accept the translation. You asked for Scripture, I provided it. Don’t like what it says, argue it is translated incorrectly. You really can’t have it both ways.
The Catholic translation and understanding has existed for 2000 years, universally. The same can not be said of the beliefs of non-Catholic Christians.
Again, instead of accepting the authority of Church which Christ founded, countless heretics and apostates have substituted their own judgement for the Church’s.
The fruit of this rebellion is continued fragmentation of non-Catholic, Christian denominations, first begun in the Reformation. This rebellion includes support for abortion, homosexuality, fornication, divorce, and the acceptance of things specifically prohibited in the Bible.
Of course I don't accept the Catholic interpretation. Peter said ""You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." and Jesus said on this Rock I will build my ekklesia. Christ is the Rock.
1 Corinthians 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
Scripture tells us who the Rock is. Not some power hungry men in funny hats and robes.
>>The Catholic translation and understanding has existed for 2000 years, universally.<<
Oh come now, the Babylonian beliefs and traditions the Catholic Church holds have been around longer then that.
>>Again, instead of accepting the authority of Church which Christ founded,<<
Christ didn't start the Catholic Church. Constantine did. The Simon Magus influence is prevalent and pagan elements pervade.
You are just plain wrong.
All the best!
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.