GCM Home | Your Posts | Rules | DONATE | Bookstore | RSS | Facebook | Twitter | FAQs


Author Topic: Dark Ages  (Read 8410 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline grace

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4247
  • Manna: 144
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
Dark Ages
« on: Thu Mar 15, 2012 - 16:05:08 »
This come up in another thread and it was off topic of the OP of that thread so I started this to discuss what happen in the Dark ages.

As I have posted before I was brought up in a very leagalistic background...some of the doctrines were just not true.

The one I am posting today concerns the Dark ages.  I can just share what I was taught from the religion that I was raised in.

I was taught that the Anabaptist,  Paulicians, Montanists, Puritans and others were listed as the ones that were persecuted because of their doctrines or because they would not adhere to the Catholic Hieracrchy.

Fundamental Doctrines of these groups:
Its Head and Founder-CHRIST. He is the lawgiver; the Church only executive.
It's only rule of faith and practice-The BIBLE
Its name-"Church", "Churches"
Its policy-Congregational (all members equal)
Its members-only saved people
Its ordinances-Believers Baptism, Lord's supper
Its officers-Pastors and deacons
It's work- bringing people to the knowledge of salvation, baptizing, teaching them.
Its finacial plan- Tithes and offerings
It's Weapons of warfare-spiritual not carnal
It's independence-separation of Church and State.

I was also told that these groups were the only ones that did not symbolize with Rome.

How do these groups and the Catholics both claim they are from the beginning and their doctrines are so different?

Christian Forums and Message Board

Dark Ages
« on: Thu Mar 15, 2012 - 16:05:08 »

Elvisman

  • Guest
Re: Dark Ages
« Reply #1 on: Thu Mar 15, 2012 - 16:42:54 »
This come up in another thread and it was off topic of the OP of that thread so I started this to discuss what happen in the Dark ages.

As I have posted before I was brought up in a very leagalistic background...some of the doctrines were just not true.

The one I am posting today concerns the Dark ages.  I can just share what I was taught from the religion that I was raised in.

I was taught that the Anabaptist,  Paulicians, Montanists, Puritans and others were listed as the ones that were persecuted because of their doctrines or because they would not adhere to the Catholic Hieracrchy.

Fundamental Doctrines of these groups:
Its Head and Founder-CHRIST. He is the lawgiver; the Church only executive.
It's only rule of faith and practice-The BIBLE
Its name-"Church", "Churches"
Its policy-Congregational (all members equal)
Its members-only saved people
Its ordinances-Believers Baptism, Lord's supper
Its officers-Pastors and deacons
It's work- bringing people to the knowledge of salvation, baptizing, teaching them.
Its finacial plan- Tithes and offerings
It's Weapons of warfare-spiritual not carnal
It's independence-separation of Church and State.

I was also told that these groups were the only ones that did not symbolize with Rome.

How do these groups and the Catholics both claim they are from the beginning and their doctrines are so different?

AS I stated on another thread – Anabaptists formed in the 17th century and were considered Radical reformists.

Paulicans were basically Manichean heretics who sprang up in Armenia.  Their leader was a man named "Constantine the Armenian".  He was stoned to death by order of the Emperor around the year 660.  After establishing a "Paulician state" in Turkey over the next 2 centuries, Constantine’s successors caused a lot of trouble, destroying cities and taking priests as prisoners over the next 200 years.
Eventually, they were wiped out.

Puritans began their sect in the 17th century and .

The founder of Montanism, Montanus started his career in the late 2nd century.  He preached that Jesus would return to his home town in Phrygia.  He claimed that he spoke for the Holy Spirit and that he actually WAS the Holy Spirit – the Paraclete that hesus promised He would send 1 John 16:12-15.

NONE of these sects can trace their belief system back any further than 660 – except for the Montanists, and they were pretty wacky. ONLY the Catholic Church can trace itself back to the Apostles.
Any other sect that makes this claim must be able to PROVE it.

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Dark Ages
« Reply #1 on: Thu Mar 15, 2012 - 16:42:54 »

Offline grace

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4247
  • Manna: 144
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
Re: Dark Ages
« Reply #2 on: Thu Mar 15, 2012 - 16:52:03 »
Did the Catholics persecute these groups?

My notes are kinda hard to read from a long time ago...but I was taught...

Cardinal Hosius (Catholic, 1524), President of the Council of Trent:
"Were it not that the baptist have been grievously tormented and cut off with the knife during the past twelve hundred years, they would swarm in greater number tha all the Reformers." (Hosius, Letters, Apud Opera, pages 112,113).

Wouldn't 1200 years precede the reformation according to this?

Elvisman

  • Guest
Re: Dark Ages
« Reply #3 on: Thu Mar 15, 2012 - 17:26:17 »
Did the Catholics persecute these groups?

My notes are kinda hard to read from a long time ago...but I was taught...

Cardinal Hosius (Catholic, 1524), President of the Council of Trent:
"Were it not that the baptist have been grievously tormented and cut off with the knife during the past twelve hundred years, they would swarm in greater number tha all the Reformers." (Hosius, Letters, Apud Opera, pages 112,113).

Wouldn't 1200 years precede the reformation according to this?

This supposed "quote" from Cardinal Hosius is a fake.  It is from an old Baptist document called, "The Trail of Blood", which most Baptists don't even believe anymore because of it's unhistorical claims.

John Smyth founded the Baptist denomination in 1609 in Amsterdam.

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Dark Ages
« Reply #3 on: Thu Mar 15, 2012 - 17:26:17 »

Offline grace

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4247
  • Manna: 144
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
Re: Dark Ages
« Reply #4 on: Thu Mar 15, 2012 - 17:38:09 »
Did the Catholics persecute these groups?

My notes are kinda hard to read from a long time ago...but I was taught...

Cardinal Hosius (Catholic, 1524), President of the Council of Trent:
"Were it not that the baptist have been grievously tormented and cut off with the knife during the past twelve hundred years, they would swarm in greater number tha all the Reformers." (Hosius, Letters, Apud Opera, pages 112,113).

Wouldn't 1200 years precede the reformation according to this?

This supposed "quote" from Cardinal Hosius is a fake.  It is from an old Baptist document called, "The Trail of Blood", which most Baptists don't even believe anymore because of it's unhistorical claims.

John Smyth founded the Baptist denomination in 1609 in Amsterdam.

So more lies that I was taught!  ::cryingtears::

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Dark Ages
« Reply #4 on: Thu Mar 15, 2012 - 17:38:09 »



Offline grace

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4247
  • Manna: 144
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
Re: Dark Ages
« Reply #5 on: Thu Mar 15, 2012 - 18:31:11 »
What about persecution? Did this happen and why?

Offline grace

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4247
  • Manna: 144
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
Re: Dark Ages
« Reply #6 on: Thu Mar 15, 2012 - 18:44:32 »
Paulicans[/i] were basically Manichean heretics who sprang up in
NONE of these sects can trace their belief system back any further than 660 – except for the Montanists, and they were pretty wacky. ONLY the Catholic Church can trace itself back to the Apostles.
Any other sect that makes this claim must be able to PROVE it.

So how do the Catholics prove it?

Elvisman

  • Guest
Re: Dark Ages
« Reply #7 on: Thu Mar 15, 2012 - 19:03:49 »
Paulicans[/i] were basically Manichean heretics who sprang up in
NONE of these sects can trace their belief system back any further than 660 – except for the Montanists, and they were pretty wacky. ONLY the Catholic Church can trace itself back to the Apostles.
Any other sect that makes this claim must be able to PROVE it.

So how do the Catholics prove it?

Documentation and the testimonies of the Early Church Fathers.

In the writings of the Early Church, we see what the Church looked like and all of the teaching and practices of the Church.  We see that they were unanimous about things such as Infant Baptism, the Real  Presence in the Euchrist, Confessing sins to a priest, Bishops, priests, Popes, the Mass and the list goes on.  We see that the Early Church was unashamedly Catholic.  In fact, we see the Church being called the "Catholic Church" at the beginning of the 2nd Century - a mere 70 or so years from the time of Christ.

A 19th century covert to the Church, John Henry Newman, an Anglican Pastor studied the Early Church and came to the following conclusion:
"To be deep in history is to cease being Protestant."

Offline grace

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4247
  • Manna: 144
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
Re: Dark Ages
« Reply #8 on: Thu Mar 15, 2012 - 20:39:01 »
Paulicans[/i] were basically Manichean heretics who sprang up in
NONE of these sects can trace their belief system back any further than 660 – except for the Montanists, and they were pretty wacky. ONLY the Catholic Church can trace itself back to the Apostles.
Any other sect that makes this claim must be able to PROVE it.

So how do the Catholics prove it?

Documentation and the testimonies of the Early Church Fathers.

In the writings of the Early Church, we see what the Church looked like and all of the teaching and practices of the Church.  We see that they were unanimous about things such as Infant Baptism, the Real  Presence in the Euchrist, Confessing sins to a priest, Bishops, priests, Popes, the Mass and the list goes on.  We see that the Early Church was unashamedly Catholic.  In fact, we see the Church being called the "Catholic Church" at the beginning of the 2nd Century - a mere 70 or so years from the time of Christ.

A 19th century covert to the Church, John Henry Newman, an Anglican Pastor studied the Early Church and came to the following conclusion:
"To be deep in history is to cease being Protestant."


and...the persecution??

Elvisman

  • Guest
Re: Dark Ages
« Reply #9 on: Thu Mar 15, 2012 - 20:48:44 »

and...the persecution??

Sorry - I was tryping from my iPad ans it's a pain.  I meant to get back to you when I got home.

Unfortunately, persecutions have happened at the hands of Catholics and Protestants alike throughout the centuries.  Whether they were verbal persecutions, imprisonments or actual death - everybody has blood on their hands.  The persecutions that the Catholic Church has been involved in over the centuries have largely been on the part of governements and local bishoprics and not sanctioned by Rome.

That being said, the so-called persecution of the Paulicans was actually more of an ongoing war of sorts.  They killed and destroyed and consequently, they were hunted down and killed.

Offline grace

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4247
  • Manna: 144
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
Re: Dark Ages
« Reply #10 on: Thu Mar 15, 2012 - 21:09:33 »

The founder of Montanism, Montanus started his career in the late 2nd century.  He preached that Jesus would return to his home town in Phrygia.  He claimed that he spoke for the Holy Spirit and that he actually WAS the Holy Spirit – the Paraclete that hesus promised He would send 1 John 16:12-15.

Digging in some of my notes I came across this...
W.A. Jarrell in his Baptist Church perpetuity, published 1904, declared the Montanists to be forebears of Baptist, thus tracing their origin back to A.D. 150. Most of their beliefs were the same as Baptist.

IT said that Montanus was accused of claiming to be the Comforter....but that he simply believed that a man could be filled and directed by the Holy Spirit.

Tertullian, preacher of the third century, embraced Montanism's doctrine. Tertullian exposed all those attacks on Montanus to be lies. He also believed the very substance of the church was the Holy Spirit not the rule by bishops.


Elvisman

  • Guest
Re: Dark Ages
« Reply #11 on: Thu Mar 15, 2012 - 21:18:57 »

Digging in some of my notes I came across this...
W.A. Jarrell in his Baptist Church perpetuity, published 1904, declared the Montanists to be forebears of Baptist, thus tracing their origin back to A.D. 150. Most of their beliefs were the same as Baptist.

IT said that Montanus was accused of claiming to be the Comforter....but that he simply believed that a man could be filled and directed by the Holy Spirit.

Tertullian, preacher of the third century, embraced Montanism's doctrine. Tertullian exposed all those attacks on Montanus to be lies. He also believed the very substance of the church was the Holy Spirit not the rule by bishops.

That is wrong.
The Montanists weren't even around at the time of John Smyth in the 17th century, let alone the Reformation in the 16th century.

As for Tertullian - he fell into the Montanist heresy, which held that Montanus WAS the Paraclete.  If some Baptists want to align themseves with blasphemy - more power to them.

This is an ancient heresy that MOST Protestants AND Catholics theologians alike agree with each other on.

Offline grace

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4247
  • Manna: 144
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
Re: Dark Ages
« Reply #12 on: Thu Mar 15, 2012 - 21:59:14 »
After the Apostles were martyred heros along with many of the true christians during the persecution by Judaism and Paganism...Churches spread out most in hiding, right? How did the Catholics get started from this point?

From what I read in history of churches is that they were spread out in the first three centuries, they were separate independent bodies, unsupported by government and did not have power over one another.

Elvisman

  • Guest
Re: Dark Ages
« Reply #13 on: Thu Mar 15, 2012 - 22:30:08 »
After the Apostles were martyred heros along with many of the true christians during the persecution by Judaism and Paganism...Churches spread out most in hiding, right? How did the Catholics get started from this point?

From what I read in history of churches is that they were spread out in the first three centuries, they were separate independent bodies, unsupported by government and did not have power over one another.

The Catholic Church WAS the only Church at the time.
Just as we have today, there are Parishes and Dioceses of the Catholic Church ALL over the world and they teach the SAME doctrines.

As far as the "history" you ALWAYS have to consider the source.  There are MANY spurious claims made by MANY sources that are flatly works of fiction.  They get proliferated because they aren't seriously questioned.  Look at the frenzy the Da Vinci Code caused - and that was 100% PURE fiction.
Revisionism is rampant in today's "informed" society.

Offline grace

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4247
  • Manna: 144
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
Re: Dark Ages
« Reply #14 on: Thu Mar 15, 2012 - 22:57:19 »
After the Apostles were martyred heros along with many of the true christians during the persecution by Judaism and Paganism...Churches spread out most in hiding, right? How did the Catholics get started from this point?

From what I read in history of churches is that they were spread out in the first three centuries, they were separate independent bodies, unsupported by government and did not have power over one another.

The Catholic Church WAS the only Church at the time.
Just as we have today, there are Parishes and Dioceses of the Catholic Church ALL over the world and they teach the SAME doctrines.

As far as the "history" you ALWAYS have to consider the source.  There are MANY spurious claims made by MANY sources that are flatly works of fiction.  They get proliferated because they aren't seriously questioned.  Look at the frenzy the Da Vinci Code caused - and that was 100% PURE fiction.
Revisionism is rampant in today's "informed" society.

So you are saying all these churches are Catholic churches...all the churches in the Bible are Catholic churches..Ephesians, Corinthians etc?

So what started the persecution? If all the churches were Catholic then....Did the Catholics divide amongst themselves?


Elvisman

  • Guest
Re: Dark Ages
« Reply #15 on: Fri Mar 16, 2012 - 10:16:49 »
So you are saying all these churches are Catholic churches...all the churches in the Bible are Catholic churches..Ephesians, Corinthians etc?

So what started the persecution? If all the churches were Catholic then....Did the Catholics divide amongst themselves?

In one word:  HERESY.

Heretics arouse from the outside (Gnostics) as well as from the inside (Arian, Nestorius, Pelagius).
Remember - Jesus warned that there would be false prophets and teachers from within (John 7:15-20).

Offline grace

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4247
  • Manna: 144
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
Re: Dark Ages
« Reply #16 on: Fri Mar 16, 2012 - 11:32:55 »
So you are saying all these churches are Catholic churches...all the churches in the Bible are Catholic churches..Ephesians, Corinthians etc?

So what started the persecution? If all the churches were Catholic then....Did the Catholics divide amongst themselves?

In one word:  HERESY.

Heretics arouse from the outside (Gnostics) as well as from the inside (Arian, Nestorius, Pelagius).
Remember - Jesus warned that there would be false prophets and teachers from within (John 7:15-20).

Yes, I understand about false prophets and teachers! Who were these Gnostics?

I am trying to understand from the Catholic view...because I have heard the Baptist view.

Certain Baptist (not called Baptist then) say they never were apart of the Catholics so therefore they are not protestants?
They say that is why the persecutions started because they would not join the Catholics. They spoke out against some of their teachings! They say it was the Catholics that came in and tried to change things. I guess they call the Catholics the false teachers from within.


Elvisman

  • Guest
Re: Dark Ages
« Reply #17 on: Fri Mar 16, 2012 - 11:56:55 »
Yes, I understand about false prophets and teachers! Who were these Gnostics?

I am trying to understand from the Catholic view...because I have heard the Baptist view.

Certain Baptist (not called Baptist then) say they never were apart of the Catholics so therefore they are not protestants?
They say that is why the persecutions started because they would not join the Catholics. They spoke out against some of their teachings! They say it was the Catholics that came in and tried to change things. I guess they call the Catholics the false teachers from within.

First of all, the Gnostics went all the way back to the 1st century.  The believed that all possessions were evil and rejected marriage.  They held to strict dietary laws and rejected the Eucharist.  It is said that John's Gospel was written as a response to the Gnostic heresy.  The Eucharist is a MAIN theme in John's Gospel.

Ignatius of Antioch wrote about them right before his death at the beginning of the 2nd century:

Ignatius of Antioch
Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1 [A.D. 107]).


This was written less than 75 years after Christ and about 40 years after Peter and Paul.
Ignatius was a student of the Apostle John and learned the faith firsthand from him..

As for the Baptists - they simply did not exist until the 17th century when John Smyth founded them in Amsterdam.  In the Early Church, there were those who went into heresy by teaching "Re-Baptism" when a person fell away into sin.  The Church's prescription for this was always Confession for those who sinned or fell away - not Re-Baptism. 
It is from this heretical practice that the word, "Anabaptist" (re-Baptixer) comes from.

However - these are NOT the Baptists.  They didn't come along until 1600 years later.

Offline grace

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4247
  • Manna: 144
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
Re: Dark Ages
« Reply #18 on: Fri Mar 16, 2012 - 18:10:24 »
Yes, I understand about false prophets and teachers! Who were these Gnostics?

I am trying to understand from the Catholic view...because I have heard the Baptist view.

Certain Baptist (not called Baptist then) say they never were apart of the Catholics so therefore they are not protestants?
They say that is why the persecutions started because they would not join the Catholics. They spoke out against some of their teachings! They say it was the Catholics that came in and tried to change things. I guess they call the Catholics the false teachers from within.

First of all, the Gnostics went all the way back to the 1st century.  The believed that all possessions were evil and rejected marriage.  They held to strict dietary laws and rejected the Eucharist.  It is said that John's Gospel was written as a response to the Gnostic heresy.  The Eucharist is a MAIN theme in John's Gospel.

Ignatius of Antioch wrote about them right before his death at the beginning of the 2nd century:

Ignatius of Antioch
Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1 [A.D. 107]).


This was written less than 75 years after Christ and about 40 years after Peter and Paul.
Ignatius was a student of the Apostle John and learned the faith firsthand from him..

As for the Baptists - they simply did not exist until the 17th century when John Smyth founded them in Amsterdam.  In the Early Church, there were those who went into heresy by teaching "Re-Baptism" when a person fell away into sin.  The Church's prescription for this was always Confession for those who sinned or fell away - not Re-Baptism. 
It is from this heretical practice that the word, "Anabaptist" (re-Baptixer) comes from.

However - these are NOT the Baptists.  They didn't come along until 1600 years later.

It says take note of those who...  do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins...
This is when the Catholics started believing that the wine and bread was really his blood and body..not just picture of it, right? Also when the teaching of baptism saves you and infant baptism started.

Around 270 AD is when the separations started. When others would not except the Eucharist was real and not a type.

Wasn't it Galerius that passed toleration-permission to live the religion of Jesus Christ? ...but until that He persecuted Christians.
about churches that believed like the baptist?

Elvisman

  • Guest
Re: Dark Ages
« Reply #19 on: Sat Mar 17, 2012 - 09:25:42 »
It says take note of those who...  do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins...
This is when the Catholics started believing that the wine and bread was really his blood and body..not just picture of it, right? Also when the teaching of baptism saves you and infant baptism started.

Around 270 AD is when the separations started. When others would not except the Eucharist was real and not a type.

Wasn't it Galerius that passed toleration-permission to live the religion of Jesus Christ? ...but until that He persecuted Christians.
about churches that believed like the baptist?

Grace - I don't know where you're getting your information but it's historically and Scripturally incorrect.

The "separations" started back in the First Century with the Judaizers and Gnostics.  Remember in Acts 15 at the Council of Jerusalem when the Apostles had to send out a letter because of the false message the Judaizers were spreading to new Christians?

Remember a few posts back when we discussed the Montanist Heresy, when Montanus claimed to be the Paraclete - the Holy Spirit?  This happened in the Second Century.  I don't know where you're getting this date of 270 AD.

You also stated - after reading the Letter from Ignatius - that this is when the Cathoics "started believing that the wine and bread was really his blood and body".  This was already an established belief from the Apostles.  Remember - Ignatius was a student of John the Apostle.  He learned everything from John, who was there with Christ for three years.  Belief in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist was not new when Ignatius wrote this letter right befor his death.  It was an established Christian belief.

This is why we read from FIRST century historians that the Romans would accuse the Christians of "cannibalism" because they claimed to "eat their Lord and drink his blood".  It's all there in the historical writings of Josephus, Pliny, and other historians of the time.

Offline mclees8

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5179
  • Manna: 135
    • View Profile
Re: Dark Ages
« Reply #20 on: Sat Mar 17, 2012 - 18:55:22 »
It says take note of those who...  do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins...
This is when the Catholics started believing that the wine and bread was really his blood and body..not just picture of it, right? Also when the teaching of baptism saves you and infant baptism started.

Around 270 AD is when the separations started. When others would not except the Eucharist was real and not a type.

Wasn't it Galerius that passed toleration-permission to live the religion of Jesus Christ? ...but until that He persecuted Christians.
about churches that believed like the baptist?

Grace - I don't know where you're getting your information but it's historically and Scripturally incorrect.

The "separations" started back in the First Century with the Judaizers and Gnostics.  Remember in Acts 15 at the Council of Jerusalem when the Apostles had to send out a letter because of the false message the Judaizers were spreading to new Christians?

Remember a few posts back when we discussed the Montanist Heresy, when Montanus claimed to be the Paraclete - the Holy Spirit?  This happened in the Second Century.  I don't know where you're getting this date of 270 AD.

You also stated - after reading the Letter from Ignatius - that this is when the Cathoics "started believing that the wine and bread was really his blood and body".  This was already an established belief from the Apostles.  Remember - Ignatius was a student of John the Apostle.  He learned everything from John, who was there with Christ for three years.  Belief in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist was not new when Ignatius wrote this letter right befor his death.  It was an established Christian belief.

This is why we read from FIRST century historians that the Romans would accuse the Christians of "cannibalism" because they claimed to "eat their Lord and drink his blood".  It's all there in the historical writings of Josephus, Pliny, and other historians of the time.

Elvis wants to say that Ignatius was taught the reall presence from John. Yet that is an assumtion and not a fact. In all this there is controversy as to the literal and the spiritual interpritation John 6. The catholics want to legalise their interpretation, but what truly  honors the Lord is what we do in spirit and in truth. Remember what Jesus said, it is the spirit that qickens (makes alive) the flesh profits nothing. My words are spirit and they are life.(John 6:63) Jesus also said those who want to honer God must worship Him in spirit and in truth.  It is not wether one believes it is litteral or it is symbloic rememberance. It is what one does from his heart.

Elvis is a man salvation weighed in the balance of this controversy. does formal ritual out weigh what is done in the spirit?  would you condemn the body of Christ with legalism.

Elvisman

  • Guest
Re: Dark Ages
« Reply #21 on: Mon Mar 19, 2012 - 22:51:40 »

Elvis wants to say that Ignatius was taught the reall presence from John. Yet that is an assumtion and not a fact. In all this there is controversy as to the literal and the spiritual interpritation John 6. The catholics want to legalise their interpretation, but what truly  honors the Lord is what we do in spirit and in truth. Remember what Jesus said, it is the spirit that qickens (makes alive) the flesh profits nothing. My words are spirit and they are life.(John 6:63) Jesus also said those who want to honer God must worship Him in spirit and in truth.  It is not wether one believes it is litteral or it is symbloic rememberance. It is what one does from his heart.

Elvis is a man salvation weighed in the balance of this controversy. does formal ritual out weigh what is done in the spirit?  would you condemn the body of Christ with legalism.

Spoken like a true Protestant - just like the ones who walked away from Christ in John 6:66 because they couldn't handle what he was telling them.  Do you HONESTLY believe that Jesus' flesh profits us nothing?
WRONG.

It profits us SALVATION because it was by the sacrifice of his FLESH and BLOOD that we even have a chance of Salvation.  How can you call yourself a Christian if you deny tis fact?  This is a basic tenet of the faith that ALL Christians should believe in.

What an APPALLING lack of faith.

Aas for Ignatius being a student of John - are you saying that you can prove the Church wrong about this? 
I await your reply with GREAT eagerness . . .

Offline Scott1

  • Maronite Catholic
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 292
  • Manna: 3
    • View Profile
Re: Dark Ages
« Reply #22 on: Mon Mar 19, 2012 - 23:27:33 »
Quote from: mclees8
Elvis wants to say that Ignatius was taught the reall presence from John. Yet that is an assumtion and not a fact. 
It would be fair to question this if it was the only evidence as to the teaching of the Apostles.

Some addtional evidence:

The Didache (written in Syria between 70 A.D. and 110 A.D.) 
"Let no one eat and drink of your Eucharist but those baptized in the name of the Lord; to this, too the saying of the Lord is applicable: 'Do not give to dogs what is sacred'".   -Ch. 9:5

"On the Lord's own day, assemble in common to break bread and offer thanks; but first confess your sins, so that your sacrifice may be pure. However, no one quarreling with his brother may join your meeting until they are reconciled; your sacrifice must not be defiled. For here we have the saying of the Lord: 'In every place and time offer me a pure sacrifice; for I am a mighty King, says the Lord; and my name spreads terror among the nations.'"  -Ch 14

--------------------------

180 AD–St. Irenaeus
“He (Jesus) has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be His own Blood, from which He causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, He has established as His own Body, from which He gives increase to our bodies.

Offline AVZ

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4703
  • Manna: 101
    • View Profile
Re: Dark Ages
« Reply #23 on: Tue Mar 20, 2012 - 02:30:42 »
Do you HONESTLY believe that Jesus' flesh profits us nothing? WRONG.

It profits us SALVATION because it was by the sacrifice of his FLESH and BLOOD that we even have a chance of Salvation.  How can you call yourself a Christian if you deny tis fact?  This is a basic tenet of the faith that ALL Christians should believe in.

What an APPALLING lack of faith.

Are you not the person that claims not to know if he will be saved?
So if you yourself hold it possible that Jesus' flesh profits you nothing, then why the denigrating attitude towards others?

Offline AVZ

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4703
  • Manna: 101
    • View Profile
Re: Dark Ages
« Reply #24 on: Tue Mar 20, 2012 - 02:59:11 »
Quote from: mclees8
Elvis wants to say that Ignatius was taught the reall presence from John. Yet that is an assumtion and not a fact. 
It would be fair to question this if it was the only evidence as to the teaching of the Apostles.

Some addtional evidence:

The Didache (written in Syria between 70 A.D. and 110 A.D.) 
"Let no one eat and drink of your Eucharist but those baptized in the name of the Lord; to this, too the saying of the Lord is applicable: 'Do not give to dogs what is sacred'".   -Ch. 9:5

"On the Lord's own day, assemble in common to break bread and offer thanks; but first confess your sins, so that your sacrifice may be pure. However, no one quarreling with his brother may join your meeting until they are reconciled; your sacrifice must not be defiled. For here we have the saying of the Lord: 'In every place and time offer me a pure sacrifice; for I am a mighty King, says the Lord; and my name spreads terror among the nations.'"  -Ch 14

--------------------------

180 AD–St. Irenaeus
“He (Jesus) has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be His own Blood, from which He causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, He has established as His own Body, from which He gives increase to our bodies.

Elvisman

  • Guest
Re: Dark Ages
« Reply #25 on: Tue Mar 20, 2012 - 09:21:30 »
Are you not the person that claims not to know if he will be saved?
So if you yourself hold it possible that Jesus' flesh profits you nothing, then why the denigrating attitude towards others?

Jesus flesh and blood redeemed ALL mankind.  Without his flesh and blood NONE of us would have a chance of salvation.

If you had read my post C*A*R*E*F*U*L*L*Y, which you never do - you would have seen that I wrote:
"It profits us SALVATION because it was by the sacrifice of his FLESH and BLOOD that we even have a chance of Salvation."

Helpful hint:
READ before responding.

Offline Scott1

  • Maronite Catholic
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 292
  • Manna: 3
    • View Profile
Re: Dark Ages
« Reply #26 on: Tue Mar 20, 2012 - 18:11:51 »
Quote from: AVZ
Iranaeus being student of Polycarp, or Ignatius being a student of John is not necessary evidence that their teachers share their opinions.
Remember, Simon Magus also received his teaching directly from the apostles.
Fair point.... BUT:
Quote
In real life we are all too much aware that students seldom share the exact teaching of their teachers, especially when the subject is not exact matter.
Hence it would be assumptive to state that because Polycarp or Ignatius claim something, their claim has apostolic approval.
... many non-Christians I speak with employ the exact same argument for the Bible.  

Eventually, a mature/rational believer has to decide what they consider to be authentic Christian teaching... and look to the history of our faith and come to the obvious conclusion - no matter how difficult.

If your intellectual standard is simply to toss aside any history that happens to run counter to your theology that's fine by me --- just realize that it is not exactly a compelling way of thinking.

Just curious, why DO you accept the NT as part of your faith since Paul and other NT writers may not have been faithful to their teacher?

Do you just accept it as a matter of faith or is their some convincing evidence that causes you to support the NT and not other writers from the same period of history?

Your friend in Christ, 
Scott

Offline AVZ

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4703
  • Manna: 101
    • View Profile
Re: Dark Ages
« Reply #27 on: Wed Mar 21, 2012 - 00:03:00 »
Quote from: AVZ
Iranaeus being student of Polycarp, or Ignatius being a student of John is not necessary evidence that their teachers share their opinions.
Remember, Simon Magus also received his teaching directly from the apostles.
Fair point.... BUT:
Quote
In real life we are all too much aware that students seldom share the exact teaching of their teachers, especially when the subject is not exact matter.
Hence it would be assumptive to state that because Polycarp or Ignatius claim something, their claim has apostolic approval.
... many non-Christians I speak with employ the exact same argument for the Bible.  

Eventually, a mature/rational believer has to decide what they consider to be authentic Christian teaching... and look to the history of our faith and come to the obvious conclusion - no matter how difficult.

If your intellectual standard is simply to toss aside any history that happens to run counter to your theology that's fine by me --- just realize that it is not exactly a compelling way of thinking.

Just curious, why DO you accept the NT as part of your faith since Paul and other NT writers may not have been faithful to their teacher?

Do you just accept it as a matter of faith or is their some convincing evidence that causes you to support the NT and not other writers from the same period of history?

Your friend in Christ, 
Scott

I would say that non-Christians by definition will contradict almost everything the Bible says.
You and I believe that the Bible is God's Word and inspired by the Holy Spirit.
But then again, we are not being stopped from testing the Bible, we are encouraged to do so, so we have plenty of room to decide for ourselves.

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."

I don't accept the NT purely as a matter of faith, but also not because it's evidentically convincing.
It should be a mix of both.

I also think that there was little room for any of the apostles to write down something incorrect.
The letters were distributed amongst the disciples. Evidentially the apostles do not contradict each other.
But if you were to take a book as Revelation, clearly you can only accept it through faith.

Offline Scott1

  • Maronite Catholic
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 292
  • Manna: 3
    • View Profile
Re: Dark Ages
« Reply #28 on: Wed Mar 21, 2012 - 00:16:22 »
Quote from: AVZ
I would say that non-Christians by definition will contradict almost everything the Bible says.
I think you missed my point... but it's not a big deal.  ::smile::
Quote
You and I believe that the Bible is God's Word and inspired by the Holy Spirit.
But then again, we are not being stopped from testing the Bible, we are encouraged to do so, so we have plenty of room to decide for ourselves.
So nice to see this written: "You and I believe".... not enough on that on this forum!
Quote
I don't accept the NT purely as a matter of faith, but also not because it's evidentically convincing.
It should be a mix of both.
I agree.
Quote
I also think that there was little room for any of the apostles to write down something incorrect.
The letters were distributed amongst the disciples. Evidentially the apostles do not contradict each other.
But if you were to take a book as Revelation, clearly you can only accept it through faith.
Okey dokey.... I would have prefered a bit more detail on your faith, but I suppose in time I can learn a bit more about how non-Catholics worship.

Thanks for the chat!
-S

Offline AVZ

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4703
  • Manna: 101
    • View Profile
Re: Dark Ages
« Reply #29 on: Wed Mar 21, 2012 - 01:48:18 »
Quote from: AVZ
I would say that non-Christians by definition will contradict almost everything the Bible says.
I think you missed my point... but it's not a big deal.  ::smile::
Ok, let me rephrase. Non-Christians look at the Bible from a scientific perspective only.
They claim that the Scriptures is a biological inheritance from teacher to student, with human corruption in the process.
They do not take the Holy Spirit and God's direct guidance into the equation.

Okey dokey.... I would have prefered a bit more detail on your faith, but I suppose in time I can learn a bit more about how non-Catholics worship.

Fair request.
It is my unmovable faith that the Scriptures we have today are infallibe and endorsed by God, and that He has made it so that what is His Word has been pronounced canon.
But I also believe that subsequent teachings, interpretations, doctrines and dogma's are not infallible.

God has created humans, intentionally giving them free will.
This free will is an absolute necessity if God wants to be the God He is. Without free will everything we do would be by command, and none of us can be held responsible. Salvation can only be achieved by creatures of free will and similarly damnation is also a product of free will.

Therefore it is unavoidable that teachings, teachers, interpretations, doctrines and dogma's will be stained with fallible notions.
But it is also my believe that God, through His grace, will not account these fallible notions to us but forgive those who believe in Him.

Therefore, I do not think Catholics have a better chance to be saved than non-Catholics. (and vice versa)
The sins of a non-Catholic are not less than the sins of a Catholic, and the sins of a Catholic are not less accountable than the sins of a non-Catholic.

Offline Scott1

  • Maronite Catholic
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 292
  • Manna: 3
    • View Profile
Re: Dark Ages
« Reply #30 on: Wed Mar 21, 2012 - 02:43:41 »
Thanks again AVZ .... very interesting info.

Offline KNOWLEDGE BOMB

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1327
  • Manna: 21
    • View Profile
Re: Dark Ages
« Reply #31 on: Tue Mar 27, 2012 - 23:51:11 »
Are you not the person that claims not to know if he will be saved?
So if you yourself hold it possible that Jesus' flesh profits you nothing, then why the denigrating attitude towards others?

Jesus flesh and blood redeemed ALL mankind.  Without his flesh and blood NONE of us would have a chance of salvation.

If you had read my post C*A*R*E*F*U*L*L*Y, which you never do - you would have seen that I wrote:
"It profits us SALVATION because it was by the sacrifice of his FLESH and BLOOD that we even have a chance of Salvation."

Helpful hint:
READ before responding.


That chance of salvation is due to His BLOOD alone! (Romans 3:25) (rev1:5)

Offline grace

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4247
  • Manna: 144
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
Re: Dark Ages
« Reply #32 on: Sun May 20, 2012 - 16:19:27 »
Came across something that shed a little light on the dark ages...

313 AD. Constantine becomes the ruler of the Roman Empire and chooses Christianity as the best of religions and began to control the affairs of the Church. God's Word says that Jesus is supposed to be the head and control the Church. (Eph.1:22-23, Col.1:18) The Church was declining fast!

 By the beginning of the 3rd.century, Biblical interpretation was greatly influenced by the Catechetical School of Alexandria, which  had become the great melting pot of Greek philosophy and Judaism. Origen was the chief representative of this School and DID NOT believe in the Deity of Christ. (i.e. that Jesus Christ was God manifest in the flesh) Alexandria was also a theological ferment where "philosophers
attempted to fuse the doctrine of Christianity with the ideal's of Greek philosophy" Compton's Interactive Encyclopedia, 96 / Funk & Wagnalls Encyclopedia, Vol.1. p.372 


By 323 AD. A threatened split in the Christian Church ...This quarrel was over Arius (Arian) and the doctrine of the Godhead (i.e. the trinity). Arius was a priest of  Alexandria that denied the Deity of Christ. (That Jesus was God manifest in the flesh John.1:1-14; Matt.1:23; John.5:17-18; 17:1-5 / Isa.42:8, John.7:39; 14:15--26, Acts.2:1) 
 
       Just like the illustration of Samson, the Church was not to "come at no dead body" (Num.6:6, Judges.13:5, 1Cor.3:17; 6:15-20, James.4:1-4, 2Cor.11:1-3)  Dead meaning, "dead works" (Heb.6:1, Eph.2:1) Our self righteousness. He was to remain consecrated to God. Samson did not remain separated, and neither did the  Church, and now by the 2nd.Century they are being "entangled" with "affairs in this life." (2Tim.2:3-4)

 Not only was the Church forsaking truth, this Arian heresy was corrupting the scribes who were hand copying* the Greek manuscripts. They were changing the Greek manuscripts claiming they were correcting them. (Sounds like today!) They were leaving out words that proclaimed Jesus as Deity, and the creator of the worlds.

The printing press would not be invented until the 14th. century. This left opportunity for a copying scribe to alter God's Word.

Constantine called for the Council of Nicaea. 325 AD.
 This was an ecumenical, or worldwide council of Bishops to correct the Arian heresy. (The denial of the Deity of Christ)  The Nicaean Council overwhelmingly condemned the Arian heresy, and drew up the "Nicaean Creed." However, like that of Samson's brethren, (Judges.15:9-10) the Church under the hand of Constantine, gave up
truth to the Philistines. (i.e. the vain deceit, philosophy and traditions of men - Col.2:8, Matt.15:6) This would eventually lead the Church to the captivity of the "dark ages" as it did to Samson.

In spite of the (Nicaean) council's decisions' the problem of Arianism was not solved for some decades. The Emperor Constantine II, Constantine's son, supported Arianism, as did Valens, one of his successors. This doctrine persisted until at least the 7th.century. Arianism today, is held by Unitarians, Jehovah Witnesses.23  The next 300 years, all the Bishops in the Roman Catholic Church were Arian in belief.
       
       "...Constantine, the wolf of paganism openly assumed the sheep's clothing
     of the Christian religion."

350 AD. Now Christianity is the religion of the state. (Rome)Heathens were forced into the Church without being born again. Many heathen preferred to be called Christians rather than face the sword. Needless to say, the doctrine of Justification by Faith and the new birth were no longer emphasized.

By 392 AD. Theodosius.... He went even further when he outlawed heathen worship. It now came under penalty of death for any one to have any religious connection other than that of the established Roman Church.  WHAT A TURN AROUND!

During the Dark Ages very little translation was attempted...the Word of God was locked up in the Latin tongue which was unknown to the common people.  Thompson Chain Ref. Bible. Condensed Encyclopedia, p.181  ::pondering::

Offline mclees8

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5179
  • Manna: 135
    • View Profile
Re: Dark Ages
« Reply #33 on: Mon May 21, 2012 - 09:38:20 »
Came across something that shed a little light on the dark ages...

313 AD. Constantine becomes the ruler of the Roman Empire and chooses Christianity as the best of religions and began to control the affairs of the Church. God's Word says that Jesus is supposed to be the head and control the Church. (Eph.1:22-23, Col.1:18) The Church was declining fast!

 By the beginning of the 3rd.century, Biblical interpretation was greatly influenced by the Catechetical School of Alexandria, which  had become the great melting pot of Greek philosophy and Judaism. Origen was the chief representative of this School and DID NOT believe in the Deity of Christ. (i.e. that Jesus Christ was God manifest in the flesh) Alexandria was also a theological ferment where "philosophers
attempted to fuse the doctrine of Christianity with the ideal's of Greek philosophy" Compton's Interactive Encyclopedia, 96 / Funk & Wagnalls Encyclopedia, Vol.1. p.372 


By 323 AD. A threatened split in the Christian Church ...This quarrel was over Arius (Arian) and the doctrine of the Godhead (i.e. the trinity). Arius was a priest of  Alexandria that denied the Deity of Christ. (That Jesus was God manifest in the flesh John.1:1-14; Matt.1:23; John.5:17-18; 17:1-5 / Isa.42:8, John.7:39; 14:15--26, Acts.2:1) 
 
       Just like the illustration of Samson, the Church was not to "come at no dead body" (Num.6:6, Judges.13:5, 1Cor.3:17; 6:15-20, James.4:1-4, 2Cor.11:1-3)  Dead meaning, "dead works" (Heb.6:1, Eph.2:1) Our self righteousness. He was to remain consecrated to God. Samson did not remain separated, and neither did the  Church, and now by the 2nd.Century they are being "entangled" with "affairs in this life." (2Tim.2:3-4)

 Not only was the Church forsaking truth, this Arian heresy was corrupting the scribes who were hand copying* the Greek manuscripts. They were changing the Greek manuscripts claiming they were correcting them. (Sounds like today!) They were leaving out words that proclaimed Jesus as Deity, and the creator of the worlds.

The printing press would not be invented until the 14th. century. This left opportunity for a copying scribe to alter God's Word.

Constantine called for the Council of Nicaea. 325 AD.
 This was an ecumenical, or worldwide council of Bishops to correct the Arian heresy. (The denial of the Deity of Christ)  The Nicaean Council overwhelmingly condemned the Arian heresy, and drew up the "Nicaean Creed." However, like that of Samson's brethren, (Judges.15:9-10) the Church under the hand of Constantine, gave up
truth to the Philistines. (i.e. the vain deceit, philosophy and traditions of men - Col.2:8, Matt.15:6) This would eventually lead the Church to the captivity of the "dark ages" as it did to Samson.

In spite of the (Nicaean) council's decisions' the problem of Arianism was not solved for some decades. The Emperor Constantine II, Constantine's son, supported Arianism, as did Valens, one of his successors. This doctrine persisted until at least the 7th.century. Arianism today, is held by Unitarians, Jehovah Witnesses.23  The next 300 years, all the Bishops in the Roman Catholic Church were Arian in belief.
       
       "...Constantine, the wolf of paganism openly assumed the sheep's clothing
     of the Christian religion."

350 AD. Now Christianity is the religion of the state. (Rome)Heathens were forced into the Church without being born again. Many heathen preferred to be called Christians rather than face the sword. Needless to say, the doctrine of Justification by Faith and the new birth were no longer emphasized.

By 392 AD. Theodosius.... He went even further when he outlawed heathen worship. It now came under penalty of death for any one to have any religious connection other than that of the established Roman Church.  WHAT A TURN AROUND!

During the Dark Ages very little translation was attempted...the Word of God was locked up in the Latin tongue which was unknown to the common people.  Thompson Chain Ref. Bible. Condensed Encyclopedia, p.181  ::pondering::

Very well stated.  Good stuff

Offline Ladonia

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2483
  • Manna: 119
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Dark Ages
« Reply #34 on: Mon May 21, 2012 - 11:05:57 »
Did it really matter whether or not the Bible was in the Latin tongue?  In the middle ages (and for some time after) the common person could not read nor write. The teachings of the Scriptures were dependent on the preaching of the Word, or in picture form (stained glass widows, paintings, etc.). I would say that the  use of latin was a unifier of the faithful in worship worldwide, not a detriment.

 

     
anything