Christian Forums

Quote from: papist1 on Sun Aug 02, 2009 - 09:01:37

Quote from: Cally on Sat Aug 01, 2009 - 13:25:30
Funny, I thought you were interested in real debating. I would have thought that might include a real response besides simply declaring the infallibility of the Catholic church.

Likewise, you are being very deep.

This habit by persons who interpret scripture according to their predetermined ideas is flawed at its root.  Are all apostles? no

The verse you decided to highlight is a pretext in order to try to somehow say that anyone can be an apostle.

If you are an apostle, then please, go and forgive the sins of others, and also, go and do not forgive the sins of others.

you see, you or I do not have that power. We can forgive a person for sinning against us, but we cannot personally forgive the sin in their soul. Apostles and presbyters can.

Also, if we do not forgive someone for sinning against us, God will not forgive us, yet the apostles have the power to declare someone not forgiven, something we do not have.

peace, papist

God is the only one that can forgive sins.

Quote from: JimmyHe isn't me and he doesn't go to my church.

So now, it isn't just Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Baptists, Pentecostals, Congregationalist, etc, etc, etc, but it's also apparently, all those other churches of Christ except your individual one, because I found no church of Christ refutations of the information I posted, to the contrary, his views seem quite well respected among those churches.  Wow, you are in an exclusive club!

Quote from: JimmyThere is nothing there that says that Timothy was made an apostle of Christ.  In fact we aren't even told what the gift was that came by the laying on of Paul's hands.  The continuance of any so-called "apostolic line" or whatever you call it is simply bogus.  It is pure conjecture and not a very good one.  It is pretty clear that only the apostles had the ability to bestow spiritual gifts by the laying on of hands (see Acts 8 e.g.).  There is no record that the ability to do that was not given to anyone.

Well, that is because Timothy was made a Bishop, and the conveyance of an Apostolic line is not only not bogus, but is accepted by the vast majority of Christians on the planet and has been for 2,000 years.  On the other hand, they probably would have no idea who Thomas and Alexander Campbell are.  If only the Apostles had the power to bestow spritual gifts, then why did St. Paul say to Titus, "For this reason I left you in Crete so that you might set right what remains to be done and appoint Presbyters in every town, as I directed you," (Titus 1:5), or to Timothy, "Do not lay hands too readily on anyone," (1 Timothy 5:22). or that the faithful were told, "Is anyone among you sick? He should summon the Presbyters of the church, and they should pray over him and anoint (him) with oil in the name of the Lord, and the prayer of faith will save the sick person, and the Lord will raise him up. If he has committed any sins, he will be forgiven.", (James 5:14-15).  What I find fascinating by those who believe as you do on this, is that every scrap of evidence we have of the earliest of Christian writing is so abundantly clear on the Apostolic Succession being of supreme importance to the early church.  In fact, there is no evidence whatever, of there being any sort of orthodox Christian church organization that are without it.

"Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the Bishop. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those Bishops already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry...For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties." St. Clement, Epistle to Corinthians, 42, 44 (A.D. 98).

"True knowledge is the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient constitution of the Church throughout all the world, and the distinctive manifestation of the body of Christ according to the successions of the bishops, by which they have handed down that Church which exists in every place, and has come even unto us," Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4:33:8 (A.D. 180).  

Here is one concerning the city of Antioch from the Greek Orthodox...

http://www.balamand.edu.lb/theology/ignpatriarchs.htm

It seems to match the Syriac orthodox list...

http://sor.cua.edu/Patriarchate/PatriarchsChronList.html

Funny, their list is the same us us Catholics, from Catholic Fordham University's Department of History...

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/byzantium/texts/byzpatant.html

Guess all those history professors are just "dupped".

Quote from: JimmyBy the way, I would think that any serious Christian would be embarrassed to tears looking at that picture that you showed.  Whatever grandiosity and hypocritical pretense of piety the Pharisees displayed by their loud and long prayers (Matt 23:14) and which Jesus condemned are certainly outdone by all those in there fancy robes and headgear.  I wonder who they are trying to impress.

"Pretense of piety"?  Sir, do you even know who those people in the picture are?  How do you know that they have any such pretenses?  It's so nice when someone claiming to be a Christian condemns his brother when he has no idea of even the slightest detail of them.  Nice.  No, again, in your "exclusiveness", you fail to grasp that the vast majority of Christians in the world find nothing objectionable in the picture,  that no one is being "impressed", but then, maybe they just are not as judgmental as you, for I am sure from what you have said so far, that you would not even consider them your brother Christians.  

Quote from: desertknight on Thu Aug 06, 2009 - 11:36:09

"Pretense of piety"?  Sir, do you even know who those people in the picture are?  How do you know that they have any such pretenses?  It's so nice when someone claiming to be a Christian condemns his brother when he has no idea of even the slightest detail of them.  Nice.  No, again, in your "exclusiveness", you fail to grasp that the vast majority of Christians in the world find nothing objectionable in the picture,  that no one is being "impressed", but then, maybe they just are not as judgmental as you, for I am sure from what you have said so far, that you would not even consider them your brother Christians.  

The majority of the Jews found nothing objectionable in the Pharisees either.  So what?  How do I know that they have any such pretenses?  By the way they are dressed.  They obviously want everyone to know that they are not just some ordinary run of mill catholics.  They aren't dressed that way to blend in with the common folk.  

As far as Timothy being a bishop/elder, I could be wrong, but I think you will have a difficult time backing up that statement.   Paul told him to do the work of an evangelist (2 Tim 4:5), but I don't believe that Paul ever referred to Timothy as a bishop/elder.

Quote from: desertknight on Thu Aug 06, 2009 - 11:36:09
Guess all those history professors are just "dupped".

I don't know that "dupped" is the right word.  But they certainly are not inspired so far as I am concerned.  Whatever historical documents you might wish to present is fine, but they are no more than that;  Some are interesting but still just historical writings.  They carry no authenticity in terms of anything biblical.  That seems to be an RCC and an Orhtodox trait.  When they can support it Scripturally, they root around until they can find someone somewhere that will substantiate their claim.  I sort of understand.  It is tough standing out there all alone with the long john lap undone.  At that point, any cover will do.

QuoteThe majority of the Jews found nothing objectionable in the Pharisees either.  So what?  How do I know that they have any such pretenses?  By the way they are dressed.  They obviously want everyone to know that they are not just some ordinary run of mill catholics.  They aren't dressed that way to blend in with the common folk.

No, they are not, just as when I wore my military uniform, I did not want anyone to see me as "joe", I wanted them only to see the authority and power of the United States.  If you think Christ's objection was to the way certain people "dressed", you are seriously missing His point.  He never questioned that the Pharisees had the right to sit on Moses's throne, nor did he question how they dressed.  He criticized them for lengthening the tassels on their prayer garments, (so people could see that they were pious), not for wearing them!  He condemned them for the difference in how they looked to how they acted.  Hypocrisy is what our Lord, and every Christian should condemn, starting with ourselves.  There are many "hypocrites" who are Catholic priests, some have been Popes, but it is unjust to judge brothers you do not even know, based on your different cultural bias in how they may dress.  Some Protestant pastors may dress like a car salesmen, but they stash millions in their bank accounts.  Catholic priests may dress in the traditional vestments of the Church, but underneath, all are poor as the Church requires it as a discipline of the Presbytery.  When a Bishop or Priest wears vestments, it is to do honor to the Holy Eucharist at Mass and partly to honor the traditions of the Church, but it is always, just as with my uniform, to identify the person wearing it as the representative of the Body of Christ, and not himself.

QuoteAs far as Timothy being a bishop/elder, I could be wrong, but I think you will have a difficult time backing up that statement.   Paul told him to do the work of an evangelist (2 Tim 4:5), but I don't believe that Paul ever referred to Timothy as a bishop/elder.

As Timothy was ordained by Paul, and he told him to exercise care in who he ordained as well, he was clearly more than just an evangelist.  Titus was tasked in Crete to do what Timothy was to in Ephesus, and Paul refers to Titus as a Bishop.

QuoteThat seems to be an RCC and an Orhtodox trait.  When they can support it Scripturally, they root around until they can find someone somewhere that will substantiate their claim.  I sort of understand.  It is tough standing out there all alone with the long john lap undone.  At that point, any cover will do.

Well, we call it Holy Tradition, which has been handed down to us from the Apostles.  It is the description of, and the importance of, Apostolic Succession.  " I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold fast to the traditions, just as I handed them on to you."  1 Cor. 11:2.  The Bible agrees with us on this.  We feel for you, and we would accept your idea that you are the ones who are correct in your interpretation of the Bible, but you, of course, are just one representative of more than 35,000+ "churches" who claim to be the "real deal" original Christians.  The ones who corrected all those mistakes.  I know you mean well, but I think yours is a harder row to hoe.  You have to try to explain how all that long history is one of the depravity of a Church that our Lord promised the gates of Hell would never prevail against and that the Holy Spirit would reside within until the end of time.  You have to explain how, contrary to Scripture, the church almost immediately fell into apostasy for over one thousand eight hundred years, until Alexander Campbell and friends "restored" what was lost.  Funny that none of that is in the Bible.  We Catholics and Orthodox have seen this before though.  The fervor and "newness" of Lutheranism and Calvinism, as well as all the others, JW's, Adventist, Christian Scientist, Quakers, Mormons, etc., all insisting they were the ones who "restored" origional Christianity, just right.  They were all the rage once, now most, just shadows of their former selves.  We Catholics/Orthodox may have our respective bums exposed to the wind, as you put it, but we have the wisdom of tradition and the lessons of history as well as the guidance of Holy Scripture and the Holy Spirit, to know that it will pass also, and we will still be here.

A sense of our history and tradition...

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=Vs6qZd_xP1w

Quote from: desertknight on Thu Aug 06, 2009 - 18:25:51
He never questioned that the Pharisees had the right to sit on Moses's throne, nor did he question how they dressed.  He criticized them for lengthening the tassels on their prayer garments, (so people could see that they were pious), not for wearing them!

Oh good grief.  Talk about trying to defend the indefensible.  

Quote from: desertknight on Thu Aug 06, 2009 - 18:25:51

QuoteAs far as Timothy being a bishop/elder, I could be wrong, but I think you will have a difficult time backing up that statement.   Paul told him to do the work of an evangelist (2 Tim 4:5), but I don't believe that Paul ever referred to Timothy as a bishop/elder.

As Timothy was ordained by Paul, and he told him to exercise care in who he ordained as well, he was clearly more than just an evangelist.  Titus was tasked in Crete to do what Timothy was to in Ephesus, and Paul refers to Titus as a Bishop.

More than just and evangelist?  That is intersting.  Paul presents the spiritual gifts in a couple of places.  Ephesians 4:11 is probably the one most often cited.  There he says,

And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers,

Assuming that there is some hierarchy associated with the listing here, evangelist ranks higher than pastor (elder/bishop).  Curiously nowhere do we find functions like cardinal or pope.  Even if there is no hierarchy implied, clearly apostle is not equated with elder/bishop.  So your argument of apostolic succession just isn't there.

Quote from: desertknight on Thu Aug 06, 2009 - 18:25:51

QuoteThat seems to be an RCC and an Orthodox trait.  When they can support it Scripturally, they root around until they can find someone somewhere that will substantiate their claim.  I sort of understand.  It is tough standing out there all alone with the long john lap undone.  At that point, any cover will do.

Well, we call it Holy Tradition, which has been handed down to us from the Apostles.  It is the description of, and the importance of, Apostolic Succession.  " I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold fast to the traditions, just as I handed them on to you."  1 Cor. 11:2.  The Bible agrees with us on this.  

I believe that is what the Pharisees called all that stuff that they added to the law of Moses.  Even Paul noted such traditions with what might seem to be less than complimentary, when he said,

Gal 1:13  For you have heard of my former manner of life in Judaism, how I used to persecute the church of God beyond measure, and tried to destroy it;
Gal 1:14  and I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries among my countrymen, being more extremely zealous for my ancestral traditions.

Clearly these are the traditions which Jesus often ignored during his ministry here on earth.  The Pharisees were continually harping at him for it.  You will see that while He always honored the law of Moses as the righteous Jew should, he was not at all beholding to the "traditions" and often chided the Pharisees for it.

Even where Paul spoke of traditions in a positive way, they were simply teachings that he or perhaps one of the other apostles had delivered.  
1Co 11:2  Now I praise you because you remember me in everything, and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you.

2Th 2:15  So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.

The "us" of 1 Tim 2:15 is probably best viewed as an "editorial we".

Quote from: desertknight on Thu Aug 06, 2009 - 18:25:51
We feel for you, and we would accept your idea that you are the ones who are correct in your interpretation of the Bible, but you, of course, are just one representative of more than 35,000+ "churches" who claim to be the "real deal" original Christians.  The ones who corrected all those mistakes.  I know you mean well, but I think yours is a harder row to hoe.  You have to try to explain how all that long history is one of the depravity of a Church that our Lord promised the gates of Hell would never prevail against and that the Holy Spirit would reside within until the end of time.  

First I am not even asking that you accept any idea that I am correct.  You are free to do as you like.  But neither should you expect me to accept your "traditions" that have clearly been established outside the bounds of the NT and in many cases I believe are opposed to it.

Second, it is of course the premier fallacy to think that the RCC is the Church that Jesus was talking about when He said that the gates of hell would not prevail against it.  It does seem to me that so much of the RC teaching is geared to making that assertion yet failing to do so.  It is apparent that all the falderall about Peter being the first pope and all  the importance of "traditions" above scripture is so earnestly defended primarily in the attempt to make that case.   That begins perhaps with the terrible misinterpretation of Peter being the rock on which the Church was built.  That is so obvious from the video you posted.  But of course that is not the case at all.  I have no doubt that individual believers within the RCC down through the years do in fact make up part of His Church that Jesus spoke of.  But that certainly does not equate the two at all.

It is apparent that the Church that Jesus spoke of and the Church that the RCs speak of are not the same thing at all.  So there is no reason at all for me to have to explain anything about the horrific atrocities carried out by the RCC or even the tremendous good that was done by it.  As an organization it is a totally separate entity from the Church that Jesus established.

By the way, I thought it a bit disingenuous for the RCC to claim in that video that it established the scientific method in light of the fact that the RCC burned at the stake some of the very people who first began to treat scientific inquiry by the scientific method.

I would point out that all of these pages of back and forth have little to do with what actually defines an apostle.That as was noted, very early in this topic, was defined by the apostles themselves in the first chapter of Acts.

QuoteOh good grief.  Talk about trying to defend the indefensible.

You'll have to better than that.  "Oh good grief" won't suffice for people who think.  But hey, lets look at what our Lord actually said to see if he is just being a fashion consultant, as you insist, or if the point is in condemning hypocrisy and not fashion, as I believe.

Matt. 23  ""The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses. They widen their phylacteries and lengthen their tassels".

"They love places of honor at banquets, seats of honor in synagogues"  "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You lock the kingdom of heaven before human beings. You do not enter yourselves, nor do you allow entrance to those trying to enter."
 
"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You pay tithes of mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier things of the law: judgment and mercy and fidelity. (But) these you should have done, without neglecting the others".
 
"Even so, on the outside you appear righteous, but inside you are filled with hypocrisy and evildoing."
 
Now your argument seems to be, "Those there Catholic priest wear fancy clothes and that's just like the Pharisees and so they're wrong!"  Mine is, you are simply confusing your own bias with what our Lord is truly saying here.  Notice He says, "On the outside you appear righteous", not, "You are dressed in a way that displeases my Father."  He says, " Blind Pharisee, cleanse first the inside of the cup, so that the outside also may be clean."  He does not say, "That cup is too fancy and displeases my Father."  Now every serious Biblical commentary I have ever read on Matt. 23 refers to our Lord's specific condemnation of hypocrisy, NOT, fashion, so "Oh good grief" right back at you bud.  Your going to have to come up with a more serious riposte than that if you want to convince me you are not just one of those who thinks "Those Catholic priests dress too fancy." passes for some sort of serious biblical exegesis.  The school of "I don't go for candles and stuff in church and neither did Jesus.", may pass for some as serious biblical and doctrinal critisism but, "Oh good grief", it isn't.

QuoteCuriously nowhere do we find functions like cardinal or pope.  Even if there is no hierarchy implied, clearly apostle is not equated with elder/bishop.  So your argument of apostolic succession just isn't there.

No, there is no mention of Cardinal or Pope, or of secretaries or administrators or of the church custodian.  The Catholic Church has only three orders of ordained clergy, Bishop, Presbyter, and Deacon. Humm...Just like the New Testament!  Cardinals are just an administrative term or honorific, meaning they have been chosen as special administrators, but they are just Bishops, in most cases, (some are only Presbyters), like any other Bishop.  In the East, the Bishops of large, historic cities like Antioch or Alexandria bear the title of Patriarch or Metropolitan;  they are just Bishops as well.  "Pope", non-Catholics, and Catholics as well, use as a mater of tradition and convenience.  It is just a Latin term of endearment that means, "Papa" or "Dad", the chief earthly Shepard of the flock.  There is no actual "office of Pope" as such.  It has simply become a convenient title of use.  The Pope is just the chief Bishop of the college of Bishops, by virtue of his being the Patriarch of the city of Rome, Peter's See.  The Catholic Church has evangelist, teachers, etc., but that does not negate that the Church, within the completion of the NT, had a recognized ordained ministry of Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons.  Scripture is as clear as can be on this.  That is still the only ordained ministerial positions in the Church today.  How bout yours?

QuoteClearly these are the traditions which Jesus often ignored during his ministry here on earth.

Please prove that scriptually.  Absolutely not.  Our Lord was a faithful Jew.  Even in your quotation of Paul, Paul is not condemning "tradition", if so, why would he proudly refer to exactly the point of the Apostolic Succession by telling Timothy, "And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well."  Notice he doesn't say, "It is all written", but "I charge you through my ordination of you to go and teach what I have taught you".  When he condemns false teaching in  Acts 15:24-26 "Since we have heard that some of our number (who went out) without any mandate from us have upset you with their teachings and disturbed your peace of mind, we have with one accord decided to choose representatives and to send them to you along with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, who have dedicated their lives to the name of our Lord Jesus Christ."  Note, Paul does not simply condemn erroneous teaching, but specifically, that they "do not have a mandate from us", the proper authorities of the very visible Church.  You say...

Quote from: JimmyEven where Paul spoke of traditions in a positive way, they were simply teachings that he or perhaps one of the other apostles had delivered.

Now what does that mean?  "Simply teachings", I doubt they were to be dismissed of in so cavalier a manner.  What you do not seem to understand is that there was only the OT to refer to at the time.  OK, you may understand that, but opponents of tradition seem to be between a rock and a hard spot when it comes to condemning the validity of the Catholic Church when she was the compiler of the Christian Bible.  No complete NT text existed for several hundred years after the ministry of Christ.  The NT text that were eventually canonized by the Church were those of dozens upon dozens of Christian Gospels that existed.  Which text were the people to read?  That is, the few people who could!  Literacy was common among upper income Roman citizens, but unknown to Palestinian peasants.  No printing press would exist for 1,300+ years from then.  It was through Holy Tradition and the Magisterium of the Church, just as Paul says in Acts 15, that conveyed the 'Good News' to a wanting world, or as said in Heb. 13:17  "Obey your leaders and defer to them, for they keep watch over you and will have to give an account, that they may fulfill their task with joy and not with sorrow, for that would be of no advantage to you."

Your, impssible to understand religious view, is that for 1,830+ years, that passage of scripture did not apply.

Quote...it is of course the premier fallacy to think that the RCC is the Church that Jesus was talking about when He said that the gates of hell would not prevail against it.  It does seem to me that so much of the RC teaching is geared to making that assertion yet failing to do so.

If you are aware of another Christian Church that existed, then I would like to see your proof of it.  I have a non-religious degree in history, from a non-religious state university, and in every one of my history classes concerning this topic, The Christian Church was the Catholic Church until the Reformation, or in your case, until the 1830's in America.  Now "restorationist", like Mormons and Adventist, like to believe that there was some sort of "other" Christian Church that existed and the Catholic Church didn't start until Constantine, but I would have been laughed out of the history department for advancing such clap-trap.

QuoteIt is apparent that the Church that Jesus spoke of and the Church that the RCs speak of are not the same thing at all.  So there is no reason at all for me to have to explain anything about the horrific atrocities carried out by the RCC or even the tremendous good that was done by it.  As an organization it is a totally separate entity from the Church that Jesus established.

That is an "apparentness" that has eluded Christians for 2,000 years.  My Church's bona fides are historically proven, scriptually based, and obvious to the vast majority of Christians throughout the world and for two millenia.  Your's is that the Church that Christ founded, in complete contradiction to all scripture, fell almost immediately into apostasy and was not restored until a few guys in Kentucky did it in 1830's America.  I would say the burden of proof is far heavier for you to bear than me brother.




 

Quote from: desertknight on Fri Aug 07, 2009 - 11:23:47

QuoteOh good grief.  Talk about trying to defend the indefensible.

You'll have to better than that.  "Oh good grief" won't suffice for people who think.  But hey, lets look at what our Lord actually said to see if he is just being a fashion consultant, as you insist, or if the point is in condemning hypocrisy and not fashion, as I believe.

Matt. 23  ""The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses. They widen their phylacteries and lengthen their tassels".

"They love places of honor at banquets, seats of honor in synagogues"  "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You lock the kingdom of heaven before human beings. You do not enter yourselves, nor do you allow entrance to those trying to enter."
 
"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You pay tithes of mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier things of the law: judgment and mercy and fidelity. (But) these you should have done, without neglecting the others".
 
"Even so, on the outside you appear righteous, but inside you are filled with hypocrisy and evildoing."
 
Now your argument seems to be, "Those there Catholic priest wear fancy clothes and that's just like the Pharisees and so they're wrong!"  Mine is, you are simply confusing your own bias with what our Lord is truly saying here.  Notice He says, "On the outside you appear righteous", not, "You are dressed in a way that displeases my Father."  He says, " Blind Pharisee, cleanse first the inside of the cup, so that the outside also may be clean."  He does not say, "That cup is too fancy and displeases my Father."  Now every serious Biblical commentary I have ever read on Matt. 23 refers to our Lord's specific condemnation of hypocrisy, NOT, fashion, so "Oh good grief" right back at you bud.  Your going to have to come up with a more serious riposte than that if you want to convince me you are not just one of those who thinks "Those Catholic priests dress too fancy." passes for some sort of serious biblical exegesis.  The school of "I don't go for candles and stuff in church and neither did Jesus.", may pass for some as serious biblical and doctrinal critisism but, "Oh good grief", it isn't.

QuoteCuriously nowhere do we find functions like cardinal or pope.  Even if there is no hierarchy implied, clearly apostle is not equated with elder/bishop.  So your argument of apostolic succession just isn't there.

No, there is no mention of Cardinal or Pope, or of secretaries or administrators or of the church custodian.  The Catholic Church has only three orders of ordained clergy, Bishop, Presbyter, and Deacon. Humm...Just like the New Testament!  Cardinals are just an administrative term or honorific, meaning they have been chosen as special administrators, but they are just Bishops, in most cases, (some are only Presbyters), like any other Bishop.  In the East, the Bishops of large, historic cities like Antioch or Alexandria bear the title of Patriarch or Metropolitan;  they are just Bishops as well.  "Pope", non-Catholics, and Catholics as well, use as a mater of tradition and convenience.  It is just a Latin term of endearment that means, "Papa" or "Dad", the chief earthly Shepard of the flock.  There is no actual "office of Pope" as such.  It has simply become a convenient title of use.  The Pope is just the chief Bishop of the college of Bishops, by virtue of his being the Patriarch of the city of Rome, Peter's See.  The Catholic Church has evangelist, teachers, etc., but that does not negate that the Church, within the completion of the NT, had a recognized ordained ministry of Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons.  Scripture is as clear as can be on this.  That is still the only ordained ministerial positions in the Church today.  How bout yours?

QuoteClearly these are the traditions which Jesus often ignored during his ministry here on earth.

Please prove that scriptually.  Absolutely not.  Our Lord was a faithful Jew.  Even in your quotation of Paul, Paul is not condemning "tradition", if so, why would he proudly refer to exactly the point of the Apostolic Succession by telling Timothy, "And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well."  Notice he doesn't say, "It is all written", but "I charge you through my ordination of you to go and teach what I have taught you".  When he condemns false teaching in  Acts 15:24-26 "Since we have heard that some of our number (who went out) without any mandate from us have upset you with their teachings and disturbed your peace of mind, we have with one accord decided to choose representatives and to send them to you along with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, who have dedicated their lives to the name of our Lord Jesus Christ."  Note, Paul does not simply condemn erroneous teaching, but specifically, that they "do not have a mandate from us", the proper authorities of the very visible Church.  You say...

Quote from: JimmyEven where Paul spoke of traditions in a positive way, they were simply teachings that he or perhaps one of the other apostles had delivered.

Now what does that mean?  "Simply teachings", I doubt they were to be dismissed of in so cavalier a manner.  What you do not seem to understand is that there was only the OT to refer to at the time.  OK, you may understand that, but opponents of tradition seem to be between a rock and a hard spot when it comes to condemning the validity of the Catholic Church when she was the compiler of the Christian Bible.  No complete NT text existed for several hundred years after the ministry of Christ.  The NT text that were eventually canonized by the Church were those of dozens upon dozens of Christian Gospels that existed.  Which text were the people to read?  That is, the few people who could!  Literacy was common among upper income Roman citizens, but unknown to Palestinian peasants.  No printing press would exist for 1,300+ years from then.  It was through Holy Tradition and the Magisterium of the Church, just as Paul says in Acts 15, that conveyed the 'Good News' to a wanting world, or as said in Heb. 13:17  "Obey your leaders and defer to them, for they keep watch over you and will have to give an account, that they may fulfill their task with joy and not with sorrow, for that would be of no advantage to you."

Your, impssible to understand religious view, is that for 1,830+ years, that passage of scripture did not apply.

Quote...it is of course the premier fallacy to think that the RCC is the Church that Jesus was talking about when He said that the gates of hell would not prevail against it.  It does seem to me that so much of the RC teaching is geared to making that assertion yet failing to do so.

If you are aware of another Christian Church that existed, then I would like to see your proof of it.  I have a non-religious degree in history, from a non-religious state university, and in every one of my history classes concerning this topic, The Christian Church was the Catholic Church until the Reformation, or in your case, until the 1830's in America.  Now "restorationist", like Mormons and Adventist, like to believe that there was some sort of "other" Christian Church that existed and the Catholic Church didn't start until Constantine, but I would have been laughed out of the history department for advancing such clap-trap.

QuoteIt is apparent that the Church that Jesus spoke of and the Church that the RCs speak of are not the same thing at all.  So there is no reason at all for me to have to explain anything about the horrific atrocities carried out by the RCC or even the tremendous good that was done by it.  As an organization it is a totally separate entity from the Church that Jesus established.

That is an "apparentness" that has eluded Christians for 2,000 years.  My Church's bona fides are historically proven, scriptually based, and obvious to the vast majority of Christians throughout the world and for two millenia.  Your's is that the Church that Christ founded, in complete contradiction to all scripture, fell almost immediately into apostasy and was not restored until a few guys in Kentucky did it in 1830's America.  I would say the burden of proof is far heavier for you to bear than me brother.

Oh good grief. Oh good grief.  Oh good grief.  That indocrination has really been driven deep into your brain.  What is so obvious in all of this is that you haven't even the foggiest notion of what the Church, i.e, the Boby of Christ, is.  But given where you are coming from that is understandable.  It has nothing to do with what you call the RCC.  It has nothing to do with whatever happened in Kentucky in the 1830s America.  It has nothing to do with any formal functional organization you might want to establish.

Quote from: desertknightYou'll have to better than that.  "Oh good grief" won't suffice for people who think.

I have a crystal clear understanding of what the "Body of Christ" is.  It is you who seem to not understand that your view did not appear on the scene for over 1,500 years after Christ.  It did not exist before the Reformation.  I am not "indoctrinated" as you say.  I am a Catholic convert.  Both of my parents were Church of Christ members from Oklahoma, but ceased to attend that church after some time.  I was brought to Christianity by searching my heart, prayer, and reading many times, the words of the New Testament.   I found it impossible to reconcile what I read there with the practices of the C's of C's or the Baptist or pentacostal churches that I attended.  I found it impossible to reconcile Protestantism with the writings of the earliest Church Fathers and documented early history of Christianity.  It was not enough for me to simply say, "They are not biblical, therfore, they can't be teaching me truth."  If I did that, I would never pick up a book.  I couldn't reconcile that Protestant churches I visited, like you, insisted that the Body of Christ was "invisible" or "without heirarchy and actual organization", when the Church that Christ founded, the Church of the New Testament, clearly was both.  I could not reconcile the fact that I was being told that the Catholic Church has no validity, and is apostate from Christianity, that the sole source of authority was scripture, when the undeniable historic fact was, that the Christian Bible was debated, compiled, and taught, by the Catholic Church, along with such vital Christian doctrines such as the Trinity or the nature of Christ's divinity and human nature.   The Church is not a symbol. It is the visible body of Christ, the living and breathing reality of Christ's presence among us. Remember also that Christ gave Peter and the apostles the authority to "bind and loose in heaven what they bound and loosed on earth

Quote from: desertknight on Fri Aug 07, 2009 - 12:17:27

Quote from: desertknightYou'll have to better than that.  "Oh good grief" won't suffice for people who think.

I have a crystal clear understanding of what the "Body of Christ" is.

I do not think that you do.  It is unfortunate.

Quote from: desertknight on Fri Aug 07, 2009 - 12:17:27
The Church is not a symbol. It is the visible body of Christ, the living and breathing reality of Christ's presence among us.

Yes it is. And that has nothing to do with what is called the RCC.  There is a difference between the church and any organization within the church.  I believe there is a reason why there is so little spoken mention of any formal organization in the NT.  It was to avoid the very thing that later appeared in the form of organized religion.  The Holy Spirit purposely chose not to establish the very nature of an organization such as the RCC has established.  And perhaps even those such as many ICC/COCs have established.

The real irony of all of this is that it may be nearly impossible for anyone to ascribe to belonging to an organization such as the RCC and fully understand what Jesus means by His church.  The true meaning gets lost in all the pomp and circumstance.

Quote from: JimmyI believe there is a reason why there is so little spoken mention of any formal organization in the NT.

 You must have a different New Testament than I do...

Acts 20:28  "Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you Bishops, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood."

Tit. 1:7  "Since an Bishop is entrusted with God's work, he must be blameless—not overbearing, not quick-tempered, not given to drunkenness, not violent, not pursuing dishonest gain."

Phil. 1:1  "To all the saints in Christ Jesus at Philippi, together with the Bishops and Deacons,"

1 Tim. 3:1  "Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone sets his heart on being an Bishop, he desires a noble task."

1 Pet. 2:25  "For you were like sheep going astray, but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls."

1 Thess. 5:12  "We ask you, brothers, to respect those who are laboring among you and who are over you in the Lord and who admonish you",

1 Peter 5:5  "Likewise, you younger members, be subject to the Presbyters,"

Acts 6:6 "They presented these men to the apostles who prayed and laid hands on them."

Acts 13:3  "Then, completing their fasting and prayer, they laid hands on them and sent them off."

Acts 14:23  "They appointed Presbyters for them in each church and, with prayer and fasting, commended them to the Lord in whom they had put their faith."

Acts 15:22  "Then the Apostles and Presbyters, in agreement with the whole church, decided to choose representatives and to send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. The ones chosen were Judas, who was called Barsabbas, and Silas, leaders among the brothers."

1 Tim.  4:14  "Do not neglect the gift you have, which was conferred on you through the prophetic word with the imposition of hands of the Presbyterate."

1 Tim. 5:22  "Do not lay hands too readily on anyone, and do not share in another's sins. Keep yourself pure."

Tit. 1:5  " For this reason I left you in Crete so that you might set right what remains to be done and appoint Presbyters in every town, as I directed you."

1 Thes. 5:12-13  "Now we ask you, brothers, to respect those who work hard among you, who are over you in the Lord and who admonish you. Hold them in the highest regard in love because of their work. Live in peace with each other."

Heb. 13:17  "Obey your leaders and defer to them, for they keep watch over you and will have to give an account, that they may fulfill their task with joy and not with sorrow, for that would be of no advantage to you."

There is simply no way to explain that if the Church was intended to be invisible only, there is no record of that from the mass of Christian writing from either the New Testmament or the very first years of the Christian faith.  Every single early Church Father writes of a very visible, and hierarchical Church, led by her Bishops who were the only authorities who could pass leadership on through ordination by the imposition of hands.  If you can show me any scrap of evidence to the contrary, I would like to see it.

"Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is administered either by the Bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the Bishop shall appear, there let the multitude of the people also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."  St. Ignatius of Antioch, 107 AD.

"Catholicism is not an opinion to which one subscribes, but a reality to which one submits."  J.R.R. Tolkien

Quote from: desertknight on Fri Aug 07, 2009 - 14:04:53

Quote from: JimmyI believe there is a reason why there is so little spoken mention of any formal organization in the NT.

You must have a different New Testament than I do...

Yes it seems that you do have a different NT than I do.  I have ASV, ESV, KJV, NKJV, NASB.  I suspect that you tend to use the Douay-Rheims.  In this I rather suspect it less to do with translation and more to do with interpretation.  Let's take a look at it.

Quote from: desertknight on Fri Aug 07, 2009 - 14:04:53
Acts 20:28  "Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you Bishops, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood."

Tit. 1:7  "Since an Bishop is entrusted with God's work, he must be blameless—not overbearing, not quick-tempered, not given to drunkenness, not violent, not pursuing dishonest gain."

Phil. 1:1  "To all the saints in Christ Jesus at Philippi, together with the Bishops and Deacons,"

1 Tim. 3:1  "Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone sets his heart on being an Bishop, he desires a noble task."

1 Pet. 2:25  "For you were like sheep going astray, but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls."

1 Thess. 5:12  "We ask you, brothers, to respect those who are laboring among you and who are over you in the Lord and who admonish you",

1 Peter 5:5  "Likewise, you younger members, be subject to the Presbyters,"

Acts 6:6 "They presented these men to the apostles who prayed and laid hands on them."

Acts 13:3  "Then, completing their fasting and prayer, they laid hands on them and sent them off."

Acts 14:23  "They appointed Presbyters for them in each church and, with prayer and fasting, commended them to the Lord in whom they had put their faith."

Acts 15:22  "Then the Apostles and Presbyters, in agreement with the whole church, decided to choose representatives and to send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. The ones chosen were Judas, who was called Barsabbas, and Silas, leaders among the brothers."

1 Tim.  4:14  "Do not neglect the gift you have, which was conferred on you through the prophetic word with the imposition of hands of the Presbyterate."

1 Tim. 5:22  "Do not lay hands too readily on anyone, and do not share in another's sins. Keep yourself pure."

Tit. 1:5  " For this reason I left you in Crete so that you might set right what remains to be done and appoint Presbyters in every town, as I directed you."

1 Thes. 5:12-13  "Now we ask you, brothers, to respect those who work hard among you, who are over you in the Lord and who admonish you. Hold them in the highest regard in love because of their work. Live in peace with each other."

Heb. 13:17  "Obey your leaders and defer to them, for they keep watch over you and will have to give an account, that they may fulfill their task with joy and not with sorrow, for that would be of no advantage to you."

First, we need to understand the almost all of the references that you cited have to do with elders.  That is the main leadership role in the local churches that we read about in the NT.  The NT uses three main terms to describe this role: elder (presbyteros , Acts 20:17; 1 Tim 5:17; Titus 1:5; 1 Pet 5:1). overseer or bishop (episkopos, Acts 20:28; Phil 1:1; 1 Tim 3:2; Titus 1:7; verb, episkopeo, 1 Pet 5:2), and shepherd or pastor (poimen, Eph 4:11; verb, poimaino, Acts 20:28; 1 Pet 5:2).

These terms are used interchangeably.  This is seen in Acts 20 which refers to the same group as "the elders of the church" at Ephesus (v.17) and as "overseers" (v.28), and says they were called "to shepherd the church" (v.28).  This same thing is seen in 1 Pet 5:1-2, where the apostle says, "I exhort the elders among you" to "shepherd the flock of God among you, exercising oversight".  That elders and bishops are the same is also shown by the fact that Titus 1:5,7 uses the words interchangeably.  Thus according to these texts, no distincion shoud be made betweeen elders and bishops/overseers, or between elders and pastors/shepherd.

These terms in themselves show that the elders are the ones who exercise authoritative leadership in the local congregation.  The word "elder" as applied to chruch leaders does not simply have the generic meaning of an old person.    As in the OT it use is based on the idea that the poeple of God are a family.  Israel itself was a patriarchy, a term that means "rule of the father", those who are the eldest.  "the elders of Isreel" are mentioned often in the OT.  In a similar way, in the NT era the church is a spiritual family, and the elders are the father figures, the ones in the family who have the experience and the maurity to exercise spiritual leadership (talke a look at 1 Tim 3:4-5).

There is a great deal more that I could say about the elders and their role in leadership of the local congregations, but suffice it to say that in none of the references to the elders and their function is their anything at all like the humongous (and erroneous) hierarchy of the RCC.

There is, in addition to the elders, another role defined in the NT.  That is the role of deacon.  Not much is said about the deacons, so I won't bother to go into that unless you wish.

I would point out that the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls in 1 Pet 2:25 that you posted above is Jesus Christ Himself.

Quote from: desertknight on Fri Aug 07, 2009 - 14:04:53
There is simply no way to explain that if the Church was intended to be invisible only, there is no record of that from the mass of Christian writing from either the New Testmament or the very first years of the Christian faith.  Every single early Church Father writes of a very visible, and hierarchical Church, led by her Bishops who were the only authorities who could pass leadership on through ordination by the imposition of hands.  If you can show me any scrap of evidence to the contrary, I would like to see it.

I have not said anything about an intentionfor the Church to be invisible.  But there simply is nothing in the NT to indicate anything more, except for the apostles,  than the leadership and authority for the local congregations than the elders and deacons.

Quote from: desertknight on Fri Aug 07, 2009 - 14:04:53
"Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is administered either by the Bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the Bishop shall appear, there let the multitude of the people also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."  St. Ignatius of Antioch, 107 AD.

"Catholicism is not an opinion to which one subscribes, but a reality to which one submits."  J.R.R. Tolkien

If I were you I would not rely upon J.R.R. Tolkien for my guide to choice of church or church leadership.  I wouldn't give that reliance to St Ignatius of Antioch either except as it reinforces and substantiates that which is given in the NT.  And in the instance that you cited, it clearly seems not to.

Quote from: JimmyYes it seems that you do have a different NT than I do.  I have ASV, ESV, KJV, NKJV, NASB.  I suspect that you tend to use the Douay-Rheims.  In this I rather suspect it less to do with translation and more to do with interpretation.

No, I have never owned a Douay-Rheims, I use any acceptable translation, including NAB, ASV, or even KJV.

Quote from: JimmyThese terms in themselves show that the elders are the ones who exercise authoritative leadership in the local congregation.  The word "elder" as applied to chruch leaders does not simply have the generic meaning of an old person.    As in the OT it use is based on the idea that the poeple of God are a family.  Israel itself was a patriarchy, a term that means "rule of the father", those who are the eldest.  "the elders of Isreel" are mentioned often in the OT.  In a similar way, in the NT era the church is a spiritual family, and the elders are the father figures, the ones in the family who have the experience and the maurity to exercise spiritual leadership (talke a look at 1 Tim 3:4-5).

There is a great deal more that I could say about the elders and their role in leadership of the local congregations, but suffice it to say that in none of the references to the elders and their function is their anything at all like the humongous (and erroneous) hierarchy of the RCC.

That at first the terms were interchangeable, I agree with.  That there began, even within the compilation of the NT, to be a clear distinction between the role of "elders", Presbyters, being the leaders of local Church communities and Episkopos, Bishops, being in charge of larger geographic areas, is overwhelmingly accepted by virtually every Biblical scholar that I know of.  Even looking up the topic on Wiki, or World Book or any basic source of Christian history will confirm the same.  The two had a clear distinction within the writing of the NT as when Paul, writing to Titus or Timothy, is commanding them to "ordain Presbyters" in various cities, (Titus is told he should ordain in various cites of all of the island of Crete.), and that Timothy should take care when ordaining in Ephesus.  We also know that it is a distinct office with authority, that people are "ordained" to, by a higher authority, hence "overseer", Bishop, that is not even a native, necessarily, of that area.  We also know from scripture, that these offices are not just locally self-administered.  In Acts 15:24-26, the problem was not simply that the local Christian communities had ministers who were "disturbing" them with their teachings and actions, but that they had no mandate from us.  So clearly, we have the Church as being hierarchical, obviously one does not have to be an "apostle" to have that authority over other Christians as the examples of Timothy, Titus, Barnabas, Silas, and others prove.  Presbyters are not just indigenous, self-appoionted "elders", as scripture tells us clearly that they are appointed and that their appointments must have the authority tracing back to the Apostles.  So...so much for the Church not being visible, or not having structure and authority.  On to your next point.  You have me scratching my head as to why you make the statement that, "in none of the references to the elders and their function is their anything at all like the humongous (and erroneous) hierarchy of the RCC."  OK, lets see.  A Catholic Bishop is an overseer of a large geographic area, or large population center, just as Titus was in Crete for example.  That Bishop is responsible for ordaining and being in charge of the "elders", presbyters of the local Christian communities, just as Titus was, and all the members, therefore, of the 'presbyteriate', Bishops and Presbyters, must have the authority that Titus did and those Presbyters he appointed for the various cities of Crete, going back to the original Apostles.  So far, I can't see where there is a difference, can you?  You will have to explain what that is.  I noticed you didn't.

Quote from: JimmyI have not said anything about an intentionfor the Church to be invisible.  But there simply is nothing in the NT to indicate anything more, except for the apostles,  than the leadership and authority for the local congregations than the elders and deacons.

Well, that's clearly not the case for just the examples that I cited above.  There are even more examples than what I have posted so far as to the leadership of Christian communities not being indigenous.  That doesn't mean that local people were not appointed to various positions, but if what you are saying is true, then you will have a difficult time explaining why Titus, and Timothy, along with Barnabas and Silas, were sent to lands with the specific task of "appointing presbyters".  You will have a difficult time explaining how in Acts 15, clearly, a "mandate" from the Apostles, or their representatives, had to "prove" legitimacy.  Lastly, you will have to be proactive, and demonstrate where in history we see your model existing.  We do have quite a bit of Christian writing from the very first generations of Christians, and no model close to what you are saying, exist in any of them.  There is simply no history of Christianity being based on "local" leadership only, without oversight from, well, "overseers", Bishops, with Apostolic authority, who ordain Presbyters to lead local communities with the assistance of Deacons.  That is precisely the organization of the Catholic Church today, as it has always been.

Quote from: JimmyIf I were you I would not rely upon J.R.R. Tolkien for my guide to choice of church or church leadership.  I wouldn't give that reliance to St Ignatius of Antioch either except as it reinforces and substantiates that which is given in the NT.  And in the instance that you cited, it clearly seems not to.

I accept the opinions of anyone...who is right.    As to Ignatius, I'm glad you are finally in agreement with me, but if you don't like them, how bout' this?

"To study the history of Christianity is to cease to be Protestant."  John Cardinal Newman.

Quote from: desertknight on Fri Aug 07, 2009 - 18:27:14
That at first the terms were interchangeable, I agree with.  That there began, even within the compilation of the NT, to be a clear distinction between the role of "elders", Presbyters, being the leaders of local Church communities and Episkopos, Bishops, being in charge of larger geographic areas, is overwhelmingly accepted by virtually every Biblical scholar that I know of.  

Well bless your heart. I seems a shame to be so limited in knowledge of biblical scholars.  But you're catholic, so that perhaps explains a lot.    But I just showed you based upon the NT from early to late that the terms were used interchangebly in the NT.  That the terminology was bastardized early on after the NT era is pretty obvious.  But so much was.  And that was largely due to the RCC or to what was to eventually become the RCC.

Quote from: desertknight on Fri Aug 07, 2009 - 18:27:14
Even looking up the topic on Wiki, or World Book or any basic source of Christian history will confirm the same.  

J.R.R. Tolkien, St Ignatius of Antioch and now Wiki.  I can see why you think as you do.

You forgot John Cardinal Newman!  



Peace brother.

I didn't forget him.  I'm sure he was probably a very nice guy.  But, he just didn't really seem all that important.  And his implication that a protestant can't know history is a bit shallow.  But then the implication that if you aren't RC that you are a protestant is shallower still.  But I understand, given a bit of a similarity in backgrounds, that you might revere him.

Peace to you brother.

I accept the opinions of anyone...who is right.  Smile  As to Ignatius, I'm glad you are finally in agreement with me, but if you don't like them, how bout' this?

"To study the history of Christianity is to cease to be Protestant."  John Cardinal Newman.


MIke
Thats good that you except opinions of those who are write. Perhaps now you can except this that in Gods kingdom there is neither Catholic or Protestant. The church is not just a organization and magisterial leadership but a body of believers  who's faith is in Christ. The church is not a place or a thing but it is a people of faith that walk not after earthly things but a spiritual heavenly calling.

Your quote is not correct. To really know and understand the early church and the teaching of Christ and the apostles is to cease being Protestant and Roman Catholic. neither existed when the church was born. What saved a man and made the early believers followers then is exactly how god sees his church today. Satan who is the master of confusion has divided the church and misguided leadership starting with the RCC when power and authoritty became corruption and abuse.