Christian Forums

Quote from: winsome on Sun Apr 18, 2010 - 10:12:20

The Vatican is not the Catholic Church, just the place where the Pope currently resides.

When he's not hanging out with his cat at his Bavarian diggs! 

Quote from: desertknight on Sun Apr 18, 2010 - 10:39:14

Quote from: winsome on Sun Apr 18, 2010 - 10:12:20

The Vatican is not the Catholic Church, just the place where the Pope currently resides.

When he's not hanging out with his cat at his Bavarian diggs! 

I didn't know he had a cat. 

The Pope luuves kitties.  His is named "Chico".



Or if you prefer...

McLees, Greetings! Christ is Risen!

Quote from: mclees8 on Sun Apr 18, 2010 - 07:40:37
Again you are filled with pride and arrogance.

A suggestion:  Please stop writing statements like this.  They are personal attacks, not on what someone is saying.   I love people who disagree with me--as I am sure you do.  Treat people
with respect; people's ideas are another story. (I realize your insult was not directed at me, but I wanted to chime in.)

And while I'm at it - truth is, by its nature, arrogant.  There is only one right answer and many wrong ones.   No one says, "Your arrogant to think that 2 plus 2 is four." 

Quote
It is true the gates of hell shall not prevail against what Christ has established to be an everlasting covenant that he has given to all of us who believe.

Is this what the scripture says? No.  The church exists; it is not just believers in general.  Had Christ meant this why didn't he just say the gates of hell shall not prevail against believers?

Quote
No the gates of hell shall not prevail against all who truly love and put their faith in Him and will be willing to die for him. You are so duped by the institution that misrepresent who the church is. Who has Christ redeemed?

Again, read Matt 16:18.  The promise is about the church.  Not about individual Christians.  Which is the plain reading of scripture here?  Not yours. 

Your mistake, sir, is your definition of church.  Your "institution" has instilled in your head the opinion that the church is the sum of all believers.  This is not only unscriptural, but not an opinion supported by anyone for the first 1500 years of Christianity.

Thank you for reading. 

Quote from: pointmade on Sun Apr 18, 2010 - 08:37:29
trifecta: ") Sola scriptura is not how the early (or later) church thought.  This idea that truth is only found in a book, is not supported by the Bible itself.  Paul encouraged his churches to obey his oral teachings as well.  The NT is in many ways, especially the Pauline letters, an FAQ list, not a compiled book of theology. Letters are written to individual churches.  They have value to us, for sure, but were not intended to be the sole guide for all in all situations at all times."

Are you then saying that the New Testament is a "dead letter" ? Without Paul's epistles how would one know of the atonement, justification, sanctification or the plan of salvation in general?

I agree that Paul's epistles help us to understand these things, but, to be frank, the church survived for 600 years without them being enscripturated.  To answer your question, the church would have taught them, just as Paul did to the people he wrote to.

Scriptures are very helpful to our walk with God, but to say they are the only source of authority is not historically true.   Remember the eunich who was reading Isaish in Acts?  He doesn't understand but no one was there to intrepret for him.  This is one role of the church.  IMHO, Protestant theology does the same thing that Catholic and Orthodox theology does: it gives us a framework in which we read the Bible.

Sacred Scripture+Sacred Tradition=Deposit of Faith. We need them both. 

Quote from: trifecta on Sun Apr 18, 2010 - 12:43:33

Scriptures are very helpful to our walk with God, but to say they are the only source of authority is not historically true.   Remember the eunich who was reading Isaish in Acts?  He doesn't understand but no one was there to intrepret for him.  This is one role of the church.  IMHO, Protestant theology does the same thing that Catholic and Orthodox theology does: it gives us a framework in which we read the Bible.

That's a good example.

Also Jesus himself tells us about authority. Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples, saying, "The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses. Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice." (Mt 23:1-3).

Jesus is saying that the scribes and Pharisees have the authority to teach (they sit in the chair of Moses) and the people should listen to their teaching. He does not tell them to read scripture and work it out for themselves.

Quote from: winsome on Sun Apr 18, 2010 - 15:29:02

Quote from: trifecta on Sun Apr 18, 2010 - 12:43:33

Scriptures are very helpful to our walk with God, but to say they are the only source of authority is not historically true.   Remember the eunich who was reading Isaish in Acts?  He doesn't understand but no one was there to intrepret for him.  This is one role of the church.  IMHO, Protestant theology does the same thing that Catholic and Orthodox theology does: it gives us a framework in which we read the Bible.

That's a good example.

Also Jesus himself tells us about authority. Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples, saying, "The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses. Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice." (Mt 23:1-3).

Jesus is saying that the scribes and Pharisees have the authority to teach (they sit in the chair of Moses) and the people should listen to their teaching. He does not tell them to read scripture and work it out for themselves.

No one is taking away from the role of the elder and the teacher as long as they are teaching the truth of the gospel and how we ought to live as believer.  In the case of the Ethiopian He had to understand how Jesus fulfilled the prophesy's of the Messiah and paid the price our sins. He needed to be baptized into Christ

Yes we should listen to the elders and teachers. It also helps to dig for truth knowledge and understanding in the scriptures. it helps to ask the Holy Spirit to enlighten us  and not be tossed about by every wind of doctrine. What does it say in Hosea 4:6

My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge,

We should not be led like lambs to the slaughter in spiritual matters that is.

Obey the leaders in all matters of godliness, morality  loving God and neighbor and  being of humble spirit

Listen to them in all matters concerning Christ and true salvation.

The real problem today is that there is to much ignorance, apathy and unbelief.

We simply trust the leaders that hey are teaching the truth in every area of faith. We just go to church while they preach anything and everything. we have  no measure if we just let our bible sit on a coffee table .

Paul taught to Timothy" be as a workmen who needs not to be ashamed but rightly dividing the word of truth.

It's because i have read and studied my bible that I know that Christ was not about the church being politically motivated. It is because i have studied that I know that Rev 17 speaks of just such a church.

Yes the Lord said obey them but don't be as they are for the motives are not always pure.

they might say love not the world while in fact they are of it.

Misrepresenting Christ by the leadership will be one of the most grievous  of sins

So obey them yes but don't be as a fool. I believe scripture backs that up.
God bless

McLees,

I can't agree with your statement above, but I think I know how you feel. I used to be a Protestant. 

Your approach is, and correct me if I'm wrong:

   -   leaders and pastors are nice - as long as they are teaching according to the word.

   -   I have interpreted the scriptures correctly.  Therefore,

   - -  I will obey the leaders only if they agree with me.

To a certain extent, you are correct.  If the leader of my church starts preaching, say, that the resurrection of Christ was not real, then I couldn't stay in the church.

But you are only considering your own opinion.  You have failed to consider:

    - the opinion of other godly people we know.  Consider this:  When you are making a decision about something important, do you ask those close to you?  I do. 
Even if you do as well, we don't stop there, we need to consider:

    -the opinion of godly men-past and present.  Yes, even godly men can be wrong about certain things, so we need to get a consensus of godly people.  This is what the historic church does.  This is why we had ecumenical councils (and the council of Jerusalem in Acts 15); this is how we adopted the word 'Trinity' into our vocabulary.  It is how the NT was compiled in the first place--by concensus of godly people.

We must consider opinions of others, not only our own.
     

Mclees,

The issue is authority. Jesus was pointing out that the scribes and pharisees had authority - they sat in the seat of Moses. He didn't tell them to get authority from scripture because scripture does not have authority. Authority lies in people not in books.

Jesus said "All authority (all power of rule) in heaven and on earth has been given to Me" (Mt 28:18 Amplified Bible).

Jesus gave his authority to his apostles, for example:

authority to teach (Mt 28:20)
authority to forgive sins (Jn 20:23)
authority to bind and loose (Mt 18:18)

He gave Peter special authority as leader of the apostles (Mt 16:19 & Jn 21:15-17).

You can study the scripture all you like but that does not give any authority to decide doctrine. Only those Jesus appointed and gave authority to (and those they passed that authority on to) have the authority to do that, and they do it on their authority, guaranteed by Jesus that he would lead them into the truth and not to teach error.

At the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) decisions were based on the authority of the apostles not on proofs from scripture.

"It is the decision of the holy Spirit and of us" (Acts 15:28). In the letter that was sent conveying the decision there was not one reference to scripture.

Quote from: winsome on Mon Apr 19, 2010 - 05:06:44
Mclees,

The issue is authority. Jesus was pointing out that the scribes and pharisees had authority - they sat in the seat of Moses. He didn't tell them to get authority from scripture because scripture does not have authority. Authority lies in people not in books.

Jesus said "All authority (all power of rule) in heaven and on earth has been given to Me" (Mt 28:18 Amplified Bible).

Jesus gave his authority to his apostles, for example:

authority to teach (Mt 28:20)
authority to forgive sins (Jn 20:23)
authority to bind and loose (Mt 18:18)

He gave Peter special authority as leader of the apostles (Mt 16:19 & Jn 21:15-17).

You can study the scripture all you like but that does not give any authority to decide doctrine. Only those Jesus appointed and gave authority to (and those they passed that authority on to) have the authority to do that, and they do it on their authority, guaranteed by Jesus that he would lead them into the truth and not to teach error.

At the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) decisions were based on the authority of the apostles not on proofs from scripture.

"It is the decision of the holy Spirit and of us" (Acts 15:28). In the letter that was sent conveying the decision there was not one reference to scripture.

Dear Winsome I never negated authority. Jesus said the pharisees had authority. That did not keep Him from lambasting them for their hypocrisy and abuse of authority. They not only laid heavy burdens on the people but they did not live up to what they taught. they twisted and manipulated the laws of Moses for   their own purposes.   

You tell me and others you don't need the scriptures just listen and obey with out question those who have authority over you  and  be tossed about by any doctrine and teaching. I say shame on you.   

No! the word of God is authority above all authority. and more than that it is wisdom 

God bless

Quote from: mclees8 on Mon Apr 19, 2010 - 08:43:26

Quote from: winsome on Mon Apr 19, 2010 - 05:06:44
Mclees,

The issue is authority. Jesus was pointing out that the scribes and pharisees had authority - they sat in the seat of Moses. He didn't tell them to get authority from scripture because scripture does not have authority. Authority lies in people not in books.

Jesus said "All authority (all power of rule) in heaven and on earth has been given to Me" (Mt 28:18 Amplified Bible).

Jesus gave his authority to his apostles, for example:

authority to teach (Mt 28:20)
authority to forgive sins (Jn 20:23)
authority to bind and loose (Mt 18:18)

He gave Peter special authority as leader of the apostles (Mt 16:19 & Jn 21:15-17).

You can study the scripture all you like but that does not give any authority to decide doctrine. Only those Jesus appointed and gave authority to (and those they passed that authority on to) have the authority to do that, and they do it on their authority, guaranteed by Jesus that he would lead them into the truth and not to teach error.

At the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) decisions were based on the authority of the apostles not on proofs from scripture.

"It is the decision of the holy Spirit and of us" (Acts 15:28). In the letter that was sent conveying the decision there was not one reference to scripture.

Dear Winsome I never negated authority. Jesus said the pharisees had authority. That did not keep Him from lambasting them for their hypocrisy and abuse of authority. They not only laid heavy burdens on the people but they did not live up to what they taught. they twisted and manipulated the laws of Moses for   their own purposes.   

They may not have lived up to what they taught. Only Jesus did that. But that does not negate the fact that they had authority and others did not.

Similarly with the Church. Jesus gave his authority to the apostles, who passed it onto their succesors. Only those with apostolic suggessionn have authority to define doctrine. Others do not.

This is what you are unwilling to accept. That they fail and sin sometimes does not negate their authority or transfer it to you. Jesus said that the scribes and pharisees failed to live up to what they taught but he still told the Jews to listen to them because thay had authority to teach.

Quote from: mclees8 on Mon Apr 19, 2010 - 08:43:26
You tell me and others you don't need the scriptures just listen and obey with out question those who have authority over you  and  be tossed about by any doctrine and teaching. I say shame on you. 

No! the word of God is authority above all authority. and more than that it is wisdom 

God bless

As usual you try and twist my words and claim I have said what I have notsaid. I have not said that I don't need scriptures but scripture is not the source of authority. Jesus is.

Scripture is authoritative - reliable because true or accurate according to the Oxford English Dictionary

Authority is the power or right to give orders and enforce obedience (Oxford English Dictionary) Authority resides in people not a book.

Jesus never said look to scripture for authority. As I said Jesus said "All authority (all power of rule) in heaven and on earth has been given to Me" (Mt 28:18 Amplified Bible). I showed you where Jesus gave his authority to the apostles.  Now you show me where he gave his authority to scripture.

Quote from: winsome on Mon Apr 19, 2010 - 09:04:38

Quote from: mclees8 on Mon Apr 19, 2010 - 08:43:26

Quote from: winsome on Mon Apr 19, 2010 - 05:06:44
Mclees,

The issue is authority. Jesus was pointing out that the scribes and pharisees had authority - they sat in the seat of Moses. He didn't tell them to get authority from scripture because scripture does not have authority. Authority lies in people not in books.

Jesus said "All authority (all power of rule) in heaven and on earth has been given to Me" (Mt 28:18 Amplified Bible).

Jesus gave his authority to his apostles, for example:

authority to teach (Mt 28:20)
authority to forgive sins (Jn 20:23)
authority to bind and loose (Mt 18:18)

He gave Peter special authority as leader of the apostles (Mt 16:19 & Jn 21:15-17).

You can study the scripture all you like but that does not give any authority to decide doctrine. Only those Jesus appointed and gave authority to (and those they passed that authority on to) have the authority to do that, and they do it on their authority, guaranteed by Jesus that he would lead them into the truth and not to teach error.

At the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) decisions were based on the authority of the apostles not on proofs from scripture.

"It is the decision of the holy Spirit and of us" (Acts 15:28). In the letter that was sent conveying the decision there was not one reference to scripture.

Dear Winsome I never negated authority. Jesus said the pharisees had authority. That did not keep Him from lambasting them for their hypocrisy and abuse of authority. They not only laid heavy burdens on the people but they did not live up to what they taught. they twisted and manipulated the laws of Moses for   their own purposes.   

They may not have lived up to what they taught. Only Jesus did that. But that does not negate the fact that they had authority and others did not.

Similarly with the Church. Jesus gave his authority to the apostles, who passed it onto their succesors. Only those with apostolic suggessionn have authority to define doctrine. Others do not.

This is what you are unwilling to accept. That they fail and sin sometimes does not negate their authority or transfer it to you. Jesus said that the scribes and pharisees failed to live up to what they taught but he still told the Jews to listen to them because thay had authority to teach.

Quote from: mclees8 on Mon Apr 19, 2010 - 08:43:26
You tell me and others you don't need the scriptures just listen and obey with out question those who have authority over you  and  be tossed about by any doctrine and teaching. I say shame on you. 

No! the word of God is authority above all authority. and more than that it is wisdom 

God bless

As usual you try and twist my words and claim I have said what I have notsaid. I have not said that I don't need scriptures but scripture is not the source of authority. Jesus is.

Scripture is authoritative - reliable because true or accurate according to the Oxford English Dictionary

Authority is the power or right to give orders and enforce obedience (Oxford English Dictionary) Authority resides in people not a book.

Jesus never said look to scripture for authority. As I said Jesus said "All authority (all power of rule) in heaven and on earth has been given to Me" (Mt 28:18 Amplified Bible). I showed you where Jesus gave his authority to the apostles.  Now you show me where he gave his authority to scripture.

Let me say it again i never negated the authority. I believe i went over all this. enough said.

You say Jesus never said to look to a book for authority. Maybe not in that sense. But is a guide to truth. Jesus and his chosen apostle were special. they had a very close relationship. There for he gave them authority. He gave them authority to pass on authority. They taught word of mouth but they did not just teach word of mouth. but also by written epistle. Those epistle are all we have today to measure what they taught.

Not only that, both Jesus and the apostles warned against false teachers. Wolves in sheeps clothing, clever to fool even the elect. Now how do we know all this today? Because we have it in writing. You don't think we held on to this truth just by passing it on by word of mouth 2000 years. You have as much now admitted that.

I have stated my case and it stands.

god bless

Quote from: mclees8 on Mon Apr 19, 2010 - 09:42:26

Let me say it again i never negated the authority. I believe i went over all this. enough said.

You say Jesus never said to look to a book for authority. Maybe not in that sense. But is a guide to truth. Jesus and his chosen apostle were special. they had a very close relationship. There for he gave them authority. He gave them authority to pass on authority. They taught word of mouth but they did not just teach word of mouth. but also by written epistle.

We can agree on that. But then you jump to a totally false claim as thought it followed on from that.

Quote from: mclees8 on Mon Apr 19, 2010 - 09:42:26
Those epistle are all we have today to measure what they taught.

No they are not.

As DesertKnight said - Sacred Scripture+Sacred Tradition=Deposit of Faith. We need them both.

Quote from: mclees8 on Mon Apr 19, 2010 - 09:42:26
Not only that, both Jesus and the apostles warned against false teachers. Wolves in sheeps clothing, clever to fool even the elect.

i.e. Protestantism

Quote from: mclees8 on Mon Apr 19, 2010 - 09:42:26
Now how do we know all this today? Because we have it in writing. You don't think we held on to this truth just by passing it on by word of mouth 2000 years. You have as much now admitted that.

No I haven't. That's outrageous.

mclees8: "Those epistle are all we have today to measure what they taught."

Right on melees8......The ONLY thing any of us know about Jesus and His teaching are presented to mankind by the men "given to him by the Father" (John 17:6). He has authorized no one except those who had "been with him from the beginning" (John 15:27). This would knock a hole in Roman Catholicism that  Scripture is a product of the church and subject to the interpretative authority of the church, i.e., tradition emerging from church fathers, councils, and the popes.

There is but one Scripture in the New Testament that informs man HOW to believe, and that is "THROUGH THEIR word" (John 17:20).
Catholicism has been so hung up on Peter being the "head apostle that they have thrown "sound doctrine out the door.  Peter NEVER claimed this in Scripture, nor did Paul, a "chosen vessel," When Paul wrote his epistle to the church at Rome instructing "the brethren" that "there is therefore NOW no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus" (Romans 8:1), he never mentions Peter! As you "scholars" know, Paul NEVER built upon "another man's foundation" (1 Cor. 3:11).
So, there would have been no need for this apostle to sustain or rebuke the POPE...lol...lol.

When Jesus transferred authority to "remit" or "retain sins" after His resurrection He "breathed" on the men who were given this authority (John 20:22-23).
Please...do you know of ANYONE today with this authority!? Oh sure, tell me, "the "Papacy". Peter was given the "keys" to the kingdom at Caesarea Philippi. He used these spiritual keys at Pentecost to the Jew and approximately ten years later he unlocked the gate to the Gentiles. Thank God, the "keys" used by Peter were spiritual or they would be displayed and worshiped in Rome by Catholics around the world. Peter opened the gate to the kingdom....He NEVER spoke of himself as the foundation of the church....Pentecost, and the household of Cornelius would have been a grand opportunity to claim his "holiness" would it not? Why, Peter would not even allow Cornelius to bow down and kiss his ring at Caesarea (Acts 10:26).

When Jesus said. "my church,"  the principles which were set in this declaration are (1) The church belongs to Christ. No man may claim it and set aside Jesus. No has the right to change its faith or practice. (2) The church was to be established in the future by Christ. It had not existend in the Old Testament period. It was not established by John the Baptist. There is absolutely no evidence of any organization being brought into existence during the ministry of Jesus. He predicted the He will build this divine structure in the future and His apostles will be the instruments. He used Peter as spokesman. As we pass from the Gospel narratives to the book of Acts, this is exactly what happened. The first two chapters of Acts show how these predictions were fulfilled.

Quote from: pointmade on Tue Apr 20, 2010 - 08:46:13
mclees8: "Those epistle are all we have today to measure what they taught."

Right on melees8......The ONLY thing any of us know about Jesus and His teaching are presented to mankind by the men "given to him by the Father" (John 17:6). He has authorized no one except those who had "been with him from the beginning" (John 15:27). This would knock a hole in Roman Catholicism that  Scripture is a product of the church and subject to the interpretative authority of the church, i.e., tradition emerging from church fathers, councils, and the popes.

Leaving aside the rest, how do you square that with Mark and Luke not being with Jesus from the beginning?

Moreover we don't know who wrote Hebrews (certainly not Paul) and the person who wrote Jude does not identify himself as an apostle, just as brother of James. So neither of those were with Jesus from the beginning.

And of course Paul himself wasn't with Jesus from the beginning

Then why not accept the apocalypse of Peter, the gospel of Thomas, the gospel of Judas. Peter, Thomas and Judas were with Jesus from the beginning.

The answer is of course that the Church made the decision on the canon of scripture.

winsome: "Leaving aside the rest, how do you square that with Mark and Luke not being with Jesus from the beginning?

The only thing I know is what I read.....Jesus said, (speaking to the eleven in the upper room) "But when the Advocate is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceeds from the Father, he shall testify of me: And YOU shall bear witness, because YOU have been with me from the beginning."

You, as a "scholar" know that "Tertius" wrote the epistle to the church at Rome (Romans 16:22). We can deduct from this verse that this Roman slave HEARD and penned the words of Paul. Elementary, Luke was with Paul...did not Paul mention Luke on his second missionary journey as a traveling companion? Mark was with Paul at the time of his imprisonment (62-63 A.D.) Mark was with Peter in 62 A.D,. who,  would have supplied Mark with the fact of the Gospel and gave them their final form.

winsome, Do you have an understanding of Jesus' words in John 14:25-26? "But the Advocate, which is the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach YOU all things, and bring to remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto YOU." This is why we can be assured that what Luke and Mark wrote ARE the words of Jesus.

Men who are hung up on "tradition" and "Books of The Apocryphal Gospels".......are blind to the spoken words of Jesus. Fact: The gospel of Thomas has many untruths written in it.
A glaring example: Jesus working miracles as a youth in Nazareth.. John (an eyewitness) has written that Jesus "began his miracles in Cana of Galilee" (John 2:11). You mention the "gospel of Peter." We have fragments of this which begins with the trial of Jesus where Pilate is washing his hands, and closes with the Galilean scene of Peter going fishing. Can you not see by reading these books that they are heretical in color, and written up from the Four Gospels sometime in the second century? Early Christian writers also make reference to other Apocryphal Gospels Gospel of the Twelve, The Gospel of Bartholomew, The Gospel of Andrew, The Gospel of Barnabas, and others of which we know little. Made up stories by the "natural man" of which Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 2:14.

The Apocryphal Gospels, fanciful and utterly untrustworthy, which attempt to fill in the space in the life of Christ. I will say this: The Apocryphal Gospels are of great importance in understanding the development of Christian art which is based so largely upon them, and the development of the worship of Mary and various other teachings in the Roman Catholic Church. An example is found in the "Protevangelium of James,"  a history of Mary from her birth to the flight into Egypt; the "Passing of Mary," a story of the death and assumption of Mary; the "Gospel of Nicodemus," an account in two parts---the "Acts of Pilate," which is an elaboration of the trial of Jesus and the "Descent into Hades," which relates of the scene enacted when Jesus "preached to the spirits in prison."

When we turn from the Apocryphal Gospels to the "Apostolic Fathers" and the suceeding early Christian writers, we pass from the realm of ignorance and unrestrained imagination to that of faith and learning. The earliest of these writers were Justin Martyr, Papias, Polycarp, Clement of Rome and Barnabas.
These early Christian scholars add but little to the information give in the New Testament. They stand in striking contrast to the writers of the Apocryphal Gospels, who attempt to add to the life of Christ in such reckless fashion......We are reminded of John's words in Revelation "If any man shall add unto the words of the prophecy of this book, God shall add unto him the plagues of this book" (Rev. 22:18). Paul would write, "If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that which WE (apostles) preach unto you let him be accursed" (Gal. 1:8).

Quote from: pointmade on Wed Apr 21, 2010 - 09:40:14
winsome: "Leaving aside the rest, how do you square that with Mark and Luke not being with Jesus from the beginning?

The only thing I know is what I read.....Jesus said, (speaking to the eleven in the upper room) "But when the Advocate is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceeds from the Father, he shall testify of me: And YOU shall bear witness, because YOU have been with me from the beginning."

You, as a "scholar" know that "Tertius" wrote the epistle to the church at Rome (Romans 16:22). We can deduct from this verse that this Roman slave HEARD and penned the words of Paul. Elementary, Luke was with Paul...did not Paul mention Luke on his second missionary journey as a traveling companion? Mark was with Paul at the time of his imprisonment (62-63 A.D.) Mark was with Peter in 62 A.D,. who,  would have supplied Mark with the fact of the Gospel and gave them their final form.

Exactly. Luke and Mark wrote from Oral Tradition, as did the writer of Hebrews at least.

Paul passed on much of his teaching orally. This, and much else, is the Tradition that was handed on by the apostles to those that they chose to succeed them.

As Paul wrote to Timothy:
Hold to the standard of sound teaching that you have heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. Guard the good treasure entrusted to you, with the help of the Holy Spirit living in us. (2 Tim 1:13-14)

So you, my child, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. 2And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well. (2Tim 1:1-2)

Quote from: pointmade on Wed Apr 21, 2010 - 09:40:14
winsome, Do you have an understanding of Jesus' words in John 14:25-26? "But the Advocate, which is the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach YOU all things, and bring to remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto YOU." This is why we can be assured that what Luke and Mark wrote ARE the words of Jesus.

Men who are hung up on "tradition" and "Books of The Apocryphal Gospels".......are blind to the spoken words of Jesus. Fact: The gospel of Thomas has many untruths written in it.
A glaring example: Jesus working miracles as a youth in Nazareth.. John (an eyewitness) has written that Jesus "began his miracles in Cana of Galilee" (John 2:11). You mention the "gospel of Peter." We have fragments of this which begins with the trial of Jesus where Pilate is washing his hands, and closes with the Galilean scene of Peter going fishing. Can you not see by reading these books that they are heretical in color, and written up from the Four Gospels sometime in the second century? Early Christian writers also make reference to other Apocryphal Gospels Gospel of the Twelve, The Gospel of Bartholomew, The Gospel of Andrew, The Gospel of Barnabas, and others of which we know little. Made up stories by the "natural man" of which Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 2:14.

The Apocryphal Gospels, fanciful and utterly untrustworthy, which attempt to fill in the space in the life of Christ. I will say this: The Apocryphal Gospels are of great importance in understanding the development of Christian art which is based so largely upon them, and the development of the worship of Mary and various other teachings in the Roman Catholic Church. An example is found in the "Protevangelium of James,"  a history of Mary from her birth to the flight into Egypt; the "Passing of Mary," a story of the death and assumption of Mary; the "Gospel of Nicodemus," an account in two parts---the "Acts of Pilate," which is an elaboration of the trial of Jesus and the "Descent into Hades," which relates of the scene enacted when Jesus "preached to the spirits in prison."

When we turn from the Apocryphal Gospels to the "Apostolic Fathers" and the suceeding early Christian writers, we pass from the realm of ignorance and unrestrained imagination to that of faith and learning. The earliest of these writers were Justin Martyr, Papias, Polycarp, Clement of Rome and Barnabas.
These early Christian scholars add but little to the information give in the New Testament. They stand in striking contrast to the writers of the Apocryphal Gospels, who attempt to add to the life of Christ in such reckless fashion......We are reminded of John's words in Revelation "If any man shall add unto the words of the prophecy of this book, God shall add unto him the plagues of this book" (Rev. 22:18). Paul would write, "If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that which WE (apostles) preach unto you let him be accursed" (Gal. 1:8).

I agree about the apocrypha gospels. I was making the point that it was the Church, not individuals, who determined what was true and what was not.

It was the Church that Jesus promised would be led into all truth, not everyone.

winsome: "It was the Church that Jesus promised would be led into all truth, not everyone."

Would you like to elaborate on your statement? Do you not believe Scripture came before the church?
If not, what is the meaning of James 1:18; 2 Thessalonians 2:13; 2 Peter 3:2?

I note that the three thousand souls that believed, repented, and were baptized into Jesus Christ at Pentecost "remained steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine."
(Acts 2:37-42.

Peter preached "words" at Pentecost to cause these Jews to ask the question "men and brethren WHAT MUST WE DO?"
When they submitted to the plan of salvation as Peter informed them, only then do we see  souls being "added to the church by the Lord. (Acts 2:14; 47).
This plan has not been changed in God's mind...Men, down through history have devised all kinds of plans....but God's word does not change.

Church membership comes in all kinds of prescriptions today. Kind of like a smorgasbord...Infant baptism, praying through; having a "Holy Ghost experience."
Name it and claim it.......Peter said "hearken unto MY words." I believe the Holy Spirit was speaking through this man at Pentecost when he spoke the plan for "remitting sins" of sinners in God's mind....
What say ye winsome....Have you been "baptized in to Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit? (Acts 2:38)?

Quote from: pointmade on Fri Apr 23, 2010 - 17:37:37
winsome: "It was the Church that Jesus promised would be led into all truth, not everyone."

Would you like to elaborate on your statement? Do you not believe Scripture came before the church?
If not, what is the meaning of James 1:18; 2 Thessalonians 2:13; 2 Peter 3:2?

I note that the three thousand souls that believed, repented, and were baptized into Jesus Christ at Pentecost "remained steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine."
(Acts 2:37-42.

Peter preached "words" at Pentecost to cause these Jews to ask the question "men and brethren WHAT MUST WE DO?"
When they submitted to the plan of salvation as Peter informed them, only then do we see  souls being "added to the church by the Lord. (Acts 2:14; 47).

What elaboration would you like?

Jesus said to the apostles
The Advocate, the Holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name—he will teach you everything and remind you of all that (I) told you. (Jn 14:26)
He promised that the Holy Spirit would guide them into all truth in the future:
But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth. (Jn 16:13)
He prayed that the Father would consecrate the Apostles in the truth
Consecrate them in the truth.  (Jn 18:17)

These promises were made to the apostles on which the Church is founded (Eph 2:20)

You ask which came first, scripture or the Church? Clearly the OT scripture came first, then Jesus founded the Church, then the NT was written and canonised.

I don't see that James 1:18; 2 Thessalonians 2:13; 2 Peter 3:2 have any relevance to the point I was making about Jesus promising to lead the apostles into all truth.

Quote from: pointmade on Fri Apr 23, 2010 - 17:37:37

This plan has not been changed in God's mind...Men, down through history have devised all kinds of plans....but God's word does not change.

Church membership comes in all kinds of prescriptions today. Kind of like a smorgasbord...Infant baptism, praying through; having a "Holy Ghost experience."
Name it and claim it.......Peter said "hearken unto MY words." I believe the Holy Spirit was speaking through this man at Pentecost when he spoke the plan for "remitting sins" of sinners in God's mind....
What say ye winsome....Have you been "baptized in to Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit? (Acts 2:38)?

It is true that Protestantism has invented all kinds of non-biblical ways in which they think they enter Christ's Church, but the true Church has been consistent from the beginning that it is by Baptism that we become members of the body of Christ.

As a Protestant I will not deny that the Church has authority. Rather than being a Sola Scriptura I think it would be more accurate to refer to me as a Prima Scritpura. But I have to be honest in saying that the Church is NOT limited to those denominations of the one Catholic communion.

John 2
19Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.

20Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?

21But he spake of the temple of his body.

In Judaism the temple is the ONLY place the Spirit of God would descend. Other than the prophets who received special commute with the Spirit of God the priest were the only ones who received the truth of God and therefore taught the masses. Thats why the only road to salvation was to become a Jew under the Old Law.

Here Christ clearly refers to the Temple being rebuilt as the body of the true believer who shoulders his cross. This came to be by Christ death burial and resurrection.

John 14
15"If you love me, you will obey what I command.  16And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever--  17the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be[3] in you. 18I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.  19Before long, the world will not see me anymore, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live.  20On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you.  21Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him."

Notice throughout this passage how Christ is repetitive in using phrases like "in you" "in me" and "in my Father". Christ is promising the establishing of a spiritual union between the spirit of the true believer and His own. Now although I don't think any Catholic would disagree with what Ive said so far, I do think you argue that Christ limited this to leaders of the Church.


Acts 2:17And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:

18And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy: [/color]

Actually Peter Himself quoted this after some in the crowd who didn't receive the Holy Spirit began to mock those who did as being drunk. Look at the words in the texts "sons" "daughters" "servants" "handmaidens". These are words used to describe those who take up the cross for Christ as He did for man. Tell me you don't limit such attributes to only Catholics.

Now if the Holy Spirit resides within each individual heart of each individual believer then collectively those followers are the Bride meant for Christ. Then collectively they are the Church that Israel was meant give birth to through her pain and suffering. Then collectively the Universal Church isnt limited to the Catholic Church.

The Authority of the Church is not in question here.

1 Peter 2:9  But you are a chosen generation, a kingly priesthood, a holy nation, a purchased people: that you may declare his virtues, who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:

When Peter spoke these words, he wasn't prophesing. He was speaking in the present tense. He wasn't telling the congregation of believers that they would become a kingly priesthood and holy nation. He was telling them that they already were.

By what basis does the Catholic Church assume the title of God's True Church when years before their organization Peter was already leading kingly priesthood and holy nation?

Quote from: LightHammer on Sat Apr 24, 2010 - 08:33:19
John 2
19Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.

20Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?

21But he spake of the temple of his body.

In Judaism the temple is the ONLY place the Spirit of God would descend. Other than the prophets who received special commute with the Spirit of God the priest were the only ones who received the truth of God and therefore taught the masses. Thats why the only road to salvation was to become a Jew under the Old Law.

Here Christ clearly refers to the Temple being rebuilt as the body of the true believer who shoulders his cross. This came to be by Christ death burial and resurrection.

When I see claims like "Here clearly......

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

Quote from: LightHammer on Sat Apr 24, 2010 - 08:37:54

1 Peter 2:9  But you are a chosen generation, a kingly priesthood, a holy nation, a purchased people: that you may declare his virtues, who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:

When Peter spoke these words, he wasn't prophesing. He was speaking in the present tense. He wasn't telling the congregation of believers that they would become a kingly priesthood and holy nation. He was telling them that they already were.

By what basis does the Catholic Church assume the title of God's True Church when years before their organization Peter was already leading kingly priesthood and holy nation?

As I have told you, the words spoken by St. Peter is similar to the ones spoken by Moses to a group of slaves whom God led out of Egypt.  Only God can turn a group of slaves into a nation.  And only God can turn His Church into a nation.  This is what St. Peter said:  

1 Peter 2:6-9  As Scripture says:  See how I lay in Zion a precious cornerstone that I have chosen and the man who rests his trust on it will not be disappointed.  That meanst that for you who are believers, it is precious; but for the unbelievers, the stone rejected by the builders has proved to be the keystone, a stone to stumbel over, a rock to bring men down.  They stumble over it because they do not believe in the word; it was the fate in store for them.  But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a consecrated nation, a people set apart to sing the praises of God.  

In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus stated the following:

Matthew 21:42-43  Jesus said to them, "Have you never read in the scriptures:  It was the stone rejected by the builders that became the keystone.  This was the Lord's doing and it is wonderful to see?  I tell you, then, that the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation who will produce its fruits.

God made Israel into a kingdom, and the nation that Jesus spoke about here would be us because we were the only ones who became a nation like Israel.  It was also the Catholic Church that compiled and cannonized the Bible under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.  It was not your church that did this.  And YES, God could have chosen the Gnostics or the Arians to compile the Bible because God can do all things.  But He chose the Catholics.  

Matthew 21:42-43  Jesus said to them, "Have you never read in the scriptures:  It was the stone rejected by the builders that became the keystone.  This was the Lord's doing and it is wonderful to see?  I tell you, then, that the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation who will produce its fruits.

The Catholic church is far from being a nation. Christ's kingdom is "spiritual" not fleshly of this world (Gal. 4:22-31).
Jesus told Nicodemus "you must be born again." "Except you be born of the water and the spirit you cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

We see the gate to the kingdom opened at Pentecost to the Jew "first" and to the Gentiles later at Caesarea. Both Jew and Gentile were told to "repent and be baptized for the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38). In the "last days" all nations would "flow" into the church (Isa. 2:2-4, Eph. 2:11-20).
Never, does Peter say that he was "the pope" or "head of an earthly kingdom."

Jesus was "raised" to " "sit" on David's throne (Acts 2:25-31). He received His kingdom when He "rode on the clouds of the Ancient of days" (Dan. 7:13).
He was welcomed home as the victorious king (Ps. 24:7-8).

Jesus never authorized anyone to sit in Rome to speak for Him......Paul never recognized Peter as vicar, nor should you.

Quote from: pointmade on Sat Apr 24, 2010 - 19:58:21
Matthew 21:42-43  Jesus said to them, "Have you never read in the scriptures:  It was the stone rejected by the builders that became the keystone.  This was the Lord's doing and it is wonderful to see?  I tell you, then, that the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation who will produce its fruits.

The Catholic church is far from being a nation. Christ's kingdom is "spiritual" not fleshly of this world (Gal. 4:22-31).
Jesus told Nicodemus "you must be born again." "Except you be born of the water and the spirit you cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

Jesus said that it will be a nation who will produce its fruits.  The Church in Heaven doesn't need to produce fruits.  Therefore, the Church He established will also be visible on earth just as Israel is visible on earth.  His Church will be both physical and spiritual just as Christ is physical and spiritual.

When Jesus told Nicodemus that he must be born again, He was referring to being baptized in the Holy Spirit.  Those baptized and who has the Holy Spirit in them becomes a new creature (2 Corinthians 5:17).  As you can see, the Apostles who were once afraid to die were no longer afraid because they had the Holy Spirit in them.  And the Apostles were visible on earth when they were born again.   

Quote from: pointmade on Sat Apr 24, 2010 - 19:58:21
Matthew 21:42-43  Jesus said to them, "Have you never read in the scriptures:  It was the stone rejected by the 
Jesus never authorized anyone to sit in Rome to speak for Him......Paul never recognized Peter as vicar, nor should you.

Jesus didn't specify where his Church would be based, but he did start a Church and he did state that this Church would speak for him.

It has to be based somewhere, and it has to be hierarchical.

Otherwise, this would make no sense:

Matthew 18
17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

or this:

Luke 10
16"He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me."

John 20
21Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you."

Jesus didn't specify where his Church would be based, but he did start a Church and he did state that this Church would speak for him.

It has to be based somewhere, and it has to be hierarchical.

Otherwise, this would make no sense:

Matthew 18
17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

or this:

Luke 10
16"He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me."

John 20
21Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you."

I agree with you Chester......but let us note to whom Jesus is speaking...Is it not the men who would "do greater works than I"?

"Who rejects you (apostles) rejects me" (Jesus).

You quote John 20:21...Here again Jesus is speaking to men who were about to be sent into the world with the Gospel. "Go teach and make disciples of ALL nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded YOU (apostles): and I will be with you always, even unto the end."

You and I are not sent like these men, nor has any pope or preacher down through history. Think so? Look at John 14:14. "Whatsoever you shall ask in my name, I will do it."
We see an example of this "promise" in Acts 3:6...Peter and John at the gate Beautiful: "Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have I give to you: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk." You can read the results in the remaining text.....This "promise" of John 14:14 was only given to men who had "been with him from the beginning" (John 15:27).

Do you actually believe that old fellow in Rome, or the "apostles" in Salt Lake City, Utah (Mormon) who "claims apostolic authority" can do this? Why, the papacy cannot even clean the Roman church of pedophile priests; men who claim the indwelling of the Holy Spirit cannot even read Peter's message at Pentecost and come to the same conclusion that water baptism is for the "remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38). Being "added" by the Lord into His kingdom is not by saying a few words over a child and sprinkling "holy water" over their head. This addition to the Word is doctrine by men.

Note that Peter said in Acts 11:14 that he spoke words, whereby you and all your house shall be saved." The "Logos" precedes the church of Christ. The church of Christ is build upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ being the chief corner stone."

"For whosoever shall call up on the name of the Lord shall be saved." How shall they call upon him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him  whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."  (Romans 10).

The ONLY thing you and I know about the teaching of Jesus Christ comes from the men who were sent "from the beginning." The "fountain head" is where the water is crystal clear. "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" You can read Peter's answer in the crystal clear water of Acts 2:38. Do not let the doctrine of men muddy up the crystal water for you and yours......Amen, and amen!

 

QuoteYou and I are not sent like these men, nor has any pope or preacher down through history.

I agree that you and I are not sent like these men.  However, these men were sent with the authority of Jesus.  Do you think they neglected to choose successors?

Quote
Note that Peter said in Acts 11:14 that he spoke words, whereby you and all your house shall be saved." The "Logos" precedes the church of Christ. The church of Christ is build upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ being the chief corner stone."

So you agree that Jesus started a Church.  Do you believe this Church failed?

QuoteThe ONLY thing you and I know about the teaching of Jesus Christ comes from the men who were sent "from the beginning." The "fountain head" is where the water is crystal clear. "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" You can read Peter's answer in the crystal clear water of Acts 2:38. Do not let the doctrine of men muddy up the crystal water for you and yours......Amen, and amen!

We have a living Church that bears witness to the gospel.  This Church, started by Jesus, compiled his teachings into scripture and has preserved these teaching to this day.

This Church perserves the doctrine of Christ.  Those who fight against this Church are promoting the doctrines of men, whether they do so in ignorance or not.

QuoteI agree that you and I are not sent like these men.  However, these men were sent with the authority of Jesus.  Do you think they neglected to choose successors?

1800 successors. 318 unified under Rome. 1482 successors didnt unify in Rome. Catholicism invalid.

QuoteSo you agree that Jesus started a Church.  Do you believe this Church failed?

3Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

This is just theory but perhaps we live in the falling away period.

QuoteWe have a living Church that bears witness to the gospel.  This Church, started by Jesus, compiled his teachings into scripture and has preserved these teaching to this day.

This Church perserves the doctrine of Christ.  Those who fight against this Church are promoting the doctrines of men, whether they do so in ignorance or not.

The Church was never meant to bear witness to the gospel. That was the Holy Spirit's role as the Helper.

Hold on Ill be back

Quote from: LightHammer on Tue Apr 27, 2010 - 12:27:39
[

The Church was never meant to bear witness to the gospel. That was the Holy Spirit's role as the Helper.

Hold on Ill be back

That makes no sense.  The Holy Spirit's role is to guide the Church, which is the body of Christ.

If the Holy Spirit is leading, then there will only be one doctrine.

This is true for Catholics and therefore for most Christians.

Outside of Catholicism confusion is the norm. 

Do you believe the Holy Spirit is the author of confusion?

Quote from: LightHammer1800 successors. 318 unified under Rome. 1482 successors didnt unify in Rome. Catholicism invalid.

That doesn't make any sense to me.  What does this mean?  

Quote from: desertknight on Tue Apr 27, 2010 - 19:25:23

Quote from: LightHammer1800 successors. 318 unified under Rome. 1482 successors didnt unify in Rome. Catholicism invalid.

That doesn't make any sense to me.  What does this mean?  

You're the easier of the two so I'll tackle you first.

The authority of the Apostles exist as collective forming one of authority that originates from Christ. This fact is why Judas' place needed to be filled after his suicide. Although the authority of the apostles allows them to lead their congregations in solitary absolution, one apostle cant make decisions for the entire faith.

Example:
The bishop in Bethlehem can't just say that the Holy Spirit revealed to him that God is a collective word for the union of many other gods and therefore official doctrine is formed.

The majority of those who hold apostolic must decide on something to make it official.

I don't see how this doesn't make sense.

Due to the expansion of the faith geographically more successors were chosen to better lead the masses. The number of successors grew to 1800. At the Council of Nicaea(the council that officially created the Catholic Religio/Politico Power) 318 successors(less than a majority) acted in absolution decided on various controversies, created official doctrine, configured their authority with the power of Rome and in the end made Catholicism.

This is invalid because a minority can't  just make decisions like the ones made at the Council of Nicaea on their own.

Quote from: chestertonrules on Tue Apr 27, 2010 - 17:32:40

Quote from: LightHammer on Tue Apr 27, 2010 - 12:27:39
[

The Church was never meant to bear witness to the gospel. That was the Holy Spirit's role as the Helper.

Hold on Ill be back

That makes no sense.  The Holy Spirit's role is to guide the Church, which is the body of Christ.

If the Holy Spirit is leading, then there will only be one doctrine.

This is true for Catholics and therefore for most Christians.

Outside of Catholicism confusion is the norm. 

Do you believe the Holy Spirit is the author of confusion?

Inside the Catholic Church there is not confusion?

Pagan tools(monstrance, prayer beads, idols) used to worship God.
Contradiction

Changing the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday after God set Saturday as a holy day in the ten commandments.
Contradiction

Praying to the apostles when we have only one mediator.
Contradiction

Changing the "official" Cardinal Sins more than three times.
Contradiction

Please dont take this as an attack but there is confusion in every denomination.

Your doctrine is one because your church formulates laws the makes one man infallible when speaking over doctrine. Convenient.