Does the RCC have An Inferior View On the Bible?

[saturneptune]

Christ built one church - not many.

You are correct. Since the first five hundred years after Christ there was not in reality a Catholic Church, and after the 500 years they are basically a church of works, then it is certainly not the RCC. The promise was fulfilled by local churches that followed the Gospel and the pattern of the churches in Acts. It has been preserved along side of and despite the RCC. Barnum and Bailey's Circus would come closer to being the One True Church than the RCC.

 

[WestminsterMan]

You are correct. Since the first five hundred years after Christ there was not in reality a Catholic Church, and after the 500 years they are basically a church of works, then it is certainly not the RCC. The promise was fulfilled by local churches that followed the Gospel and the pattern of the churches in Acts. It has been preserved along side of and despite the RCC. Barnum and Bailey's Circus would come closer to being the One True Church than the RCC.

Why not provide the writings of some of these christians who "...preserved along side of and despite [of] the RCC." After all they should be easy to find.

Alrternately, I can provide you plenty of history to support my position.

Early references to the Catholic Church

Ignatius of Antioch. In his second-century letter to the church in Smyrna, he wrote, "Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 8, 1 [A.D. 110]).

Tatian the Syrian
"Simon Cephas answered and said, ‘You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.’ Jesus answered and said unto him, ‘Blessed are you, Simon, son of Jonah: flesh and blood has not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say unto thee also, that you are Cephas, and on this rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it" (The Diatesseron 23 [A.D. 170]).

So, there is solid and irrefutable historic evidence hundreds of years earlier than your claim. Additionally, we can see solid documentation for apostolic succession…

In his work “Against Heresies [A.D. 180] ”St. Irenaeus begins to list the successors of Peter at Rome with these words: "But since it would be too long, in a work like this, to list the successions in all the churches, we shall take only one of them, the church that is greatest, most ancient, and known to all, founded and set up by the two most glorious apostles Peter and Paul at Rome while showing that the tradition and the faith it proclaims to men comes down through the successions of the bishops even to us" (ibid., 3.2).

Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter 3)
1. It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to the perfect apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon [to the Church], but if they should fall away, the direst calamity.

Here, Ignatius shows the Primacy of the Church of Rome..
2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

And here is the apostolic succession listed:
3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spoke with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.

Approximately 300 years later, we see Augustine confirming the list…

St. Augustine of Hippo – A.D. 412:
“If the very order of epicopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them from Peter himself, to whom, as the one representing the WHOLE CHURCH, the Lord said “Upon this rock I will build my Church… Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement, Clement by Anacletus, Anacletus by Evaristus … “ (Letter 53, To Generosus 1:2)

Hmmm...

WM

 

[DHK]

The instant the egg and sperm unite in holy matrimony, you have a human being.

Therefore Birth Control, which kills that union is murder.

Thus birth control is an instrument for murder.

That's the argument. As it is, it's rather factually correct and non reaching.

IF you believe the egg and sperm make a human, then it is murder. You stopped a life from happening. Life is something replicating itself, and an embryo certainly does that.

PLUS I've never seen anything but a human baby born from such a union as a female egg and male sperm, so until you can show someone that it's NOT going to be a human baby, they can claim it's murder.

But, the opposition argument would be, Life beings at first breath for the Jews, so an abortion in the time of Christ would not have been violating any laws of God.

There you have it.

I agree with much of what you say, but it seems you are a bit naive concerning birth control methods. There are a number of methods (including the pill) that prevents the sperm and the egg from uniting or fertilizing. There are other methods that do the same thing, one as simple as a condom. If no fertilization takes place (no union), then there can be no "murder," can there?

 

[Catalyst]

---Quote (Originally by WestminsterMan)---
Christ built one church - not many.


---End Quote---
You are correct. Since the first five hundred years after Christ there was not in reality a Catholic Church, and after the 500 years they are basically a church of works, then it is certainly not the RCC. The promise was fulfilled by local churches that followed the Gospel and the pattern of the churches in Acts. It has been preserved along side of and despite the RCC. Barnum and Bailey's Circus would come closer to being the One True Church than the RCC.
Saturnneptune.../\

As early as Revelations, you see that the Churches that were within one church, were different of focus and operations.

Clement scolded Corinth over the bishop's moves on kicking folks out of the Church, it shows they were ran by the bishops in the area and had different views even then.

ONE Church, many colors.

 

[Walter]

Why not provide the writings of some of these christians who "...preserved along side of and despite [of] the RCC." After all they should be easy to find.

Alrternately, I can provide you plenty of history to support my position.

Early references to the Catholic Church

Ignatius of Antioch. In his second-century letter to the church in Smyrna, he wrote, "Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 8, 1 [A.D. 110]).

Tatian the Syrian
"Simon Cephas answered and said, ‘You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.’ Jesus answered and said unto him, ‘Blessed are you, Simon, son of Jonah: flesh and blood has not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say unto thee also, that you are Cephas, and on this rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it" (The Diatesseron 23 [A.D. 170]).

So, there is solid and irrefutable historic evidence hundreds of years earlier than your claim. Additionally, we can see solid documentation for apostolic succession…

In his work “Against Heresies [A.D. 180] ”St. Irenaeus begins to list the successors of Peter at Rome with these words: "But since it would be too long, in a work like this, to list the successions in all the churches, we shall take only one of them, the church that is greatest, most ancient, and known to all, founded and set up by the two most glorious apostles Peter and Paul at Rome while showing that the tradition and the faith it proclaims to men comes down through the successions of the bishops even to us" (ibid., 3.2).

Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter 3)
1. It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to the perfect apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon [to the Church], but if they should fall away, the direst calamity.

Here, Ignatius shows the Primacy of the Church of Rome..
2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

And here is the apostolic succession listed:
3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spoke with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.

Approximately 300 years later, we see Augustine confirming the list…

St. Augustine of Hippo – A.D. 412:
“If the very order of epicopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them from Peter himself, to whom, as the one representing the WHOLE CHURCH, the Lord said “Upon this rock I will build my Church… Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement, Clement by Anacletus, Anacletus by Evaristus … “ (Letter 53, To Generosus 1:2)

Hmmm...

WM

They HAVE to blow all this historical evidence off as being writings of heretics. It destroys their theory of what 'real biblical churches' looked like. Saturneptune KNOWS there is absolutely no historical support of their position. They bluster and whine about the 'evil RCC destroying all the historical evidence' but then have no explantation to the fact that other heretical groups writings were not destroyed. Why just these mythical 'baptistic churches' historical evidence? The fact is that they never existed and their is not one shred of evidence to provide to support their ridiculous claims.

 

[Catalyst]

You are correct. Since the first five hundred years after Christ there was not in reality a Catholic Church, and after the 500 years they are basically a church of works, then it is certainly not the RCC. The promise was fulfilled by local churches that followed the Gospel and the pattern of the churches in Acts. It has been preserved along side of and despite the RCC. Barnum and Bailey's Circus would come closer to being the One True Church than the RCC.

Ummm Xian maturity comes through works. If you avoid the works, or don't work at the works, you stay an immature Xian. So says Paul.

Look at it like this, to play on God's baseball team you have to move from righty to lefty. You can read all the books, watch all the film, blah blah blah, but until you do the work and throw the ball a billion times, you won't change.

If you don't have works you aren't saved. That's a given.
It's not the works that save you, that is the other side of the coin of the same given.

 

[Yeshua1]

Ummm Xian maturity comes through works. If you avoid the works, or don't work at the works, you stay an immature Xian. So says Paul.

Look at it like this, to play on God's baseball team you have to move from righty to lefty. You can read all the books, watch all the film, blah blah blah, but until you do the work and throw the ball a billion times, you won't change.

If you don't have works you aren't saved. That's a given.
It's not the works that save you, that is the other side of the coin of the same given.

Actually, its still FAITH alone that is maturing us, as its believing in the Bible, and yielding to the Holy Spirit to produce the fruit and growth in us!

Salavtion from start to finish in faith in God and what he said!

 

[Moriah]

You obviously have no idea what Icons are about, or you wouldn't have said that as you did.

I sure do know what icons are. The Hindus and Pagans use icons the same way the Catholics do…you all say the statue/icon/ is only a representative for whom you pray to. Those are idols, which is a sin. Catholics do bow to the images and any relics.
Here is part of an article and link that may help:http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07664a.htm

In both East and West the reverence we pay to images has crystallized into formal ritual. In the Latin Rite the priest is commanded to bow to the cross in the sacristy before he leaves it to say Mass ("Ritus servandus" in the Missal, II, 1); he bows again profoundly "to the altar or the image of the crucifix placed upon it" when he begins Mass (ibid., II, 2); he begins incensing the altar by incensing the crucifix on it (IV, 4), and bows to it every time he passes it (ibid.); he also incenses any relics or images of saints that may be on the altar (ibid.). In the same way many such commands throughout our rubrics show that always a reverence is to be paid to the cross or images of saints whenever we approach them.

Did you read that? Catholics are supposed to, and do, bow to the pictures and statues.
Again, this is against God. This is sin.

Someday you'll cringe when you read your post.

No way do I cringe at exposing falseness. I love speaking God’s Truth.

They aren't praying to the statue, they are praying to Jesus.

Jesus is not a statue. Jesus is not an infant! They ARE praying to the statue. They even come for a healing to the statue.

They are before the statue as a focus for them, in their prayers. Protestants wear crosses on their necks, that's idolatry, scripture says to stone them all.

I am not a Protestant. I do not believe people should wear crosses either.

 

[Catalyst]

Genisis 38, jerimah 1:5 and Luke 1
Condems contraception

The catholic church is the only church that has a sound reason. For every line in the bible because they wrote it through the inspiration of the holy ghost

With no explanation to know what you think you say there, I'll answer with, "No they don't!"

 

[Catalyst]

Actually, its still FAITH alone that is maturing us, as its believing in the Bible, and yielding to the Holy Spirit to produce the fruit and growth in us!

Salavtion from start to finish in faith in God and what he said!

So, you have edited PAUL out of your bible I guess.

How unfortunate, so much of the message you will be missing. He said very specifically that it was through works you were matured.

And Paul put an emphasis on the Xian doing the works.

What Bible are you reading?

 

[Moriah]

The instant the egg and sperm unite in holy matrimony, you have a human being.

Therefore Birth Control, which kills that union is murder.
Thus birth control is an instrument for murder.

Show that in the Bible, or do not say it.

IF you believe the egg and sperm make a human, then it is murder.

Of course, an egg and sperm make a human.

You stopped a life from happening. Life is something replicating itself, and an embryo certainly does that.

Every time a man and woman are together, in the familiar way that does not mean every time a child would have been conceived. Read in the Bible all the times a woman was with her husband but did not have a pregnancy from it.
Nor is it murder never to have that life conceived.

Do you think it is murder when a man and women have sex in order to have a baby, but never are able to conceive? Who do you blame that murder on?

PLUS I've never seen anything but a human baby born from such a union as a female egg and male sperm, so until you can show someone that it's NOT going to be a human baby, they can claim it's murder.

That is illogical reasoning.
At least you answered my question to DHK in a normal and decent manner.

 

[Catalyst]

I sure do know what icons are. The Hindus and Pagans use icons the same way the Catholics do…you all say the statue/icon/ is only a representative for whom you pray to. Those are idols, which is a sin.

Obviously you do not understand. When you do you will be very embarassed.

Catholics do bow to the images and any relics.
Here is part of an article and link that may help:http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07664a.htm

I bow to the Queen of England too. I guess I'm hell bound. They bow BEFORE the images and relics, NOT TO them. HUGE DIFFERENCE. So, how is the Pharisees these days??? I thought they were gone, but I see I was mistaken.

In both East and West the reverence we pay to images has crystallized into formal ritual.

Agreed, but that's a separate issue.

In the Latin Rite the priest is commanded to bow to the cross in the sacristy before he leaves it to say Mass ("Ritus servandus" in the Missal, II, 1); he bows again profoundly "to the altar or the image of the crucifix placed upon it" when he begins Mass (ibid., II, 2); he begins incensing the altar by incensing the crucifix on it (IV, 4), and bows to it every time he passes it (ibid.); he also incenses any relics or images of saints that may be on the altar (ibid.). In the same way many such commands throughout our rubrics show that always a reverence is to be paid to the cross or images of saints whenever we approach them.

Moses had to hold a magic stick over his head so the red sea would part. Did Moses or the stick or God part the sea? The stick then became an image for the jews to focus on to remind them of an aspect of God and His Grace and providence.

Seems there was some IDOL they made to not die from snakes too. Egads, even GOD is a heretic it was HIS IDEA!!!!!!:BangHead:

What are we to do.

They bow before the image, but TO God. They are seeing and their faith tells them that the image before them is a catalyst to God, but it's TOO GOD they are praying. The worse thing you can accuse them of is (IMO) being silly on the idea that dead folks will look to earth and provide intercessory prayer to God on their behalf. That's their big sin. At worse case scenario it's goofy, not idolatry.

Did you read that? Catholics are supposed to, and do, bow to the pictures and statues.
Again, this is against God. This is sin.

Yes, God telling the Jews to make the image to survive snake bites, was clearly GOD sinning as well, OR tricking his people into sinning for God. Oh the irony.

No way do I cringe at exposing falseness. I love speaking God’s Truth.

First time you expose some you'll be justified then. Until then you are making bigotted comments against all RCC. I'm using the word literally, not pejoratively, and the word is used to the comments not the person.

I can tell you one scripture that is clearly being violated here, well, two. Two men eating meat. The one with greater faith could eat it and not be in sin, the one with lesser would be in sin if he ate it. They weren't to get in each other's face.

Creating factions and dissensions in the Church is the flesh, not Spirit working. ALL of your diatribe on this subtopic is just to create division. Check yourself before you go trying to fix other people's short comings. Gal 5:19-21

Jesus is not a statue. Jesus is not an infant! They ARE praying to the statue. They even come for a healing to the statue.

I am not a Protestant. I do not believe people should wear crosses either.

I don't know what you are, other than overly legalistic in the literal sense of the word.

 

[Catalyst]

Show that in the Bible, or do not say it.

Really? you want the Bible to show egg and sperm uniting makes a baby or else it's off the table? FINE show me you exist in the bible or I'll stop talking to you.

Of course, an egg and sperm make a human.

Then, to prevent that human to reach maturity would be murder, same as killing a 2 year old before it naturally died. Right?

Every time a man and woman are together, in the familiar way that does not mean every time a child would have been conceived.

Irrelevant, has nothing to do with the topic. No one said using contraception was a sin every time you had sex. :| Are you doing this on purpose?

Read in the Bible all the times a woman was with her husband but did not have a pregnancy from it.

Irrelevant.

Nor is it murder never to have that life conceived.

Ok, apply the Rule of Moriah. Show me in the Bible it's NOT A MURDER to take the life of the fetus that will be an adult if not stopped in the middle of the process. Go ahead, show me. Your argument is emotional, not biblical. If you want to spit the Bible in my face, then you should be consistent and live up to the same standards you apply to others. Else you are just being a bit self righteous. And I suspect you aren't self righteous, but man, it sure comes across that way.

Do you think it is murder when a man and women have sex in order to have a baby, but never are able to conceive? Who do you blame that murder on?

You must be deliberately avoiding, or not reading what I typed else you wouldn't be so rude. The question has nothing to do with anything I said. Please read slower, and at least make an effort to track the conversation before you presumptively "put me in my place," ok?

That is illogical reasoning.
At least you answered my question to DHK in a normal and decent manner.

Show me the illogic. You seem to feel if YOU PROCLAIM IT, it is so. I'm sorry, but I don't know you well enough to accept that as fact. And I suspect the more I know you the less you'll be able to pull that off based on what was above.

You would do well to learn to separate your emotions from your bible study. You could then avoid the eisegesis and exegete better.

 

[Moriah]

Obviously you do not understand. When you do you will be very embarassed.

I do understand. I will not ever be ashamed of the Truth.
I only tell you things for your own good.

I bow to the Queen of England too. I guess I'm hell bound.

Is the Queen of England a statue?

They bow BEFORE the images and relics, NOT TO them. HUGE DIFFERENCE.

There is no difference.
All who make idols are nothing, and the things they treasure are worthless. Those who would speak up for them are blind; they are ignorant, to their own shame, Isaiah 44:9.

So, how is the Pharisees these days??? I thought they were gone, but I see I was mistaken.

Pharisees ADDED to the word of God. Catholics add to the word of God. I obey God’s word and do not add to it.

Agreed, but that's a separate issue.

It is NOT a separate issue. Catholics bow to statues, and that is against God.

Moses had to hold a magic stick over his head so the red sea would part. Did Moses or the stick or God part the sea? The stick then became an image for the jews to focus on to remind them of an aspect of God and His Grace and providence.

Seems there was some IDOL they made to not die from snakes too. Egads, even GOD is a heretic it was HIS IDEA!!!!!!
Yes, God telling the Jews to make the image to survive snake bites, was clearly GOD sinning as well, OR tricking his people into sinning for God. Oh the irony.

The Israelites burned incense to the bronze snake. Since the Israelites burned incense to the bronze snake that Moses made---a man of God destroyed the bronze snake.
The Catholic priest burns incense to the crucifix, and any relics or images of saints. How do the Catholics think that they could do such things against the commands of God is beyond me.
2 Kings 18:1 In the third year of Hoshea son of Elah king of Israel, Hezekiah son of Ahaz king of Judah began to reign. 2 He was twenty-five years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem twenty-nine years. His mother's name was Abijah daughter of Zechariah. 3 He did what was right in the eyes of the LORD, just as his father David had done. 4 He removed the high places, smashed the sacred stones and cut down the Asherah poles. He broke into pieces the bronze snake Moses had made, for up to that time the Israelites had been burning incense to it. (It was called Nehushtan.)

First time you expose some you'll be justified then. Until then you are making bigotted comments against all RCC. I'm using the word literally, not pejoratively, and the word is used to the comments not the person.

I can tell you one scripture that is clearly being violated here, well, two. Two men eating meat. The one with greater faith could eat it and not be in sin, the one with lesser would be in sin if he ate it. They weren't to get in each other's face.

Creating factions and dissensions in the Church is the flesh, not Spirit working. ALL of your diatribe on this subtopic is just to create division. Check yourself before you go trying to fix other people's short comings. Gal 5:19-21

God says have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them, see Ephesians 5:11.
Proverbs 28:4 Those who forsake the law praise the wicked, but those who keep the law resist them.
1 Timothy 5:20 Those who sin are to be rebuked publicly, so that the others may take warning.

 

[Moriah]

Really? you want the Bible to show egg and sperm uniting makes a baby or else it's off the table? FINE show me you exist in the bible or I'll stop talking to you.

Are you trying to be deceitful? I said show me from the Bible where it says to stop sperm and egg from meeting is murder.
You said it was murder. Prove it from the scriptures or stop saying it.
This is a debate group on doctrine, not on what you think of me.

Then, to prevent that human to reach maturity would be murder, same as killing a 2 year old before it naturally died. Right?

Show from the Bible that it is murder to prevent an egg and sperm from meeting.
If it was the same as murder, then your priest and nuns are murders for not getting married and having sex.

Irrelevant, has nothing to do with the topic. No one said using contraception was a sin every time you had sex. :| Are you doing this on purpose?

You are the one who said to keep an egg and sperm from meeting is murder.

Irrelevant.

Your beliefs are irrelevant.

Ok, apply the Rule of Moriah. Show me in the Bible it's NOT A MURDER to take the life of the fetus that will be an adult if not stopped in the middle of the process. Go ahead, show me. Your argument is emotional, not biblical. If you want to spit the Bible in my face, then you should be consistent and live up to the same standards you apply to others. Else you are just being a bit self righteous. And I suspect you aren't self righteous, but man, it sure comes across that way.

Stop making up things that I do not say! Show me where I said it was NOT murder to take the life of a fetus. Show it now where I said that, or repent.

You must be deliberately avoiding, or not reading what I typed else you wouldn't be so rude. The question has nothing to do with anything I said. Please read slower, and at least make an effort to track the conversation before you presumptively "put me in my place," ok?

You said it was murder to stop a sperm and egg from conceiving to make a child.

You would do well to learn to separate your emotions from your bible study. You could then avoid the eisegesis and exegete better.

You will not win any points from Biblicist, even though you try to flatter him.

 

[Moriah]

Thus birth control is an instrument for murder.

That's the argument. As it is, it's rather factually correct and non reaching.

Here you said, "Thus birth control is an instrument for murder."

If you did not mean birth control through the prevention of sperm meeting the egg, then you should have explained it better.

You quoted me speaking of birth control and NOT ABORTION! Abortion is murder and not merely a birth control method.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Why not provide the writings of some of these christians who "...preserved along side of and despite [of] the RCC." After all they should be easy to find.

Alrternately, I can provide you plenty of history to support my position.

Early references to the Catholic Church

Ignatius of Antioch. In his second-century letter to the church in Smyrna, he wrote, "Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 8, 1 [A.D. 110]).

Tatian the Syrian
"Simon Cephas answered and said, ‘You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.’ Jesus answered and said unto him, ‘Blessed are you, Simon, son of Jonah: flesh and blood has not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say unto thee also, that you are Cephas, and on this rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it" (The Diatesseron 23 [A.D. 170]).

So, there is solid and irrefutable historic evidence hundreds of years earlier than your claim. Additionally, we can see solid documentation for apostolic succession…

In his work “Against Heresies [A.D. 180] ”St. Irenaeus begins to list the successors of Peter at Rome with these words: "But since it would be too long, in a work like this, to list the successions in all the churches, we shall take only one of them, the church that is greatest, most ancient, and known to all, founded and set up by the two most glorious apostles Peter and Paul at Rome while showing that the tradition and the faith it proclaims to men comes down through the successions of the bishops even to us" (ibid., 3.2).

Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter 3)
1. It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to the perfect apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon [to the Church], but if they should fall away, the direst calamity.

Here, Ignatius shows the Primacy of the Church of Rome..
2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

And here is the apostolic succession listed:
3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spoke with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.

Approximately 300 years later, we see Augustine confirming the list…

St. Augustine of Hippo – A.D. 412:
“If the very order of epicopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them from Peter himself, to whom, as the one representing the WHOLE CHURCH, the Lord said “Upon this rock I will build my Church… Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement, Clement by Anacletus, Anacletus by Evaristus … “ (Letter 53, To Generosus 1:2)

Hmmm...

WM

The problem for the RCC is that they want to read later-century developments back into the first and early second century churches. For example, in the time of Ignatius, there were no monarchical bishops; that did not develop until the late second century. In fact, there were not three orders of ministry in A.D. 110; the NT order was still in place in which the office of elder/presbyter/pastor/bishop was one and the same office.

Thus, the "apostolic succession" consisting of an unbroken line of monarchical bishops as a third order of ministry back to the apostles is a fable, as John Wesley rightly came to see.

 

[Catalyst]

I agree with much of what you say, but it seems you are a bit naive concerning birth control methods. There are a number of methods (including the pill) that prevents the sperm and the egg from uniting or fertilizing. There are other methods that do the same thing, one as simple as a condom. If no fertilization takes place (no union), then there can be no "murder," can there?

Oh, I'm not naieve, to cover all the nuances of this topic I'd still be typing.

if spilling your seed on the ground got a man killed, didn't it? I'm OT stupid sometimes, sorry, but in deep poop, then why would spilling it into a condom not be the same offense.

And I'm not defending their position. I disagree on it. But the point is, they got there honestly. And it's a matter of how they interpret things. Since it's not a salvific issue, why do I care how they run their world?

BUT when people posing as those sharing my faiths make broad stroke bigotted comments, they make me and every person that shares my faith look like a bigot, they pollute the message of God, and matt 18 says I should approach them on it.

So, I end up defending the CATHOLICS when I'd rather argue with them. At least I give them a fair argument, and don't just parrot what other lemmings have said and never researched.

And I'm a moron. If a moron can do it, everyone can.

 

[WestminsterMan]

The problem for the RCC is that they want to read later-century developments back into the first and early second century churches. For example, in the time of Ignatius, there were no monarchical bishops; that did not develop until the late second century. In fact, there were not three orders of ministry in A.D. 110; the NT order was still in place in which the office of elder/presbyter/pastor/bishop was one and the same office.

Thus, the "apostolic succession" consisting of an unbroken line of monarchical bishops as a third order of ministry back to the apostles is a fable, as John Wesley rightly came to see.

According to the historical record, you are flat out wrong. If you can prove otherwise then please - be my guest. However, quoting John Wesley won't cut it.

W

 

[Catalyst]

Here you said, "Thus birth control is an instrument for murder."

If you did not mean birth control through the prevention of sperm meeting the egg, then you should have explained it better.

You quoted me speaking of birth control and NOT ABORTION! Abortion is murder and not merely a birth control method.

You really need to read slower.

I connected the two. If the union of the sperm and egg makes a child, aborting it is murder. Preventing it would prevent the same life, right? Many birth control options are only effective by disrupting the conjoining, so they have been met together, but the BC destroys that union, in effect causing a micro abortion that washes out with the menses.

My position was written where it could be read and understood to say that. If I failed, please show me what was the hang up in my words to your understanding, and I'll work at doing better.