If the Roman Catholic Church is so bad...

[D28guy]

Matt Black,

I apologise. I meant to respond to this after you posted it, but it slipped through the cracks somehow. I spotted it when going back to look for something else.

We were speaking of the 1st century church, and I had posted that Paul would be very much at home in present day evangelical/charismatic/pentecostal fellowships.

You then said...

On the 1st century church point, I think you will find that it was quite different to 21st century evangelical services. For a start, you forget that Christianity did not arise in a vacuum but in a Jewish and Hellenistic religio-cultural milieu. Thus any 1st century church service would have had a distinctively Jewish flavour to it (and I'm not just talking about the Jerusalem church here): there would have been liturgy (indeed we know this from Scripture because of the various proto-liturgies produced in the NT)

Yes, but only during the brief period when they were in Jerusalem...and before God took it upon Himself to cause some persecution to disperse them.

They were not doing what God told them to do.

They were instructed to witness in Jerusalem, then in Samaria, and then to the outermost parts of the earth.

But they were getting comfortable in Jerusalem. Things were going well, and they were settling in. They were not leaving!

God had "new wine" to put in "new wineskins"...but they were getting bogged down in Jerusalem.

So he had to force them out.

And when He did they had no choice but allow the "new thing" te become a reality.

Simple fellowships in homes. Gathering with brothers and sisters for fellowship, prayer, simple worship, and then going out into the community to tell those in their circle of influence about the goodness of God, the truth of Christ, and how they can come to know Him as they have.

It was a brand new thing. "New Wine" in "New Wineskins".

Christ was clear that the new wine of the new covenant can not be pushed into the old wineskins of the old covenant way.

Praise God! \o/

Blessings,

Mike

 

[Matt Black]

Originally posted by Athanasian Creed:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Matt Black:
You undermine the doctrine of the incarnation by this post. Jesus was not in heaven as God at the same time He was on earth as God. That's the whole point of the incarnation. I'm not exactly sure what sort of heresy you and Eliyahu are hinting at here - possibly Docetism in your case and modalism/ Sabellianism in Eliyahu's - but I smell heresy very strongly from your posts

I believe what the Bible teaches, that the Word, who was (and is) with God and was (and is) God Himself. I believe the Word took on flesh and dwelt among us as the Apostle John wrote. Therefore, i'm hardly a Docetist!

John 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven,even the Son of man which is in heaven

What, according to you, is Jesus saying in this verse. To me it is clear, while Jesus walking on earth as a man, He was also (present tense) IN heaven.

Barnes Commentary -

Which is in heaven This is a very remarkable expression. Jesus, the Son of man, was then bodily on earth conversing with Nicodemus; yet he declares that he is at the same time in heaven. This can be understood only as referring to the fact that he had two natures--that his divine nature was in heaven, and his human nature on earth. Our Saviour is frequently spoken of in this manner. Comp. Joh 6:62,62; 17:5; 2Co 8:9.

William Burkitt's Expository Notes -

...though he took upon him the human nature, and was then man upon earth yet was he at the same time in his divine nature actually in heaven as God. This text evidently proves two distinct natures in Christ; namely, a divine nature as he was God, and an human nature as man. In his human nature, he was then upon earth, when he spake these words; in his divine nature, he was at that instant in heaven.
</font>[/QUOTE]Sorry, old boy, but that is heresy (not the two natures bit, but the denial that Jesus Christ was fully God and fully Man as He walked this earth). You have a poor translation of John 3:13; the Greek is rendered "the Son of Man, who dwells/ whose home is heaven"; it doesn't mean He was there at that instant. My home is three miles to the west of where I am currently typing this (at work); yet I can say now that I live/ have my dwelling/home three miles to the west of where I physically am at this instant. Similarly, Paul in Philippians 3:17-21 talks about our 'citizenship' being 'in Heaven'; that doesn't mean that he or those to whom he was writing where actually in heaven at that moment.

 

[Matt Black]

Originally posted by D28guy:
Matt Black,

I apologise. I meant to respond to this after you posted it, but it slipped through the cracks somehow. I spotted it when going back to look for something else.

We were speaking of the 1st century church, and I had posted that Paul would be very much at home in present day evangelical/charismatic/pentecostal fellowships.

You then said...

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />On the 1st century church point, I think you will find that it was quite different to 21st century evangelical services. For a start, you forget that Christianity did not arise in a vacuum but in a Jewish and Hellenistic religio-cultural milieu. Thus any 1st century church service would have had a distinctively Jewish flavour to it (and I'm not just talking about the Jerusalem church here): there would have been liturgy (indeed we know this from Scripture because of the various proto-liturgies produced in the NT)

Yes, but only during the brief period when they were in Jerusalem...and before God took it upon Himself to cause some persecution to disperse them.

They were not doing what God told them to do.

They were instructed to witness in Jerusalem, then in Samaria, and then to the outermost parts of the earth.

But they were getting comfortable in Jerusalem. Things were going well, and they were settling in. They were not leaving!

God had "new wine" to put in "new wineskins"...but they were getting bogged down in Jerusalem.

So he had to force them out.

And when He did they had no choice but allow the "new thing" te become a reality.

Simple fellowships in homes. Gathering with brothers and sisters for fellowship, prayer, simple worship, and then going out into the community to tell those in their circle of influence about the goodness of God, the truth of Christ, and how they can come to know Him as they have.

It was a brand new thing. "New Wine" in "New Wineskins".

Christ was clear that the new wine of the new covenant can not be pushed into the old wineskins of the old covenant way.

Praise God! \o/

Blessings,

Mike </font>[/QUOTE]Not quite. As my earlier post indicates, this 'liturgical' phenomenon was not confined to the Jerusalem church, but was repeated throughout the Hellenistic world as the new faith spread, and was still being used in the mid- to late-2nd century, as Justin Martyr and others attest

 

[Matt Black]

This thread has yet again demonstrated for me the dangers of the sola Scripturist approach. The "Me, Jaysus and Mah Bahbull" fundie crowd are able to unearth this heretical crap that was dealt with many centuries ago by the successors of the Apostles, all based on Scripture alone (well, plus the individualistic interpretation of the individuals concerned of course - but that's a small detail that we don't like to talk about, children). Goes to show what happens when you throw the baby out with the bathwater.. I just feel really sorry for those poor guys who lost their lives in the 4th and 5th centuries defending orthodoxy; they must be weeping in Heaven right now. Athanasius, I guess all that time in the desert wasn't worth it after all.

I have had people 'prove' to me, from Scripture, that:

All non-Christians go to Hell
We cannot know who goes to Hell
Jesus was omniscient
Jesus was not omniscient
Jesus was divine
Jesus was not divine
All Christians should speak in tongues
Speaking in tongues ceased with the Apostles
Christians should never be ill
Christians can expect to get ill
Demons cause mental illness
Demons do not cause mental illness
The early church baptised infants
The early church did not baptise infants
Once saved, always saved
You can lose your salvation
Women cannot be priests
Women can be priests
Homosexuality should be punished by death
Homosexuality is wrong but should not be punished by death
Homosexuality is not wrong
The earth is six thousand years old
The earth is not six thousand years old
The earth is the centre of the universe
The earth is not the centre of the universe
The Catholic church is the Whore of Babylon
The Catholic church is the only way of salvation

and on and on and on and on...

Sola Scriptura, whatever else it may be, is not useful

"Scripture says..." is the start of a discussion, not the end. Those who say that Scripture is "quite clear" need a reality check.

 

[Eliyahu]

Hi,
you guys reveal the problems with human judgment.

Am I following Sabellianism or Docetism?

I don't remember exactly about Docetism, but as for Sabellianism, it sounds like a One-Man-Show by God, which cannot explain the agony and the prayers at Gethshemane and at the Cross.
Sometimes RC accuse me of Nestorianism.
Did Nestorius ever mention Hebrew 7:2-3 in his letters ? Maybe he may have mentioned about it, but the documents which are remaining at the hand of his accusers-RCC, are poor, and I didn't find anything about Heb 7:2-3.
I learn everything directly from Bible, and the Bible is the only doctrine for me. If I refer to any other doctrines, it means the deviation from the Bible.

Now you can understand that what Nestorius claimed could be different from what the people understand from the currently available documents. Often RC accused the people as Heretics, of what they never asserted or claimed actually.

My point is to return to the bible simply, without establishing any doctrine. Thereby, we can return to the Bible whenever we find any problem with our thoughts.

No doctrine except Bible is my Doctrine.

 

[Melanie]

5) Communication with the saints sound different.
Saints of RC may mean the dead people.

quoted from a longish piece by Eliyhu.

Anyone one who is with God is a saint. Those who are with God are dead in the flesh (The body is a mouldering in the ground)...but the soul is in Heaven. At the Last Judgement our soul will be reunited with our body......

That is a part of my Catholic Faith.

 

[Matt Black]

Originally posted by Eliyahu:
Hi,
you guys reveal the problems with human judgment.

Am I following Sabellianism or Docetism?

I don't remember exactly about Docetism, but as for Sabellianism, it sounds like a One-Man-Show by God, which cannot explain the agony and the prayers at Gethshemane and at the Cross.
Sometimes RC accuse me of Nestorianism.
Did Nestorius ever mention Hebrew 7:2-3 in his letters ? Maybe he may have mentioned about it, but the documents which are remaining at the hand of his accusers-RCC, are poor, and I didn't find anything about Heb 7:2-3.
I learn everything directly from Bible, and the Bible is the only doctrine for me. If I refer to any other doctrines, it means the deviation from the Bible.

Now you can understand that what Nestorius claimed could be different from what the people understand from the currently available documents. Often RC accused the people as Heretics, of what they never asserted or claimed actually.

My point is to return to the bible simply, without establishing any doctrine. Thereby, we can return to the Bible whenever we find any problem with our thoughts.

No doctrine except Bible is my Doctrine.

So which of the stances in my last post do you adopt based on Scripture alone,and how do you differ from those who, also based on Scripture alone, assert the exact opposite?

 

[Eliyahu]

Originally posted by Chemnitz:
[QB]

Where is Melchisedec now ?

Who knows? Who cares? The Bible doesn't say, so any thing anybody came up would be pure speculation .

It is not a speculation
Often you say Trinity is not found in the Bible but is true, when RC defend Theotokos.

But Melchisedec is so clear to be Christ.

If you do not know that, you know little about the Bible.

 

[BobRyan]

Prayers to the dead are common among pagan religions as CAtholic Digest pointed out.

The Bible calls the dead saints "The Dead in Christ" in 1Thess 4.

Prayers to them - to dead ancestors etc is forbidden in scripture as already pointed out from Isaiah 8.

The Bible teaches us to "Consult God rather than the dead".

We should think about taking God seriously.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Matt Black]

Like I said, the moment someone says that Scripture is 'clear', I start to back away...

[ETA - that was to Eliyahu. Bob, I suppose, then, when Jesus, Peter, James and John met with Elijah and Moses - both long dead - on the Mount of Transfiguration, they were 'consulting the dead' and fell under your ban, then? I'm sure they'd be very grateful for your opinion on the subject]

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Eliyahu:
If there were no Roman Catholic, there would have been much more number of true believers like Albigenes and Waldenese

Originally posted by riverm:

Wrong, if there where no Roman Catholics you’d be worshipping allah 5 times a day, because the Turks were threatening Europe’s back door in the 1500’s. The Knights of Malta…who were CATHOLIC, where the one’s who prevented the advancement of Islam through the Mediterranean. Read your history…You won’t learn this stuff regurgitating Jack Chick, Dave Hunt or David Cloud… You have a lot to be thankful for... [/QB]

You are using a circular argument.

If one says "if it were not for the errors of the Jews the Christian church would have completely taken over Judaism" you can not say "Wrong - if it were not for the Jews there would be no Messiah because he was born of a Jew that had not converted to Christianity yet".

The point is that if the Christian church had REMAINED pure - Islam would never have prevailed in Europe, No Crusades needed - the Waldenses would not have been "exterminated" along with millions of other Christian saints and Catholics would not have been killing fellow Catholics as rival popes sent their own armies clashing against each other.

The point remains.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Matt Black]

I'd avoid a 'peeing game' between the churches here, Bob; the Proddy record is scarcely 'whiter than white' on that score...

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Like I said, the moment someone says that Scripture is 'clear', I start to back away...

[ETA - that was to Eliyahu. Bob, I suppose, then, when Jesus, Peter, James and John met with Elijah and Moses - both long dead - on the Mount of Transfiguration, they were 'consulting the dead' and fell under your ban, then? I'm sure they'd be very grateful for your opinion on the subject]

IF it were true that they had conjured up the DEAD then God would indeed be wrong in Isiah 8 where he tells us NOT to do that very thing.

But as it turns out - they are NOT speaking to the dead at all!

Elijah never died - check out your Bible 2Kings 2:15-23

As for Moses - Jude validates the story of the "Assumption of Moses" in Jude 7-8 where he quotes from the book "The Assumption of Moses" as Michael and Satan argue over Michael's intent to raise Moses "Hence the title".

So both of these men are alive.

But you are consistent in one area - your argument is the same one the Catholics use for justifying their practice of praying to the dead.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Eliyahu]

Originally posted by Matt Black:
So which of the stances in my last post do you adopt based on Scripture alone,and how do you differ from those who, also based on Scripture alone, assert the exact opposite? [/QB]

Your calling Mary as Mother of God is not found in the Bible, but it is derived from the Human syllogism, starting from Trinity and the flesh relationship between Mary and Jesus. In the Bible, Mother of Jesus, Mother of the Lord are found. Therefore, my point is to remain or return to the expressions only used by the bible.

Any derivation from the theory doesn't make sense to the Bible truth.
For example. Word is God, Word became flesh, God doesn't become what is not God, therefore Flesh is God. Then we find it contradicts " it is the spirit that quickens; the flesh profits nothing, the words that I spoke unto you they are spirit (Jn 6:63)" " God is a Spirit" (Jn 4:24)
Human Syllogism doesn't work in the truth of Bible. Therefore we should stay with the exact expression of the Bible, especially when we discuss the important doctrines.

What you said in the following is wrong, because Bible existed before Roman Catholic was formed. Read 2 Tim 3:16. Paul, Peter, John may be very much annoyed if they hear that RC have followed their teachings, because they warned against Idolatry and would hate killings like Inquisition. They were far different from what RCC have been doing. Therefore there is no lineage between apostles and RCC at all. They never conducted Inquisition. They never sold Indulgences, they never asked the people to pray for the dead. They never called Mary as Mother of God, but called her simply Woman or mother of the Lord. They never called Mary mother of the church. Did they make any statue ? NOPE!
Did they call Peter as Pope ? Nope!

Matt said:
The Catholic and Orthodox Churches trace their lineages to the Apostles themselves. While they affirm certain things which can't be found in Scripture that is no surprise because Scripture was formulated by the Church not the Church by Scripture

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Like I said, the moment someone says that Scripture is 'clear', I start to back away...

[ETA - that was to Eliyahu. Bob, I suppose, then, when Jesus, Peter, James and John met with Elijah and Moses - both long dead - on the Mount of Transfiguration, they were 'consulting the dead' and fell under your ban, then? I'm sure they'd be very grateful for your opinion on the subject]

IF it were true that they had conjured up the DEAD then God would indeed be wrong in Isaiah 8 where he tells us NOT to do that very thing.

In 1Cor 8 we find out that the reason we can not offer sacrifices to the stones is that not only is it stupid - but as Paul points out this becomes "an offering to demons" who take over the role that pagans "anticipated" with the stones and false gods.

The same is true for praying to the dead. God forbids all forms of it - because the same open door to demons is provided by that exercise with stones.

So as it turns out - they are NOT speaking to the dead at all in Matt 17.

Elijah never died - check out your Bible 2Kings 2:15-23

As for Moses - Jude validates the story of the "Assumption of Moses" in Jude 7-8 where he quotes from the book "The Assumption of Moses" as Michael and Satan argue over Michael's intent to raise Moses "Hence the title".

So both of these men are alive.

But you are consistent in one area - your argument is the same one the Catholics use for justifying their practice of praying to the dead.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Something else that is instructive is that when the point is made that the Word of God is explicit and direct on some point "Matt backs away from it".

If the Bible is not really trustworthy - I can see why he might.

But what if it could be trusted?

What if God is right when HE says that HE will send the Spirit of Truth to GUIDE us into all truth?

what if the Bible is right in Acts 17:11 where we see that EVEN NON CHRISTIANS can use the Bible to validate/check-out the words of APOSTLES!!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Matt Black]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Matt Black:
Like I said, the moment someone says that Scripture is 'clear', I start to back away...

[ETA - that was to Eliyahu. Bob, I suppose, then, when Jesus, Peter, James and John met with Elijah and Moses - both long dead - on the Mount of Transfiguration, they were 'consulting the dead' and fell under your ban, then? I'm sure they'd be very grateful for your opinion on the subject]

IF it were true that they had conjured up the DEAD then God would indeed be wrong in Isiah 8 where he tells us NOT to do that very thing.

But as it turns out - they are NOT speaking to the dead at all!

Elijah never died - check out your Bible 2Kings 2:15-23

As for Moses - Jude validates the story of the "Assumption of Moses" in Jude 7-8 where he quotes from the book "The Assumption of Moses" as Michael and Satan argue over Michael's intent to raise Moses "Hence the title".

So both of these men are alive.

</font>[/QUOTE]Glad you brought up old Jude. Jude quotes from the Assumption of Moses, a Jewish pseudopigraphical text - like the Book of Enoch. However, Deut 34:5-6 and Joshua 1:1-2 say plainly that Moses died. So, you tell me - which is true?

And, while we're on the subject, if you're into Jude and his quoting of pseudopigraphical assumption accounts, if you're willing to belive Enoch, Moses and Elijah underwent assumptions, why have such an issue with the RCs over the assumption of Mary?

Which is it to be, Bob? That these guys died - in which case Jesus and his pals were communing with the dead - or that they were assumed - in which case what's your problem with the Assumption of Mary? Which of these two contradictory Scriptures do you plump for, and why?

 

[Matt Black]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
Something else that is instructive is that when the point is made that the Word of God is explicit and direct on some point "Matt backs away from it".

If the Bible is not really trustworthy - I can see why he might.

But what if it could be trusted?

What if God is right when HE says that HE will send the Spirit of Truth to GUIDE us into all truth?

what if the Bible is right in Acts 17:11 where we see that EVEN NON CHRISTIANS can use the Bible to validate/check-out the words of APOSTLES!!

In Christ,

Bob

The problem with Sola Scriptura et Ego comes if you want to consider that the Holy Spirit is real and active, and has been amongst his people for a long time. Consideration of Tradition then becomes mandatory, unless you think God is continually pressing the reset button and starting again with you. Of course, some people do think that, but they often end up chopping themselves up in Munster, or drinking funny cordial in the jungle.

 

[BobRyan]

Peter (Pope Peter for the RCC) says that NO text of scripture is simply a matter of one's own interpretation or one man's opinion. It is the product of God the Holy Spirit according to "pope" Peter.

That means to ignore it - IS to ignore God the Holy Spirit. To denegrate, deny or distrust it IS to ignore denegrate, deny and distrust God the Holy Spirit.

As John 16 point out the SPIRIT of Truth is GUIDING us into all truth. As Peter points out one of the key ways He does that is IN HIS WORD!

Continually sniping away at HIS WORD is not going to be "of God". When the believers in atheist darwinian evolutionism filter God's Word through the lense of atheist darwinism they are "undercutting" the trustworthy nature of God the Holy Spirit.

When the RCC does that same thing to exault man's tradition - the result is the same.

 

[BobRyan]

Glad you brought up old Jude. Jude quotes from the Assumption of Moses, a Jewish pseudopigraphical text - like the Book of Enoch. However, Deut 34:5-6 and Joshua 1:1-2 say plainly that Moses died. So, you tell me - which is true?

Again your position is incorrect. The idea of "assumption" includes death and resurrection. It simply says that after that - Moses was taken to heaven. Hence the story in the "Assumption of Moses" of Michael and Satan arguing over the dead body of Moses.

In Christ,

Bob