Yelsew replied:
quote]
There was no Roman Catholic Church when the Last of the Books of the bible was written! Rome was still in power as an empire. The gods of Rome still held sway over the people.[/quote]
Yelsew, was there a Christian Community in Rome when the Book of Revelation was written? It is my understanding that John, it's august human author, was exiled on the island of Patmos by the Romans when he wrote that. And it is my understanding the not only was the church in existence in Rome, they were the fodder that fuel the cruel pleasures of the emperor in his coliseum. Would it be too much to call band of persecuted Christians the
Church in Rome?
Now, go back to my last message and see if you can answer the questions I have put forth to you and stop diverting the subject to your desperate idea that attaching the name "Catholic" to the title of the church (the only church around at the time) somehow makes it a non-church that has no relationship to the True Church as established by Christ!
The Authors of the Books were not members of the NON-EXISTANT Roman Catholic Church, they were Christian Apostles busy carrying out the great commission. "Christian" because of the one in whom they believed.
<Sigh!> What was it called before Ignatius attached the name "Catholic" to it, Yelsew?
Though I have not had the opportunity to read any of the "books" on the list you posted, perhaps many of them should have been included in the Canon of Scripture. By the Way, where can one get translated copies of those books on the list? Are they available electronically? if so where?
I have only read some of them and not completely. I do not know personally where you may find them to read, but I suggest any Seminary or University that may have a web site to carry them.
Since I am a 20th century product, there is nothing I can do about what the 3rd through the early 20th century church has produced as dogma. I do not however have to bow down to it, any of it! I am under no compulsion to accept the teaching of the Catholic church. That said, I have been given no incentive to change my mind. By that I mean all that has been forthcoming in answer to questions is more dogma, and spin. Sooner or later there will be someone who can offer logic and reason in addition to scripture and dogma. But that hasn't happened to me in the last 12 years, and frankly I don't see it happening here, even though Carson Weber and you have been a bit more objective than most.
Yelsew, you have a free will of choice that you can do whatever your hearts desire! And that includes paying any attention to the only church around that can trace her origins back to Christ Himself, having the name "Catholic" applied to her or not.
I can only suggest you look inwardly into yourself and examine what it means to "do what ever he commands you" in obedience to Christ. And that includes a respect and even obedience to the very church he not only established, but also a church onto which he attached great authority.
Carson and I can only do so much; the rest is between you and the Holy Spirit. But I see a compliment here that I appreciate and I think Carson appreciates it as well. Thank you for that! I am a poor instrument that I place myself into the hands of God, that I do the best way I can in logic, faith and common sense. Again, the Holy Spirit must do the rest…if he finds an open heart that can be impressed upon.
The fact that the Bible that we have today was preserved through that organization is totally to the credit of the Holy Spirit, and not the church. The fact that the church has survived is credited to the Holy Spirit, the fact that there was a huge split in the church creating Catholics and Protestants it to the credit of the Holy Spirit.
Of course I give credit to the Holy Spirit at well, Yelsew! But I see the Holy Spirit working through the very church Christ established! Why can't you take that last logical step? Why does it seemingly stick in your craw that it was the Church that the Holy Spirit worked upon. And if you say, it was the men whom the Holy Spirit inspired, then good for you! - Those same men were bishops of the Church!
Look, the Church survives
because of the Holy Spirit and nothing else! Fallible men in the Church, had it been left up to their devices, would have had the church fail centuries ago!
That is the amazing miracle about the Church! Fallible men cannot destroy an infallible Church even if they tried, and all the while they are the ruling members of that Church!
Name me one human organization that is older then the Catholic Church and is still in existence, Yelsew. I know of none. The old Roman Empire is no more; Babylon (the real one) is dust and debris; The glory of Egypt has faded away, leaving behind her artifacts of a great civilization and not one human organization I can think of, still in existence, is older then the Catholic Church!
I attribute that to the work of the Holy Spirit…
I last said:
How do you know that the Catholic Church did not "alter" the contents of the New Testament to conform to her "erroneous" doctrines?
The church claims to possess the early manuscripts. Scribes of the time would have jeopardized their very existance if they had altared the text from the originals. There are two branches of the church, each having early manuscripts. For what reason would the church altar the text when they can put the spin on the existing text that changes its modern meaning from its original meaning? After all look what modern universities and special interest groups are attempting to do to the United States Constitution. Spin! spin! spin!
You come very close to agreeing with me here, Yelsew! And by the way, those early manuscripts are not the original autographs, but rather copies of a copy, which is a copy of a copy…down the line. And also, there are other old manuscripts that are not in possession by the Catholic Church. The British has at least one in her museums, I believe.
But again you fail to answer my question, responding to what would happen if the monks (scribes) attempted to alter the manuscripts on purpose. Why would anything happen to them if they were instructed to alter the texts to comply with the "latest fashion in doctrine"? How would you ever know if it were done skillfully?
There is evidence that some alteration was done, not in malice but in "pius inflation." There is a claim that the concluding phrase "
..and thine is the kingdom, the power, and the glory forever and ever, amen" was a pius reflection by a monk, writing in the margins of his manuscript, that later got included in the body of the Lord's Prayer.
And there are other "differences" or omissions that scholars in recent times have been able to find and correct. The King James Bible was a very fine translation for it's time. But it was written by scholars using what was extant in old manuscripts of the time. Today, there is a greater background of ancient manuscripts and other data that has allowed a more up to date version of what scripture really said - closer to the original autographs even while we do not have them.
Most of this points to the fact that the Catholic Church, in her monks and scribes, were most scrupulous in the preservation of the Bible, yet in matter of faith, doctrine and beliefs, the Catholic Church is looked upon with great suspicion if not out and out derision, to the point that most of her pronouncements are considered to be lies or error.
But if this is so, how is it that the scriptures escaped? The Holy Spirit working on the church at the time? Of course! But then I would maintain that the Holy Spirit
always works with the same church Christ established that she would continue without error in her decrees, pronouncements doctrine and faith.
After all,
The Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is the Church Christ established, therefore it is no wonder the Holy Spirit continues by her side.
But now that I have added the handle "Apostolic" to her title, does that suddenly make her the apostate church, Yelsew?
I last said:
If the Catholic Church is the "Whore of Babylon" as many claim (and no, I don't recall nor accuse you of saying that) then how in the world do you reject all of her encyclicals, papal bulls, decrees, dogmatic pronouncements, etc., but accept without question the very "product" of her diligence over the hundreds of years?
Thank you for not accusing me of the WoB thought. I do not reject ALL of the encyclicals, or decrees; I do not understand the term papal bull, but most of the dogmatic pronouncements appear to be spin to me. I answered the question about "the very product".
The "very product" being the definition and scope of holy scripture, of course. And yes, you did answer that "the Holy Spirit did it" in so many words, and of course, you are right! The Holy Spirit works through Christ's Church, as he always have, and always will, else, "…
the gates of hell will prevail against it" (From Matthew 16:18)
I last said:
Who are these men but the actual "Charter Clergy" of the Church Christ founded? Therefore, in a sense, the Catholic Church wrote the New Testament!
[ab]Since no Catholic Church existed in their time, they were not part of the Catholic Church. I said it before but it is worth saying it again, The Apostles are the Charter members of the Christian Church, The Bride of Christ, and the Body of Christ.[/qb]
<Sigh!> Here we go again! The name "Catholic" attached by Ignatius about AD 100, changes everything. Bingo! Attach that name and the Church is a different Church! I wish I could crawl into your head and see how it is that you can come to such a conclusion!
It is my opinion that the Roman church hijacked the Christian church somewhere along the line I don't know the history well enough to make a specific event or time on a timeline that "special time" when it happened, It may have been moved out of Israel during severe stressful conditions in Israel, "to protect the church" and moving it back was not practical. Nevertheless, I do not believe the Current Catholic Church is the model of the Christian Church of the Apostles. Now I'm sure that you can offer me much documentation to refute my belief, but then I'd have to ask myself the question, "how do I know the church did not fabricate the documents?"
Many of your friends will claim it was during the emperor Constantine's reign that this happened. The problem is, it can be demonstrated that the doctrines, beliefs and teachings prior to about A.D. 300 exactly matches what the church teaches today! Someone please document for me, the bad things Constantine did for the Church! And please, no quotes from Jack Chick will do!
Selsew, it is my opinion that "your opinion" was formed by who you have associated with in Protestantism/Fundamentalism in your growing-up. And that is quite natural, which also alludes to the stress when one breaks-out of this belief system and finds truth for him or herself. You cannot know how distressed my mother was when she found out I was to become a Catholic. You see, as a child, I distinctly remember her telling me, "Son, when you grow up, join any church you want, but please, stay away from the Catholic Church." Bless her heart, she meant well, but the truth will out if you let it, Yelsew!
I previously said:
Did the "Dove of the Holy Spirit" alight upon your shoulders and whisper into your ear" to tell you?
But your reply also reveals your non-assurance that it actually happened!
David Korish and Jim Jones may have been more assurred then that, Yelsew! (No offense intended.)
My "tagline" got your attention"
Rome has spoken, the case is closed.
Cute, But God don't live in Rome!
God lives everywhere, Rome, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, and in my heart!
And I am sure He is in your heart as well!
But specifically God did not make the decision St. Augustine speaks of here, but the successor to his chosen human leader did!
And like Peter, he exercised the authority of the "keys" and what ever he pronounced here on earth was ratified in heaven! (Check out Matthew 16:19)
God bless,
PAX
Bill+†+
Pillar and Foundation of Truth, the Church. (1 Tim 3:15
