U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 10-23-2013, 01:37 PM
 
535 posts, read 797,151 times
Reputation: 199

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShepherdMaster View Post
You ever read Revelation?
Hi ShepherdMaster. Yes, I have read Revelation every year for the last 45 years. I especially enjoy Chapters 13, 17-19.

 
Old 10-23-2013, 01:43 PM
 
535 posts, read 797,151 times
Reputation: 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zur View Post
May I remind you that Jesus was a Jew according the flesh, born from a Jewish mother. All the Apostles were Jewish, the church that was baptized into the Holy Spirit was Jewish. What the church of Rome did was to destroy every think that was Jewish to get the supremacy. The bible is not a Catholic book, it is almost all written by Jews. The Catechism is a Catholic book, that makes the bible muddy. But the RCC claims that they have the authority to change God`s word. And they have done it, you just do not know. I admit, that I also read from former Catholics, I read both sides and believe what the bible says, you should do the same and not follow blind, it can cost you much.
Beautifully said Zur. Many think our concern for their souls is bashing. Where one spends eternity is the most important thing a person can be concerned about. Some will not hear, some will. It grieves my spirit when what is given in love is taken as hate.
 
Old 10-23-2013, 03:10 PM
 
535 posts, read 797,151 times
Reputation: 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by janelle144 View Post
Why would the Jews or the Jewish leaders have anything to do with the NT? The Jewish leaders did not believe Jesus was the Messiah and did not follow Him. Jesus's followers were the apostles and those who wrote books of the bible. Jesus's followers who knew Him and wrote about Him. How could they muddy anything? The RCC had 3 hundred years to study and organize the books into the bible. The bible you read is a Catholic book.

What you say Catholics believe, is totally false. You have mistaken beliefs that needs to be corrected. You need to do more studying about the church and go to the source, not to a hate site telling you what Catholics believe because they are not telling you the truth.
Janelle,
1. The first Christians (earliest) were Jews. You should read the first couple of chapters in Acts.
2. Paul, who wrote the majority of the NT was not an apostle. Neither was Luke or Mark. They were not first hand witnesses of Jesus.
3. You and Julian keep saying that the RCC gave us the Bible. The truth of the matter is all 27 books of the NT were in circulation in by 100 AD. [LEFT] It is clear that at this time the New Testament canon was universally accepted by all churches as containing: All 27 books of our current canon were in use as soon as they were written, but 5 books were questioned and were not as universally accepted as the rest were: 2 Peter, James, 2 Jn, 3 Jn, Revelation. Notice that all the New Testament was in wide circulation by 100AD. The 5 "disputed" books, were only questioned in certain areas, whereas they were always accepted in others areas. We are not saying that all of these 5 disputed books were accepted in any one place at the same time, rather think of it as a mosaic and patchwork of acceptance. What is most important to note here, is that if we exclude these 5 disputed books from the discussion, we can safely argue that the rest of the New Testament was intact from 100 AD, at the very close of the apostolic age. Thus it is entirely possible to possess scriptures without having a canon, and this was in fact the situation in the first few centuries of the Christian church. (Lee Martin McDonald, James A. Sanders, Editors: The Canon Debate; Geoffrey Mark Hahneman, The Muratorian Fragment and the Origins of the New Testament Canon, p 380, 2002)
4. It's a play on words to say Catholics gave us The Bible. The word catholic means universal. In the broadest sense of the word all Christians are universally members of Christ's Church. However, Christ's Church and the Roman Catholic Church are not the same thing.
[/LEFT]
 
Old 10-23-2013, 04:54 PM
 
9,881 posts, read 6,754,693 times
Reputation: 2487
Quote:
Originally Posted by Priscilla Martin View Post
Janelle,
1. The first Christians (earliest) were Jews. You should read the first couple of chapters in Acts.
2. Paul, who wrote the majority of the NT was not an apostle. Neither was Luke or Mark. They were not first hand witnesses of Jesus.
3. You and Julian keep saying that the RCC gave us the Bible. The truth of the matter is all 27 books of the NT were in circulation in by 100 AD.


I want to congratulate your extensive knowledge of early Christianity.


Sure the books were available as soons as they were written. They were a form of communication between churches in an attempt to maintain Christianity alive. They were sent from church to church where the original document was copied by hand (often by a slave scribe) and then sent to another church.




Quote:
It is clear that at this time the New Testament canon was universally accepted by all churches as containing:
You are correct the books were simply accepted by consensus and the fact that they were close to the time of Jesus. That is why books written much later were not considered.




Quote:
The 5 "disputed" books, were only questioned in certain areas, whereas they were always accepted in others areas. We are not saying that all of these 5 disputed books were accepted in any one place at the same time, rather think of it as a mosaic and patchwork of acceptance. What is most important to note here, is that if we exclude these 5 disputed books from the discussion, we can safely argue that the rest of the New Testament was intact from 100 AD, at the very close of the apostolic age.
You are correct most books were obvious choices for the canon of the NT and the CC only debated a small number of them, I agree!



Quote:
it is entirely possible to possess scriptures without having a canon, and this was in fact the situation in the first few centuries of the Christian church.
Are you ignoring the other Epistles written by the second generation Christians in the second century? They were not meant to be inspired or to be part of the NT, however these Epistles continued to provide guidance and uniformity to the Christianity which was rather small at that time.

Epistle to the Trallians, By Ignatius.
Quote:
2 For when you obey the bishop as if he were Jesus Christ, you are (as I see it) living not in a merely human fashion but in Jesus Christ’s way, who for our sakes suffered death that you might believe in his death and so escape dying yourselves. It is essential, therefore, to act in no way without the bishop, just as you are doing. Rather submit even to the presbytery as to the apostles of Jesus Christ. He is our Hope, and if we live in union with him now, we shall gain eternal life. Those too who are deacons of Jesus Christ’s “mysteries” must give complete satisfaction to everyone. For they do not serve mere food and drink, but minister to God’s Church. They must therefore avoid leaving themselves open to criticism, as they would shun fire.

3 Correspondingly, everyone must show the deacons respect. They represent Jesus Christ, just as the bishop has the role of the Father, and the presbyters are like God’s council and an apostolic band. You cannot have a church without these. I am sure that you agree with me in this.

Here you can see the onset of the CC where the Bishops and priests are consider Vicars of Christ. The point I try to make is that the church was already Catholic before the conversion of Constantine.


Another early Christian writing which almost made the NT. There was some instructions on worship.

The Didache

Quote:

7 Concerning Baptism

7:1 Concerning baptism, you should baptize this way: After first explaining all things, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in flowing water.


7:2 But if you have no running water, baptize in other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, then in warm.

7:3 If you have very little, pour water three times on the head in the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit.

7:4 Before the baptism, both the baptizer and the candidate for baptism, plus any others who can, should fast. The candidate should fast for one or two days beforehand.

9 Concerning the Eucharist

9:1 Concerning the Eucharist, give thanks this way.

9:2 First, concerning the cup: We thank you, our Father, for the holy vine of David your servant, which you made known to us through Jesus your servant. To you be the glory forever.

9:3 Next, concerning the broken bread: We thank you, our Father, for the life and knowledge which you made known to us through Jesus your servant. To you be the glory forever.
BTW, the early NT was in scrolls and kept in the churches. I say this to emphasize the concept that Christians did not walk around with Bibles in their pockets. Your words of "wide circulation" are hyperbolic. Nevertheless, you are correct in most of what you post and I enjoy reading your posts.

Lastly, when Constantine converted he immediately ordered 50 Bibles in Codex. The so-called Codex Vaticanus. Codex was like a book and it was a Roman invention that eventually replaced the scrolls.

Making 50 Bibles in codex without a printing press was no small feat.

Last edited by Julian658; 10-23-2013 at 05:16 PM..
 
Old 10-23-2013, 05:04 PM
 
21,483 posts, read 13,712,699 times
Reputation: 5948
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zur View Post
May I remind you that Jesus was a Jew according the flesh, born from a Jewish mother. All the Apostles were Jewish, the church that was baptized into the Holy Spirit was Jewish. What the church of Rome did was to destroy every think that was Jewish to get the supremacy. The bible is not a Catholic book, it is almost all written by Jews. The Catechism is a Catholic book, that makes the bible muddy. But the RCC claims that they have the authority to change God`s word. And they have done it, you just do not know. I admit, that I also read from former Catholics, I read both sides and believe what the bible says, you should do the same and not follow blind, it can cost you much.
The Church did not change God's word. I know the first Christians were Jew plus Gentiles. Not all Jews wrote the bible. The RCC goes by the bible but also tradition. Tradition that Peter and Paul would agree with. The Church changes nothing to teach the bible, they just go deeper into the bible. You won't find anything the Church teaches that goes against what is in the bible.

Many say you won't find the word Christmas in the bible or Easter. That doesn't mean we don't celebrate them. It's tradition.

Last edited by janelle144; 10-23-2013 at 05:19 PM..
 
Old 10-23-2013, 05:09 PM
 
21,483 posts, read 13,712,699 times
Reputation: 5948
Quote:
Originally Posted by Priscilla Martin View Post
Janelle,
1. The first Christians (earliest) were Jews. You should read the first couple of chapters in Acts.
2. Paul, who wrote the majority of the NT was not an apostle. Neither was Luke or Mark. They were not first hand witnesses of Jesus.
3. You and Julian keep saying that the RCC gave us the Bible. The truth of the matter is all 27 books of the NT were in circulation in by 100 AD. [LEFT] It is clear that at this time the New Testament canon was universally accepted by all churches as containing: All 27 books of our current canon were in use as soon as they were written, but 5 books were questioned and were not as universally accepted as the rest were: 2 Peter, James, 2 Jn, 3 Jn, Revelation. Notice that all the New Testament was in wide circulation by 100AD. The 5 "disputed" books, were only questioned in certain areas, whereas they were always accepted in others areas. We are not saying that all of these 5 disputed books were accepted in any one place at the same time, rather think of it as a mosaic and patchwork of acceptance. What is most important to note here, is that if we exclude these 5 disputed books from the discussion, we can safely argue that the rest of the New Testament was intact from 100 AD, at the very close of the apostolic age. Thus it is entirely possible to possess scriptures without having a canon, and this was in fact the situation in the first few centuries of the Christian church. (Lee Martin McDonald, James A. Sanders, Editors: The Canon Debate; Geoffrey Mark Hahneman, The Muratorian Fragment and the Origins of the New Testament Canon, p 380, 2002)
4. It's a play on words to say Catholics gave us The Bible. The word catholic means universal. In the broadest sense of the word all Christians are universally members of Christ's Church. However, Christ's Church and the Roman Catholic Church are not the same thing.
[/LEFT]
What ALL CHURCHES? There was only the Catholic Church. Catholic means universal since every Christian was Catholic and it made sense to name the Church universal by the Church fathers. It was only in the 1500s with Martin Luther that other Christian churches sprang up.

The bible is a Catholic book since the Church compiled it, decided what was to be in it or not in it. Christ's Church or the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus and Peter was the first Pope. Peter is buried under the alter at the Vatican.
 
Old 10-23-2013, 05:17 PM
 
21,483 posts, read 13,712,699 times
Reputation: 5948
Quote:
Originally Posted by Julian658 View Post
I want to congratulate your extensive knowledge of early Christianity.


Sure the books were available as soons as they were written. They were a form of communication between churches in an attempt to maintain Christianity alive. They were sent from church to church where the original document was copied by hand (often by a slave scribe) and then sent to another church.

Well I don't think you can call it slave since it was by religious monks in monestaries that did most of the work.




You are correct the books were simply accepted by consensus and the fact that they were close to the time of Jesus. That is why books written much later were not considered.






You are correct most books were obvious choices for the canon of the NT and the CC only debated a small number of them, I agree!





Are you ignoring the other Epistles written by the second generation Christians in the second century? They were not meant to be inspired or to be part of the NT, however these Epistles continued to provide guidance and uniformity to the Christianity which was rather small at that time.

Epistle to the Trallians:



Here you can see the onset of the CC where the Bishops and priests are consider Vicars of Christ. The point I try to make is that the church was already Catholic before the conversion of Constantine.


Another early Christian writing which almost made the NT. There was some instructions on worship.

The Didache



BTW, the early NT was in scrolls and kept in the churches. I say this to emphasize the concept that Christians did not walk around with Bibles in their pockets. Your words of "wide circulation" are hyperbolic. Nevertheless, you are correct in most of what you post and I enjoy reading your posts.

Lastly, when Constantine converted he immediately ordered 50 Bibles in Codex. The so-called Codex Vaticanus. Codex was like a book and it was a Roman invention that eventually replaced the scrolls.

Making 50 Bibles in codex without a printing press was no small feat.
This is true, no printing press to make the bible available to the common man. Bibles were printed by hand and probably cost a years wage for the rich. Bibles were chained to alters so as not to be lost and made availible to all the people who attended, even though it is now made out as the church keeping the bible from people. Many people back then couldn't even read.
 
Old 10-23-2013, 05:20 PM
 
19,950 posts, read 13,653,024 times
Reputation: 1973
Quote:
Originally Posted by Julian658 View Post

The Didache

7 Concerning Baptism

7:1 Concerning baptism, you should baptize this way: After first explaining all things, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in flowing water.

7:2 But if you have no running water, baptize in other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, then in warm.

7:3 If you have very little, pour water three times on the head in the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit.

7:4 Before the baptism, both the baptizer and the candidate for baptism, plus any others who can, should fast. The candidate should fast for one or two days beforehand.

9 Concerning the Eucharist

9:1 Concerning the Eucharist, give thanks this way.

9:2 First, concerning the cup: We thank you, our Father, for the holy vine of David your servant, which you made known to us through Jesus your servant. To you be the glory forever.

9:3 Next, concerning the broken bread: We thank you, our Father, for the life and knowledge which you made known to us through Jesus your servant. To you be the glory forever.

I'm curious...if you think the didache is legit....do you think infants should fast for a day or two prior to baptism? Or do you not believe infants should be baptized?
 
Old 10-23-2013, 05:26 PM
 
21,483 posts, read 13,712,699 times
Reputation: 5948
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio View Post
I'm curious...if you think the didache is legit....do you think infants should fast for a day or two prior to baptism? Or do you not believe infants should be baptized?
No one would think a baby should fast, there are exceptions to every rule. I think Julian would agree.

Babies were baptized in the bible all the time. The whole household was baptized at once and that included babies and all children, no matter the age.
 
Old 10-23-2013, 05:27 PM
 
Location: Pikeville, Ky.
13,575 posts, read 21,736,183 times
Reputation: 18151
Thread is closed for moderation
due to denominational bashing which is not allowed..There are Catholics members in these forums. Seems they have to constantly defend their belief against the bashing and insults of their church. They deserve as much respect as anyone else of different Christian denominations do in this forum..
__________________
Moderator of:
Non Romantic Relationships
Parenting and sub forums
Dayton, Akron-Canton in Ohio
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top