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.
All were founded by early apostles. All of them can trace their presumed supreme authority directly back to Christ. So which one is right? Assuming that your answer is "The Roman Catholic Church," can you prove it? For the RCC to be the exclusive and only "True Church of God," obviously one must prove that these other claimants are not true. So what made the Bishop of Rome bigger, better or more authoritative than anyone else? Surely there must be something unique to Rome and its bishop that no other line of bishops can claim, right? So what is it?
In my opinion, the original Church founded by Christ suffered a slow death. Prior to Constantine legalizing Christianity, the religion had become extremely fragmented in doctrine and practice.
*Please be specific as to which Doctrine's (became fragmented). *Please define what you mean by "practice" and provide examples.
After Constantine, bishops and other clergymen gradually ceased to be true shepherds and increasingly became corrupt, power-drunk political figures. I think by the time the Bishops of Constantinople and Rome excommunicated each other in 1054 AD, the original true Church of God was long gone and had been for many centuries. God in heaven does not change. He completely rejected prior peoples of God for far less bad behavior than we saw from the "successors of the Apostles" in the Church from 325 AD to 1054 AD. And after the Great East West Schism, the Roman Popes and Church just kept getting worse and worse. Yes there was a lot of good coming from the Christian Churches, but quite often this was in spite of the Pope and other Church leadership and not because of them.
Tell me what these verses mean to you, or more importantly what they meant to & for the Church.
John 16:12-15 12 "I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. 14 He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. 15 All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.
Matthew 16:18. 18 “And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”
If it hadn't been for the Protestant Reformation, it is doubtful whether the RCC would have ever cleaned up their act. The RCC can thank Protestantism for shaming them into gradually becoming the vastly less corrupt and much more enlightened religion that it is today.
Yes, I agree to certain extent. What Luther should not have done, is leave the Church and start his own.
He could have pointed out and pursued against the corruptions w/I, so that they could have been dealt with, rather than causing divide amongst the Catholic Church.
We know that he was for the personal interpretation of Scripture's, but at the same time wanted the same power as the Church, as he wanted the Book of James removed, as well as thinking that Revelations had no business being included in the Bible. He also turned away from the Greek Septuagint and the extra books, that included 2 Maccabees and the mention of praying for the dead
FYI, I've responded to some of your statements in the box w/ bold print.
Peter never "clearly preached" "speaking in tongues", or that "speaking in tongues" was any part of what was necessary to "receive salvation." And you have proven me right, because what you offer as an "example" of this contains ABSOLUTELY NO MENTION of "speaking in tongues". How can you pretend that a passage which doesn't mention speaking in tongues proves that Peter preached about speaking in tongues??? That makes sense to you????
Originally Posted by JuniPearl
Quote:
So we are to interpret the scriptures at face value? Or the ones we want to fit our way of life should be interpreted at face value? Because it's clear to me. Speaking in tongues is the evidence of the Holy Ghost. That is the "sign," our "testimony," the "witness" given to us as evidence! Acts 2 told us what happened that day. "This is what you see and hear." How can they see and hear the Holy Ghost? You can't see or hear a spirit. Or can we? We bare witness of the Holy Ghost by speaking in tongues.
So are you Oneness Pentecostal? And do you understand the word 'tongues' (dialektos) simply means "languages?" Just as at Pentecost the ppl heard them speak in their own languages; in the own dialect.
6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language. (dialektos)
8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, (dialektos) wherein we were born?
Ac 19:6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, (languages/dialektos) and prophesied.
Note also at Pentecost they needed no interpreter. Why? The ppl heard/understood what was being said. Not like what you hear in the "churches" today. Someone 'speaks gibberish,' and someone else has to give an interpretation. So this modern day 'speaking in tongues' is actually the total opposite of what happened at Pentecost.
Quote:
Does that mean it was no longer required? No, Acts 2:39 and Mark 16:15-20 say it clearly.
Acts 2:
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.
and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Note it just says, the gift of the Holy Spirit, it doesn't say, " and you shall speak in languages."
Mark 16:
15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;(languages/dialektos)
Nowhere in the Scriptures does it say/teach, one is only saved when they speak in tongues!! So how does a person know they have the Spirit? The Holy Spirit witnesses to our spirit that we are children of God.
Ro 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
And what are the real manifestations of having the Spirit? Love, joy, peace, kindness, gentleness etc.
Ga 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
So are you Oneness Pentecostal? And do you understand the word 'tongues' (dialektos) simply means "languages?" Just as at Pentecost the ppl heard them speak in their own languages; in the own dialect.
6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language. (dialektos)
8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, (dialektos) wherein we were born?
Ac 19:6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, (languages/dialektos) and prophesied.
Note also at Pentecost they needed no interpreter. Why? The ppl heard/understood what was being said. Not like what you hear in the "churches" today. Someone 'speaks gibberish,' and someone else has to give an interpretation. So this modern day 'speaking in tongues' is actually the total opposite of what happened at Pentecost.
Acts 2:
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.
and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Note it just says, the gift of the Holy Spirit, it doesn't say, " and you shall speak in languages."
Mark 16:
15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;(languages/dialektos)
Nowhere in the Scriptures does it say/teach, one is only saved when they speak in tongues!! So how does a person know they have the Spirit? The Holy Spirit witnesses to our spirit that we are children of God.
Ro 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
And what are the real manifestations of having the Spirit? Love, joy, peace, kindness, gentleness etc.
Ga 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
Mark 16:9-20 is an interpolation, therefore, it cannot be used in the arguement...
Mark 16:9-20 is an interpolation, therefore, it cannot be used in the arguement...
Irregardless, if you recall, it wasn't my "proof" of 'only those who speak in tongues have salvation.' I was just showing the folly/untruth of that statement, and the truth about 'speaking in tongues.'
Last edited by mshipmate; 04-14-2014 at 09:14 AM..
Yes, I agree to certain extent. What Luther should not have done, is leave the Church and start his own.
He could have pointed out and pursued against the corruptions w/I, so that they could have been dealt with, rather than causing divide amongst the Catholic Church.
We know that he was for the personal interpretation of Scripture's, but at the same time wanted the same power as the Church, as he wanted the Book of James removed, as well as thinking that Revelations had no business being included in the Bible. He also turned away from the Greek Septuagint and the extra books, that included 2 Maccabees and the mention of praying for the dead
FYI, I've responded to some of your statements in the box w/ bold print.
*Please be specific as to which Doctrine's (became fragmented).
*Please define what you mean by "practice" and provide examples.
I did this in greater detail, but that post got deleted. The beliefs of Gnostic Christians diverged greatly from modern orthodoxy, and their unique beliefs are too numerous for me to do them justice. Origen taught many things that contradict modern ortodoxy, including a more universal doctrine of salvation and reconciliation with God and that human souls existed prior to their earthly human lives. The entire reason for the Council of Nicaea was because Christianity was deeply divided on the very nature of God. Arianism and Trinitarianism were the two strongest theories, and though Trinitarianism won the day, Arianism in one form or another has never entirely ceased to exist.
What you would call heresy, I would call doctrinal division. "Heresies" have existed in every century since Christianity came into existence. Wikipedia lists many of them, but there are far too many to list without writing a very large book on the matter. And while the Roman Catholic Church accepts the universal authority of the Bishop of Rome, what of the Christian religions that are just as ancient in origin who never accepted Papal primacy?
Quote:
Tell me what these verses mean to you, or more importantly what they meant to & for the Church.
John 16:12-15
12 "I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak
on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. 14 He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and
declare it to you. 15 All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.
Matthew 16:18.
18 “And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”
The passage from John is pretty straightforward. The Holy Spirit would inspire the apostles to lead the followers of Christ in accordance with God's will.
The passage in Matthew needs to be understood in it's full context. What happened just before this?
13 When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?”
14 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
15 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”
16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven.
18 And I tell you that you are Peter (little stone), and on this rock (bedrock) I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.
19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”
So what is the foundation upon which the Church would be built? Well, what did Simon-Peter just experience? Direct revelation from God. Specifically, direct revelation from God revealing the true identity of Jesus: The Messiah, The Son of God, etc. So how can the Church of Jesus Christ endure no matter what the powers of Hell throw at it? As long as His Church is being led by direct revelation from God (both to individual members and to it's leaders), the "gates of Hades" aka all the powers of hell cannot ever overcome it.
So was the church still being led by revelation by 325 AD? Well, considering the broad diversity of competing and contradicting doctrines, I would have to say it wasn't. And how did the church attempt to resolve all of the doctrinal divergences? Did God appear and offer direction as we saw him do with the apostles? Once again, apparently not. Instead, Emperor Constantine intervenes. Remember that Contantine was a warlord who murdered his own wife and son and still a pagan sun worshipper at the time he called for the Council of Nicaea. He seems to have seen Christianity as a tool he could use to reunify the fractured Roman Empire, but he was certainly no Christian. Constantine's solution? Gather a massive committee of expert Christian theologians and through debate and popular vote, they would establish orthodoxy. So for the first time in history, the divine and absolute truths of God were subject to the whims of a fallible human committee. Thus, the tradtion of Eccumenical Councils as the highest authority in the Church spontaneously appears.
So were these councils inspired? Were they God's new system of revealing eternal truth? Apparently not. Not even the Roman Catholic Church accepts all of the findings of their own Eccumenical Councils. If it is possible for even one of those councils to be wrong on any point, then the findings of all of them becomes questionable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gabriel A. Pettinicchio
Yes, I agree to certain extent. What Luther should not have done, is leave the Church and start his own.
He could have pointed out and pursued against the corruptions w/I, so that they could have been dealt with, rather than causing divide amongst the Catholic Church.
We know that he was for the personal interpretation of Scripture's, but at the same time wanted the same power as the Church, as he wanted the Book of James
removed, as well as thinking that Revelations had no business being included in the Bible. He also turned away from the Greek Septuagint and the extra books, that
included 2 Maccabees and the mention of praying for the dead
You seem to have some very interesting ideas about Martin Luther. No he was no prophet or apostle. All he started out as was a priest who formally disagreed with many of the practices of the Catholic Church at the time. Nailing his 95 thesis (grievances) to the door of his church was an accepted method of initiating formal discussion at that time. The Pope and RCC leadership responded by telling Luther to recant immediately. In other words, "Sit down, shut up and when we want to hear your opinion we'll beat it out of you." When Luther refused to recant, the Church tried to do to him what it did Jan Hus: Lure him with the promise of discussion, then unceremoniously try him and burn him at the stake.
Luther had the advantage of knowing of Hus' experience. So instead of falling into their trap, he ran away. The Church's real intentions became quite clear thereafter when they effectively put out a hit on Luther, proclaiming anyone who found and killed him to be doing a great service for God. As luck would have it, Luther was protected by German princes who were tired of being bullied by the RCC. As bad luck would have it, they wanted more from Luther than doctrinal objections. He could either help create a new religion for them or risk losing their protection -- which would have meant certain death of course. So he quite reluctantly began the process of helping create a new religion. He gradually became more enthusiastic of course, but he definitely didn't start out wanting to break away from the Church.
Throughout the Reformation, the RCC was all about "burning heretics at the stake" and not even slightly interested in initiating dialogue. The mortal sins of these heretics? Translating the Bible into the languages of the common people and expressing concerns with Catholic doctrines and practices. By unceremoniously killing the leaders of the Reformation whever the could, the RCC created martyrs for the cause. This pretty much made the division of Christianity in Western Europe permanent.
To be in union with the RCC, one must accept the Bishop of Rome as the supreme ruler of Christendom ... so I fail to understand your point.
Anyways, you never answered my first question:
"Which of the most ancient Christian religions is the original Church founded by Jesus Christ?
Coptic (Egyptian) Christian Church
The Holy Apostolic Catholic Assyrian Church of the East
Orthodox Catholic Church
Syriac Orthodox Church (Antioch)
Roman Catholic Church
Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church
Church of the East
St Thomas Christians
All were founded by early apostles. All of them can trace their presumed supreme authority directly back to Christ. So which one is right? Assuming that your answer is "The Roman Catholic Church," can you prove it? For the RCC to be the exclusive and only "True Church of God," obviously one must prove that these other claimants are not true. So what made the Bishop of Rome bigger, better or more authoritative than anyone else? Surely there must be something unique to Rome and its bishop that no other line of bishops can claim, right? So what is it?"
,
To be in union with the RCC, one must accept the Bishop of Rome as the supreme ruler of Christendom ... so I fail to understand your point.
Anyways, you never answered my first question:
"Which of the most ancient Christian religions is the original Church founded by Jesus Christ?
Coptic (Egyptian) Christian Church The Holy Apostolic Catholic Assyrian Church of the East Orthodox Catholic Church Syriac Orthodox Church (Antioch) Roman Catholic Church Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church Church of the East St Thomas Christians
All were founded by early apostles. All of them can trace their presumed supreme authority directly back to Christ. So which one is right? Assuming that your answer is "The Roman Catholic Church," can you prove it? For the RCC to be the exclusive and only "True Church of God," obviously one must prove that these other claimants are not true. So what made the Bishop of Rome bigger, better or more authoritative than anyone else? Surely there must be something unique to Rome and its bishop that no other line of bishops can claim, right? So what is it?"
It's complicated, as far as my ability to explain it. Most on your list above ARE in union or communion with Rome.
The bodies in schism (ie: The Church of the East & St. Thomas) are the ones that at some point in history introduced errors in the apostolic faith. I suggest you read the Church Fathers to learn about the role of the Church of Rome and the primacy of the Bishop of the Apostolic See. The Roman Catholic Church has preserved the faith and treasured the apostolic deposit of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. The Holy Roman Church includes 22 Eastern Catholic sui iuris churches.
Of course, the Bishop of Rome (The Pope) was appointed by Christ in Matt 16:18.
[quote=godofthunder9010;34375342]I did this in greater detail, but that post got deleted. I HATE it when that happens!
The beliefs of Gnostic Christians diverged greatly from modern orthodoxy, and their unique beliefs are too numerous for me to do them justice. Origen taught many things that contradict modern ortodoxy, including a more universal doctrine of salvation and reconciliation with God and that human souls existed prior to their earthly human lives. The entire reason for the Council of Nicaea was because Christianity was deeply divided on the very nature of God. Arianism and Trinitarianism were the two strongest theories, and though Trinitarianism won the day, Arianism in one form or another has never entirely ceased to exist.
What you would call heresy, I would call doctrinal division. "Heresies" have existed in every century since Christianity came into existence. Wikipedia lists many of them, but there are far too many to list without writing a very large book on the matter. And while the Roman Catholic Church accepts the universal authority of the Bishop of Rome, what of the Christian religions that are just as ancient in origin who never accepted Papal primacy? , and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.
19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”
[quote]
Correct Origen did teach in error. As a result, he was subsequently excommunicated.
Heresy most usually refers to beliefs/teachings which were declared to be rejected by any of the the Church Councils by the CC. Call it what you wish, but falsity was false and the Church can't go there.
As I mention nearly 2 dozen other early churches are in union with Rome. When the other's chose to part, they were departed from the Truth, hence in Schism.
The passage from John is pretty straightforward. The Holy Spirit would inspire the apostles to lead the followers of Christ in accordance with God's will.
The passage in Matthew needs to be understood in it's full context. What happened just before this?
13 When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?”
14 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
15 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”
16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven.
18 And I tell you that you are Peter (little stone), and on this rock (bedrock) I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.
19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”
So what is the foundation upon which the Church would be built? Well, what did Simon-Peter just experience? Direct revelation from God. Specifically, direct revelation from God revealing the true identity of Jesus: The Messiah, The Son of God, etc. So how can the Church of Jesus Christ endure no matter what the powers of Hell throw at it? As long as His Church is being led by direct revelation from God (both to individual members and to it's leaders), the "gates of Hades" aka all the powers of hell cannot ever overcome it.
So was the church still being led by revelation by 325 AD? Well, considering the broad diversity of competing and contradicting doctrines, I would have to say it wasn't. And how did the church attempt to resolve all of the doctrinal divergences? Did God appear and offer direction as we saw him do with the apostles? Once again, apparently not. Instead, Emperor Constantine intervenes. Remember that Contantine was a warlord who murdered his own wife and son and still a pagan sun worshipper at the time he called for the Council of Nicaea. He seems to have seen Christianity as a tool he could use to reunify the fractured Roman Empire, but he was certainly no Christian. Constantine's solution? Gather a massive committee of expert Christian theologians and through debate and popular vote, they would establish orthodoxy. So for the first time in history, the divine and absolute truths of God were subject to the whims of a fallible human committee. Thus, the tradtion of Eccumenical Councils as the highest authority in the Church spontaneously appears.
So were these councils inspired? Were they God's new system of revealing eternal truth? Apparently not. Not even the Roman Catholic Church accepts all of the findings of their own Eccumenical Councils. If it is possible for even one of those councils to be wrong on any point, then the findings of all of them becomes questionable.
Yes, Christ is the Foundation of the Church and Peter is the Rock built upon that that Foundation. With God Himself the Bedrock, how can it fail. What good would it have been of God to create a Church and then abandon it & let it fail. God never abandoned us, why would he, his Church. Remember, since Christ would be gone the Spirit of Truth was promised to guide the Church through Peter. Also, Christ promised that the Spirit would be with his Church until the end of the world. Therefore, Peters successors would receive the same guidance from the Spirit, since Peter would not be around for long either.
The public (Divine) revelation of truths to men by God began with Adam and Eve and ended at the death of Saint John the Apostle. So, no Revelation had ended long
before 325AD.
I feel like I'm getting drilled by the Prosecutor. It's ok though, I'm up for it because the truth is on my side.
Before I continue however, you'll have to give me some specific examples, of what you call, " broad diversity of competing and contradicting doctrines."
The court is now in recess!
Last edited by Gabriel A. Pettinicchio; 04-16-2014 at 12:30 AM..
Yes, Christ is the Foundation of the Church and Peter is the Rock built upon that that Foundation.
Wrong.Christ is the corner stone the builders rejected and He is the Foundation upon which our salvation is based.
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.
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.
