- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (david @ Aug. 29 2009,15:45) Anyway, now that I've shown CA's jumping all over the quote from Augustine to be in error (see above), let us leave this and consider at least some of what I said.
Have a minute before more company comes over today…I said you mis-INTERPRETED Augustine. I didn't say you mis-quoted him.
The church is founded upon Christ. Peter is the Vicar or Prime minister if you will of the Messianic King in the line of David. If you had listened to answering common objections “Pope: Holy Father” you would have known that.
But I don't have the time today to type it out. Plus, it would probably take you the same time to read as to listen to the recording.
For the rest of you reading this…please know that there are certain things that David's “church” doesn't allow him to research (like their embarrasing history)
Quote Have a minute before more company comes over today… I said you mis-INTERPRETED Augustine. I didn't say you mis-quoted him.
Well I didn't do either. Your failing to read his retractions is not my error. It is yours.
Quote The church is founded upon Christ. Peter is the Vicar or Prime minister if you will of the Messianic King in the line of David. If you had listened to answering common objections “Pope: Holy Father” you would have known that.
Instead, I read the words of Jesus and the apostles. Silly me.Quote But I don't have the time today to type it out. Plus, it would probably take you the same time to read as to listen to the recording.
Nope. Speed reader.Quote (CatholicApologist @ Aug. 30 2009,10:42) Quote (david @ Aug. 29 2009,15:45) Anyway, now that I've shown CA's jumping all over the quote from Augustine to be in error (see above), let us leave this and consider at least some of what I said.
Have a minute before more company comes over today…I said you mis-INTERPRETED Augustine. I didn't say you mis-quoted him.
The church is founded upon Christ. Peter is the Vicar or Prime minister if you will of the Messianic King in the line of David. If you had listened to answering common objections “Pope: Holy Father” you would have known that.
But I don't have the time today to type it out. Plus, it would probably take you the same time to read as to listen to the recording.
For the rest of you reading this…please know that there are certain things that David's “church” doesn't allow him to research (like their embarrasing history)
I would conclude that having your own far more embarassing history that you should follow the verse that says Judge not less ye be judged, for their is absolutely nothing in the history of the JW's that compares even minutely to the Mass Slaughter of the Catholic Churchy who raised Hitler even.It would be better for you to NEVER EVER bring up History as it is always against your argument. Try something else like the ideal philosophy of the Church, but never talk about its actual deeds.
To any, all or none
Jesus called 12 Apostles, one hung himself that left 11; later Jesus called Paul, an Apostle, that made it 12 again, period, there are no other apostles. The apostles put others in charge, elders, and deacons, but none were ordained as apostles.
Peter and Paul were brought to Rome as prisoners, to be executed, not as popes.
It was not until 324 AD when Constantine made Christianity the empires religion, that is when the church got its name, “Roman Catholic Church”.
The church had many overseers, bishops; in Italy they were also referred to as papa, or pope. It wasn't until 533 AD when Justinian decided, that only the bishop of Rome should hold the title “Pope”, also, that the pope of Rome should be the head over all the clergy.
Any one who prefers to ignore historical facts, must prefer to live in ignorance.Georg
Quote Jesus called 12 Apostles, one hung himself that left 11; later Jesus called Paul, an Apostle, that made it 12 again, period, there are no other apostles. I thought Judas was replaced with Matthias. Paul is an apostle (sent one) to the nations.
I agree.
If you check the beliefs and actions and attitudes of the Christians (the true Christians) of the first couple centuries, they believed very different things than “Christians” of the 4th century.
So many changes took place.
It was as if there was some sort of apostasy. Oh, wait, didn't Jesus, Paul, Peter, James, John, etc fortel that there would be?
Quote (david @ Aug. 30 2009,11:22) Quote Jesus called 12 Apostles, one hung himself that left 11; later Jesus called Paul, an Apostle, that made it 12 again, period, there are no other apostles. I thought Judas was replaced with Matthias. Paul is an apostle (sent one) to the nations.
The apostles chose Matthias by lot, not Jesus.Georg
Quote Jesus called 12 Apostles, one hung himself that left 11; later Jesus called Paul, an Apostle, that made it 12 again, period, there are no other apostles. The 12 apostles, which included Matthias would disagree with you. Even Baranabas was called an apostle. (Acts 14:14)
To say that there are no other apostles, period, is to disagree with the choice of the ones directly chosen by Jesus.The other thing is, you make it seem like Paul is the 12th apostle. Paul was an apostle to the nations. The 12th apostle became Matthias, who replaced Judas.
Quote (Cindy @ Aug. 30 2009,20:37) Quote (david @ Aug. 30 2009,11:22) Quote Jesus called 12 Apostles, one hung himself that left 11; later Jesus called Paul, an Apostle, that made it 12 again, period, there are no other apostles. I thought Judas was replaced with Matthias. Paul is an apostle (sent one) to the nations.
The apostles chose Matthias by lot, not Jesus.Georg
Hi Georg,
God was at work in them to will and to do if they are in Christ.[Phil2]Choosing by LOT gives God the choice.
To david and Nick
Rev 21:14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.
Georg
Quote (david @ Aug. 31 2009,09:17) Quote Jesus called 12 Apostles, one hung himself that left 11; later Jesus called Paul, an Apostle, that made it 12 again, period, there are no other apostles. The 12 apostles, which included Matthias would disagree with you. Even Baranabas was called an apostle. (Acts 14:14)
To say that there are no other apostles, period, is to disagree with the choice of the ones directly chosen by Jesus.The other thing is, you make it seem like Paul is the 12th apostle. Paul was an apostle to the nations. The 12th apostle became Matthias, who replaced Judas.
So do you believe in the 13 apostles?We believe in present day apostles. We don't hold to the untenable position that the only apostles were the 12. Sorry, you're not going to find that in the Written or Oral Tradition of the Church.
Quote (CatholicApologist @ Aug. 31 2009,17:56) Quote (david @ Aug. 31 2009,09:17) Quote Jesus called 12 Apostles, one hung himself that left 11; later Jesus called Paul, an Apostle, that made it 12 again, period, there are no other apostles. The 12 apostles, which included Matthias would disagree with you. Even Baranabas was called an apostle. (Acts 14:14)
To say that there are no other apostles, period, is to disagree with the choice of the ones directly chosen by Jesus.The other thing is, you make it seem like Paul is the 12th apostle. Paul was an apostle to the nations. The 12th apostle became Matthias, who replaced Judas.
So do you believe in the 13 apostles?We believe in present day apostles. We don't hold to the untenable position that the only apostles were the 12. Sorry, you're not going to find that in the Written or Oral Tradition of the Church.
There i a Scriptures that tells us not to go by the tradition of man.
Math. 15:9 ” But in vain do they worship me,teaching the doctrine the commandment of men.”
The Catholic Church believes highly in tradition.Peace and Love Irene
Quote (Cindy @ Aug. 31 2009,19:09) Quote (CatholicApologist @ Aug. 31 2009,17:56) Quote (david @ Aug. 31 2009,09:17) Quote Jesus called 12 Apostles, one hung himself that left 11; later Jesus called Paul, an Apostle, that made it 12 again, period, there are no other apostles. The 12 apostles, which included Matthias would disagree with you. Even Baranabas was called an apostle. (Acts 14:14)
To say that there are no other apostles, period, is to disagree with the choice of the ones directly chosen by Jesus.The other thing is, you make it seem like Paul is the 12th apostle. Paul was an apostle to the nations. The 12th apostle became Matthias, who replaced Judas.
So do you believe in the 13 apostles?We believe in present day apostles. We don't hold to the untenable position that the only apostles were the 12. Sorry, you're not going to find that in the Written or Oral Tradition of the Church.
There i a Scriptures that tells us not to go by the tradition of man.
Math. 15:9 ” But in vain do they worship me,teaching the doctrine the commandment of men.”
The Catholic Church believes highly in tradition.Peace and Love Irene
What about the tradition of God and His apostles? Go read 2 Thess. 2:15 again. That is, unless you threw out the Church's Written Tradition (the Bible) with the Church itself.The tradition in 2 Thess.2:15 is talking about the word or epistle. In Math. it is talking about the tradition of men. That is a big difference,
When Math. is talking about the tradition of men, the Galation already had gone estry.
Galatians 3:1 O foolish Galatatians, Who bewitched you that you should not obey the truth, before His eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as you as crucified.You also have to remember that the first Christians were persecuted by the Romans. Peter and Paul both went to prison and later were killed.. From that time, we have the Saints that will reign with Christ in the Millinium. They did for Chrkist and are worthy to do so.
Yes, I know that the Catholic is bif on Tradition.
IreneQuote (Cindy @ Aug. 31 2009,22:18) The tradition in 2 Thess.2:15 is talking about the word or epistle. In Math. it is talking about the tradition of men. That is a big difference, When Math. is talking about the tradition of men, the Galatian already had gone astray.
Galatians 3:1 O foolish Galatians's, Who bewitched you that you should not obey the truth, before His eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as you as crucified.You also have to remember that the first Christians were persecuted by the Romans. Peter and Paul both went to prison and later were killed.. From that time, we have the Saints that will reign with Christ in the Millennium. They died for Christ and are worthy to do so.
Yes, I know that the Catholic is big on Tradition.
IreneI am sorry I double post it. Nick if you can take one of, that would be great.
Irene
Yes. Exactly. When the Church is talking about the Sacred Tradition it is not speaking about the traditions of men. It is talking about the Oral or Written Tradition spoken of in 2 Thess. 2:15.Please answer this before God. What oral tradition do you follow?
Please think about this, since you have admitted that 2 Thess. 2:15 commands you to follow not just the written (our epistle), but the oral tradition of the apostles.
So please. Enlighten me as to what oral tradition you follow.
Hi CA,
What you call tradition is not the same that the anointed man Paul ascribed to, but just the religious habits of carnal men.It is not sacred as scripture is and is not the foundation Jesus recommended.
Quote (david @ Aug. 31 2009,14:37) Anyway, “apostolic succession” 
?
Protestant Christian – I reject the notion of apostolic succession because it's not taught in the
scriptures.Catholic Christian – You only believe things that are taught in the scriptures?
Protestant Christian – Yes. I believe that all scripture is inspired so that we can be fully equipped
for every good work. Christians should be careful not to go beyond what is written, to avoid the
traditions of men. And since the teaching of apostolic succession is a very important matter, we
should expect to see it in scripture. It's not there, however. It's simply a “tradition of men” that
was added to the faith in post-apostolic times.Catholic Christian – May I ask you a question?
Protestant Christian – Sure
Catholic Christian – Would you say that the acceptance of the books/letters of the New Testament
is a very important matter?Protestant Christian – Most definitely. It's through the New Testament that we learn of Jesus and
his plan of salvation.Catholic Christian – Where then in the New Testament do we learn of there being a set of inspired
books and letters that together form a definitive literary body of work to be obeyed by all
Christians?Protestant Christian – I don't understand the question.
Catholic Christian – Well, you said you only believe things that are written in the Bible, right?
Protestant Christian – Right.
Catholic Christian – You also hold to the notion that if something is really important for our
salvation the Bible should say so. Correct?Protestant Christian – Yeah, that's correct.
Catholic Christian – So, is the acceptance of the New Testament books and letters as inspired by
God an important matter?Protestant Christian – Absolutely!
Catholic Christian – Great. So, where in the New Testament do we read that? That is, show me
chapter and verse from the New Testament that informs us of this most important matter –
namely, that there are 27 inspired books that form the definitive body of literature for all
Christians.Protestant Christian – 1st Timothy 3:15 says all scripture is inspired.
Catholic Christian – What constitutes scripture?
Protestant Christian – What do you mean?
Catholic Christian – If all scripture is inspired, then we need to find out what books and letters
constitute inspired scripture. Does the New Testament tell us that?Protestant Christian – Well…no.
Catholic Christian – So how do you know which books and letters are scripture?
Protestant Christian – Well the Church has always believed that there were certain books and
letters that had authority.Catholic Christian – Really? How do you know that?
Protestant Christian – Well, if you study history you'll learn that the earliest Christians viewed
most of the New Testament as we know it today.Catholic Christian – Hold on. I thought you only go by what's in the Bible?
Protestant Christian – I do.
Catholic Christian – But if you only go by what's in the bible, why do you resort to history in an
effort to explain which books and letters are inspired?Protestant Christian – Because history tells us that that's what Christians have always believed.
Catholic Christian – But history also tells us that Christians have always believed apostolic
succession. Why do you accept Christian history when it comes to sacred scripture and reject it
when it comes to apostolic succession?Protestant Christian – Because apostolic succession is not in the Bible.
Catholic Christian – Neither is the notion that there are 27 inspired books that form a definitive
body of literature for all Christians. Right?Protestant Christian – Um….
Catholic Christian – Can I ask you another question?
Protestant Christian – Sure.
Catholic Christian – If Christians of the second century largely knew which books and letters
comprised the New Testament without the New Testament listing them, then where did they get
this information?Protestant Christian – From the apostles and early believers.
Catholic Christian – So, basically you're saying that they passed this information down orally?
Protestant Christian – Um….I suppose.
Catholic Christian – But I thought you were opposed to oral tradition.
Protestant Christian – I'm opposed to oral tradition that is not in the Bible.
Catholic Christian – That doesn't make sense, though. The New Testament books are not
mentioned in the Bible nor is the idea of a definitive literary body of Christian writings. For that
information you trust the testimony of the Church. I sense an inconsistency here. How can you
say that you reject oral tradition when you come by your knowledge of scripture via oral
tradition?Protestant Christian – The Catholics were involved in inquisitions!
Catholic Christian – I know. But let's stay on the issue in question. How do you know who wrote
the gospel that we commonly attribute to Matthew?Protestant Christian – I'm not sure.
Catholic Christian – Well, we know this by the testimony of the Church fathers. In fact, to
Mathew's gospel could be added Mark, Luke John and John's three letters. All those writings
lack autographs. Why do you trust that they were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?Protestant Christian – Because the Church has always believed that.
Catholic Christian – Why do you trust the Church's oral tradition on the authorship of the gospels
and epistles, but distrust her when she speaks of apostolic succession?Protestant Christian – Because apostolic succession is not taught in the Bible.
Catholic Christian – Point me to the chapter and verse in the Bible that lists 27 books/letters as
the inspired literary corpus for Christians.Protestant Christian – I can't do that.
Catholic Christian – But you said that we should expect to find all important matters in the
scriptures, that Christ would certainly see to it that such things were written down in holy
scripture if our very lives depended on them.Protestant Christian – The fact of the matter is that the 27 books which the Catholic Church
officially counted as NT scripture near the end of the 4th century had already been recognized as
such by millions of Christians for hundreds of years!Catholic Christian – Did those millions of Christians recognize apostolic succession?
Protestant Christian – Yes. But that's a false teaching.
Catholic Christian – How do you know?
Protestant Christian – Because it's not in the Bible.
Catholic Christian – But if millions of Christians for hundreds of years recognized the 27 books
which the Catholic Church officially counted as NT scripture near the end of the 4th century even
though these books and the notion of a an inspired body of literature are not mentioned in the
Bible, then that means millions of Christians for hundreds of years did not limit their beliefs to
things found only in the Bible. Right?Protestant Christian – I'm not sure.
“So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by
word of mouth or by letter” – St. Paul
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
