- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (Cindy @ Sep. 01 2009,03:46) Quote (CatholicApologist @ Aug. 31 2009,17:46) Quote (Cindy @ Aug. 31 2009,16:35) The woman in Rev. 12 is the Church and not Mary. It sure looks like that the Holy Spirit reveals things to the person, who was Baptized according to Scripture, and not sprinkled like in the Catholic Church.
Irene
For the first time I'm tempted to doubt your story of once having been Catholic. (I still believe you, though…call me crazy)Here's the reason. We don't “sprinkle” babies. That's a protestant thing.
If the woman in Rev. 12 is just the Church and not Mary then you have a HUGE problem: When did the “church” give birth to the “man child” (Jesus Christ)?
Cindy, I DO think that you are willingly ignorant.
Shame on you!
My Husband and I were in the Catholic Church all of our Lives until my Husband was 47 and I was 46. All of our 4 Children were Baptized there and two of our Sons went to Catholic School. You are calling me a liar” Think again. I know all about the Church. If they changed about Baptism by submerging in Water, that changed then, after we left in 1984. To bad that my Catholic friend is dead who was a Priest, I would ask Him. So I called the Parish were we attended Church before, here in our City, it is not a normal practice to Baptize according to Scripture. So You owe me an apology, Mister. I do not lie, I am a Christian and so is my Husband. And we do not lie, Mister. Calling People names is not aloud on this Forum.
Irene
Cindy,Please look above and show me where I called you a name. You won't find it.
My point is that your kids weren't sprinkled. The priest “poured” water over them. There is a difference. And the Catholic church was the church who started the whole “dunking” in the first place.
You have a false premise. You can't prove from Scripture alone that dunking is the “only” licit means of performing a valid baptism. You can only prove what we confess and have always accepted…that baptism by immersion (i.e. “dunking”) is a licit form of baptism.
But no amount of “dunking” will be efficacious without the “intent” to do what the Church does.
Do you confess “one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.”
If not, your dunking is meaningless.
Hi CA,
So it is the intent of the catholic church that really matters.
Why not faith in God and His scriptures?Quote (CatholicApologist @ Sep. 01 2009,11:02) Quote (Cindy @ Sep. 01 2009,03:46) Quote (CatholicApologist @ Aug. 31 2009,17:46) Quote (Cindy @ Aug. 31 2009,16:35) The woman in Rev. 12 is the Church and not Mary. It sure looks like that the Holy Spirit reveals things to the person, who was Baptized according to Scripture, and not sprinkled like in the Catholic Church.
Irene
For the first time I'm tempted to doubt your story of once having been Catholic. (I still believe you, though…call me crazy)Here's the reason. We don't “sprinkle” babies. That's a protestant thing.
If the woman in Rev. 12 is just the Church and not Mary then you have a HUGE problem: When did the “church” give birth to the “man child” (Jesus Christ)?
Cindy, I DO think that you are willingly ignorant.
Shame on you!
My Husband and I were in the Catholic Church all of our Lives until my Husband was 47 and I was 46. All of our 4 Children were Baptized there and two of our Sons went to Catholic School. You are calling me a liar” Think again. I know all about the Church. If they changed about Baptism by submerging in Water, that changed then, after we left in 1984. To bad that my Catholic friend is dead who was a Priest, I would ask Him. So I called the Parish were we attended Church before, here in our City, it is not a normal practice to Baptize according to Scripture. So You owe me an apology, Mister. I do not lie, I am a Christian and so is my Husband. And we do not lie, Mister. Calling People names is not aloud on this Forum.
Irene
Cindy,Please look above and show me where I called you a name. You won't find it.
My point is that your kids weren't sprinkled. The priest “poured” water over them. There is a difference. And the Catholic church was the church who started the whole “dunking” in the first place.
You have a false premise. You can't prove from Scripture alone that dunking is the “only” licit means of performing a valid baptism. You can only prove what we confess and have always accepted…that baptism by immersion (i.e. “dunking”) is a licit form of baptism.
But no amount of “dunking” will be efficacious without the “intent” to do what the Church does.
Do you confess “one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.”
If not, your dunking is meaningless.
First of all just pouring water over an Infant is not being Baptized according to Scripture. And Baptizing when you are a Baby, they don't even know what it is. All our Children were Baptized that way, and I call it just sprinkling, because they get not submerged under water all the way. Also what is the sense in doing so when they are Children. So when you say that I am willingly ignorant is that calling me and being nice? Come on and Shame on me? When you doubt a person,what is that? That is being short of calling someone a liar. How would you know anyway if we belonged to the Catholic Church or not. I have a big problem? What does Jesus say? If you cant say something nice, you should not say anything. . We have studied the Bible for a long time, you have no respect for the Elderly. I don't know how old you are, but you do know how Old I am. We are here on this Forum to debate Scripture and not calling others names. And once again calling someone ignorant, etc. is not nice.The fruits of the spirit are love, respect, kindness, and we need to respect our elders, and everybody, it is ok to disagree on something but when it becomes disrespectful and a personal attack which upsets someone, an apology should be made for upsetting that person. Its not hard to do.
Peace and love
Baptizing a baby is “meaningless”! Also; I was not aware that John was a Catholic when he baptize Jesus but if the Catholic church “started the whole “dunking” in the first place” than he must have been.
Quote (Christian Biker @ Sep. 01 2009,13:15) Baptizing a baby is “meaningless”! Also; I was not aware that John was a Catholic when he baptize Jesus but if the Catholic church “started the whole “dunking” in the first place” than he must have been.
Let me jump in here. No John was not a Catholic. The Roman Universal Church came on the scene in the Third century. In A.D. 313 After almost three century of brutal and bloody persecution, the Roman emperor Constantine issued and edit , granting all Christians full freedom to practice their religion.
A.D. 321 Constantine issued and edit, forbidding work on Sunday. and made it a day of worship. Not just that all Holy Days became Holidays like Christmas and Eater. Gods Holy Days were done away with. When we left the Catholic Church we joined the W.W.Church of God and we kept all the Holy Days that are listed in Leviticus 23. And we also kept the Sabbath Holy. However in 1994 after Mr. Armstrong died and a new Ambassador took over, He went back into believing in the trinity doctrine and all other pagan Feast. We stopped going all together. There is no Church where we live that does not keep the trinity. God has also revealed new truths to us, about which Covenant we are under.
Luke 22:20 ,,, ” The cup is the new covenant in My Blood, which is shed for you,”We are under grace and eternal life is a free gift from God by Faith.
Ephesians 2:8 ” For by grace you have been saved through faith and that not of yourself, it is a free gift of God.
verse 9 not of work, lest anyone should boast.Peace and Love Irene
Quote (karmarie @ Sep. 01 2009,12:01) The fruits of the spirit are love, respect, kindness, and we need to respect our elders, and everybody, it is ok to disagree on something but when it becomes disrespectful and a personal attack which upsets someone, an apology should be made for upsetting that person. Its not hard to do. Peace and love
Thank you for saying what you did. In genral all Members are nice and I enjoy being here.
Bless you and yours
Peace and Love IreneQuote (CatholicApologist @ Aug. 31 2009,14:43) Quote (CatholicApologist @ Aug. 31 2009,14:31) 942767,Aug. wrote:Hi CA:
And the apparent interpretation of the Catholic church is that the Lord is saying that the Apostle Peter was the rock that upon he would build the church, but the Apostle Peter is only part of the building. In this revelation, God our Father reveals to humanity that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God, and when he speaks to Peter about him being “Petra”, he says uses the word “also” which he indicates that the rock that to which he is referring is that he is the Christ and Peter is an Apostle.
2. Thanks so much for listening. Though it seems you missed the bit about the “key of David”.Your reference to the word “also” is duly noted. However, I don't see your point. Grammatically “also” has only to do with the fact that this is the second statement Jesus is making to Peter. The first statement was in the form of a question. The second (also) was in the form of the bestowal of an office. Which is clear by the successive “I will give unto thee (singular – to Peter only…go check your Greek) the keys.”
So your conclusions are unwarranted and not in keeping with an honest keeping with the text. THIS IS THE TEXT that forced me, a staunch anti-Catholic, to re-consider the Catholic claim.
Grammatically, historically, linguistically, and logically there is no other meaning that can be attributed to this passage save that Jesus was conferring an office of high honor upon Simon Peter connected with authority that would be backed by heaven. It should go without saying that a high degree of accountability goes with such an office as well.
So there really is no wiggle room here.
I encourage you to really be honest before God and put your dislike of what you have heard about the Catholic faith aside. For this is the necessary conclusion of this passage.
Hi CA:The Lord gave the Apostle Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven which is the gospel. The Apostle Peter was the authority in the church after the Lord ascended into heaven as the Apostle to the Nation of Israel, but the gospel of the kingom was given also to the Apostle Paul as the authority in the church as the Apostle to the gentile nations.
Quote
Gal 2:7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as [the gospel] of the circumcision [was] unto Peter;
Gal 2:8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)And so, I can't understand why the Catholic church teaches that the popes are the Apostle Peter's successors. Is the Apostle Paul the first succesor of the Apostle Peter?
The rock is not the Apostles but the rock is the anointed Word of God which is Christ which includes the Apostles since they were ordained by God to preach the gospel.
Quote Mat 7:24 ¶ Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
Mat 7:25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.By the way, I am not anti Catholic, but I disagree with the doctrines of the church. My desire is that we come into unity so that we can teach God's Word in truth.
Love in Christ,
MartyQuote First of all just pouring water over an Infant is not being Baptized according to Scripture. And Baptizing when you are a Baby, they don't even know what it is. All our Children were Baptized that way, and I call it just sprinkling, because they get not submerged under water all the way. Also what is the sense in doing so when they are Children. So when you say that I am willingly ignorant is that calling me and being nice? Come on and Shame on me? When you doubt a person,what is that? That is being short of calling someone a liar. How would you know anyway if we belonged to the Catholic Church or not. I have a big problem? What does Jesus say? If you cant say something nice, you should not say anything. . We have studied the Bible for a long time, you have no respect for the Elderly. I don't know how old you are, but you do know how Old I am. We are here on this Forum to debate Scripture and not calling others names. And once again calling someone ignorant, etc. is not nice. I said I still believe that you were Catholic. But it is just astounding how much you didn't know about your faith. That's all. I don't think you are a liar.
Quote What does Jesus say? If you cant say something nice, you should not say anything. . No…that was “thumper” the rabbit from the Walt Disney movie “Bambi”. (I have kids so I know these things)
Calling someone “ignorant” is not unkind when it is true. And you are ignorant of many things about your Catholic faith. Ignorance means you don't know something. It necessarily excludes culpability….except in the case of willful ignorance. You seem not to really want to know the truth about your Catholic faith since you want to believe that God called you out of it. But nothing could be further than the truth.
He is ready and willing to take you back.
Quote Also what is the sense in doing so when they are Children. I'm going to assume that this is a sincere question. The answer lies in circumcision. Baptism replaced circumcision. Just as the people of God circumcised their male children on the eighth day and the father stood before the Lord and pledged to give that child his faith. So we do the same thing.
This Western radical individualism has stripped us of the understanding of the culture in which the Bible was written. God is saving a corporate people. Not just a bunch of separate unrelated individuals.
Go read Col. 2
Quote (Christian Biker @ Sep. 01 2009,13:15) Baptizing a baby is “meaningless”! Also; I was not aware that John was a Catholic when he baptize Jesus but if the Catholic church “started the whole “dunking” in the first place” than he must have been.
Glad I could help you there.Quote The Lord gave the Apostle Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven which is the gospel. Your opening statement is the key to our misunderstanding of each other.
The keys of the kingdom of heaven were AN OFFICE.
Did you listen to that bit about the Key of David?
Quote You have a false premise. You can't prove from Scripture alone that dunking is the “only” licit means of performing a valid baptism. –CA.
That is, afterall, what the word actually means.
–The Greek ba′pti·sma refers to the process of immersion, including submersion and emergence.
–It is derived from the verb ba′pto, meaning “dip.” (Joh 13:26)
In the Bible, “to baptize” is the same as “to immerse.”In illustration of this, The Holy Bible, An Improved Edition, renders Romans 6:3, 4 as follows: “Or, are ye ignorant, that all we who were baptized (immersed) into Christ Jesus were baptized (immersed) into his death? We were buried therefore with him through our baptism (immersion) into his death.” (See also Ro; ED.) The Greek Septuagint uses a form of the same word for “dip” at Exodus 12:22 and Leviticus 4:6.
So,
#1. The actual word “baptism” literally means to immerse, to dip. (not sprinkle, nor pour.)
#2. The earliest examples of this, (the true Christians) bear this out:Mark 1:9, 10: “Jesus . . . was baptized [“immersed,” ED, Ro] in the Jordan [River] by John. And immediately on coming up out of the water he saw the heavens being parted.”
Acts 8:38: “They both went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized [“immersed,” ED, Ro] him.”
So to recap, for those that don't like to read:
The word “baptism” literally involves being immersed in the water, and the true Christians (before the apostasy) did it that way.(Then, of course, in the 3d or 4th century, false Christians changed that, and most everything else.)
Quote (Cindy @ Aug. 31 2009,23:00) Quote (Christian Biker @ Sep. 01 2009,13:15) Baptizing a baby is “meaningless”! Also; I was not aware that John was a Catholic when he baptize Jesus but if the Catholic church “started the whole “dunking” in the first place” than he must have been.
Let me jump in here. No John was not a Catholic. The Roman Universal Church came on the scene in the Third century. In A.D. 313 After almost three century of brutal and bloody persecution, the Roman emperor Constantine issued and edit , granting all Christians full freedom to practice their religion.
A.D. 321 Constantine issued and edit, forbidding work on Sunday. and made it a day of worship. Not just that all Holy Days became Holidays like Christmas and Eater. Gods Holy Days were done away with. When we left the Catholic Church we joined the W.W.Church of God and we kept all the Holy Days that are listed in Leviticus 23. And we also kept the Sabbath Holy. However in 1994 after Mr. Armstrong died and a new Ambassador took over, He went back into believing in the trinity doctrine and all other pagan Feast. We stopped going all together. There is no Church where we live that does not keep the trinity. God has also revealed new truths to us, about which Covenant we are under.
Luke 22:20 ,,, ” The cup is the new covenant in My Blood, which is shed for you,”We are under grace and eternal life is a free gift from God by Faith.
Ephesians 2:8 ” For by grace you have been saved through faith and that not of yourself, it is a free gift of God.
verse 9 not of work, lest anyone should boast.Peace and Love Irene
Hi IreneQuote (Cindy @ Aug. 31 2009,23:00) Let me jump in here. No John was not a Catholic. The Roman Universal Church came on the scene in the Third century. In A.D. 313 After almost three century of brutal and bloody persecution, the Roman emperor Constantine issued and edit , granting all Christians full freedom to practice their religion. This is not a true statement, for Ignatius was a disciple of the “Beloved John” one of the twelve. Ignatius was the third Catholic bishop of Antioch, and his writings were dated around 110 AD, and he died a Martyr between 110-117 AD, and his writings are Trinitarian.
WJ
Quote and his writings are Trinitarian. Click here…
I “clicked here.”
He apparently wrote 7 authentic letters, letters actually written by him.
But, the article said: By the 5th century, this authentic collection had been enlarged by spurious letters, and some of the original letters had been changed with interpolations, created to posthumously enlist Ignatius as an unwitting witness in theological disputes of that age, while the purported eye-witness account of his martyrdom is also thought to be a forgery from around the same time.
I found this interesting as well:
The letters of St. Ignatius have proved to be important testimony to the development of catholic theology, since the number of extant writings from this period of Church history is very small. They bear signs of being written in great haste and without a proper plan, such as run-on sentences and an unsystematic succession of thought. Ignatius is one of the earliest catholic writers to re-emphasize loyalty to a single bishop in each city (or diocese) who is assisted by both presbyters (priests, a.k.a. elders) and deacons. Earlier writings [[[the Bible]]] only mention either bishops or presbyters, and give the impression that there was usually more than one bishop per congregation.So, according to the inspired word of God, there were more than “one bishop [elder/overseer] per congregation.”
This guy, Ignatius, who, I'm guessing liked the power wanted “loyalty” to one bishop, and I'm guessing he was that bishop.Quote (david @ Sep. 01 2009,02:05) Quote and his writings are Trinitarian. Click here…
I “clicked here.”
He apparently wrote 7 authentic letters, letters actually written by him.
But, the article said: By the 5th century, this authentic collection had been enlarged by spurious letters, and some of the original letters had been changed with interpolations, created to posthumously enlist Ignatius as an unwitting witness in theological disputes of that age, while the purported eye-witness account of his martyrdom is also thought to be a forgery from around the same time.
I found this interesting as well:
The letters of St. Ignatius have proved to be important testimony to the development of catholic theology, since the number of extant writings from this period of Church history is very small. They bear signs of being written in great haste and without a proper plan, such as run-on sentences and an unsystematic succession of thought. Ignatius is one of the earliest catholic writers to re-emphasize loyalty to a single bishop in each city (or diocese) who is assisted by both presbyters (priests, a.k.a. elders) and deacons. Earlier writings [[[the Bible]]] only mention either bishops or presbyters, and give the impression that there was usually more than one bishop per congregation.So, according to the inspired word of God, there were more than “one bishop [elder/overseer] per congregation.”
This guy, Ignatius, who, I'm guessing liked the power wanted “loyalty” to one bishop, and I'm guessing he was that bishop.
Hi DavidMy point was the Catholic Church existed long before Irene said.
The seven letters are authentic…
The seven letters considered to be authentic are:
To the Ephesians
To the Magnesians
Letter to the Trallians
To the Romans
To the Philadelphians
To the Smyrnaeans
To Polycarp, Bishop of SmyrnaThe Spurious letters that followed were…
Letters of Pseudo-Ignatius
Epistles attributed to Saint Ignatius but of spurious origin include:[6]Epistle to the Tarsians
Epistle to the Antiochians
Epistle to Hero, a Deacon of Antioch
Epistle to the Philippians
The Epistle of Maria the Proselyte to Ignatius
Epistle to Mary at Neapolis, Near Zarbus
First Epistle to St. John
Second Epistle to St. John
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Virgin Mary
Reply of the Blessed Virgin to this LetterThe Spurious letters do not negate the Authentic!
I Like the way you inject the Bible in there where it says “ealier writings”, can you show me where the Bible says there was more than “One” ” bishop per congregation?
WJ
Quote (david @ Sep. 01 2009,17:30) Quote You have a false premise. You can't prove from Scripture alone that dunking is the “only” licit means of performing a valid baptism. –CA.
That is, afterall, what the word actually means.
–The Greek ba′pti·sma refers to the process of immersion, including submersion and emergence.
–It is derived from the verb ba′pto, meaning “dip.” (Joh 13:26)
In the Bible, “to baptize” is the same as “to immerse.”In illustration of this, The Holy Bible, An Improved Edition, renders Romans 6:3, 4 as follows: “Or, are ye ignorant, that all we who were baptized (immersed) into Christ Jesus were baptized (immersed) into his death? We were buried therefore with him through our baptism (immersion) into his death.” (See also Ro; ED.) The Greek Septuagint uses a form of the same word for “dip” at Exodus 12:22 and Leviticus 4:6.
So,
#1. The actual word “baptism” literally means to immerse, to dip. (not sprinkle, nor pour.)
#2. The earliest examples of this, (the true Christians) bear this out:Mark 1:9, 10: “Jesus . . . was baptized [“immersed,” ED, Ro] in the Jordan [River] by John. And immediately on coming up out of the water he saw the heavens being parted.”
Acts 8:38: “They both went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized [“immersed,” ED, Ro] him.”
So to recap, for those that don't like to read:
The word “baptism” literally involves being immersed in the water, and the true Christians (before the apostasy) did it that way.(Then, of course, in the 3d or 4th century, false Christians changed that, and most everything else.)
Yes, we (the true Christians) did it this way. But we didn't do it in the name of the “spirit of the organization” like you were invalidly baptized. Did we?The word “sin” (Gk. hamartia) comes from a meaning “to miss the mark”. Or in essence, you tried to hit the mark but missed. But the meaning came quickly to include willful disobedience. (i.e. not trying to hit the mark at all)
Or the Gk. word for sincere means “without wax”. You can't use a lexicon as a dictionary.
Stop trying to act like a scholar. If you were anything of the sort, you wouldn't use that crazy NWT. I mean, honestly?!
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 01 2009,17:58) Quote (Cindy @ Aug. 31 2009,23:00) Quote (Christian Biker @ Sep. 01 2009,13:15) Baptizing a baby is “meaningless”! Also; I was not aware that John was a Catholic when he baptize Jesus but if the Catholic church “started the whole “dunking” in the first place” than he must have been.
Let me jump in here. No John was not a Catholic. The Roman Universal Church came on the scene in the Third century. In A.D. 313 After almost three century of brutal and bloody persecution, the Roman emperor Constantine issued and edit , granting all Christians full freedom to practice their religion.
A.D. 321 Constantine issued and edit, forbidding work on Sunday. and made it a day of worship. Not just that all Holy Days became Holidays like Christmas and Eater. Gods Holy Days were done away with. When we left the Catholic Church we joined the W.W.Church of God and we kept all the Holy Days that are listed in Leviticus 23. And we also kept the Sabbath Holy. However in 1994 after Mr. Armstrong died and a new Ambassador took over, He went back into believing in the trinity doctrine and all other pagan Feast. We stopped going all together. There is no Church where we live that does not keep the trinity. God has also revealed new truths to us, about which Covenant we are under.
Luke 22:20 ,,, ” The cup is the new covenant in My Blood, which is shed for you,”We are under grace and eternal life is a free gift from God by Faith.
Ephesians 2:8 ” For by grace you have been saved through faith and that not of yourself, it is a free gift of God.
verse 9 not of work, lest anyone should boast.Peace and Love Irene
Hi IreneQuote (Cindy @ Aug. 31 2009,23:00) Let me jump in here. No John was not a Catholic. The Roman Universal Church came on the scene in the Third century. In A.D. 313 After almost three century of brutal and bloody persecution, the Roman emperor Constantine issued and edit , granting all Christians full freedom to practice their religion. This is not a true statement, for Ignatius was a disciple of the “Beloved John” one of the twelve. Ignatius was the third Catholic bishop of Antioch, and his writings were dated around 110 AD, and he died a Martyr between 110-117 AD, and his writings are Trinitarian.
WJ
Then what you are saying, the History of Constantine is false then? Before the third Century all Christians were persecuted tortured and died a horrible death. It was not until A,D, 313 that Constantine issued an edit permitting all Christians freedom to practice their religion. One of us is wrong. I had googled Him and there is allot of information. Later today I will read up on all and see. It was not before A.D. 324
when Constantine established Christianity as the official religion of His empire. It will become to be known as the Roman Universal Church. It is some time since my Husband got all of this information and I don't know where He got it from. But I will try to find out.
IreneQuote (Christian Biker @ Sep. 01 2009,13:15) Baptizing a baby is “meaningless”! Also; I was not aware that John was a Catholic when he baptize Jesus but if the Catholic church “started the whole “dunking” in the first place” than he must have been.
John was not a “Catholic” when he baptized Jesus. It would not be for a hundred years until the word “universal” was ever mentioned.The reason we know John was not a Catholic is simple.
His clothing “was of camel's hair with a leather girdle around his loins.” He ate insects and honey.No pointy hat.
I rest my case.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 01 2009,18:22) Quote (david @ Sep. 01 2009,02:05) Quote and his writings are Trinitarian. Click here…
I “clicked here.”
He apparently wrote 7 authentic letters, letters actually written by him.
But, the article said: By the 5th century, this authentic collection had been enlarged by spurious letters, and some of the original letters had been changed with interpolations, created to posthumously enlist Ignatius as an unwitting witness in theological disputes of that age, while the purported eye-witness account of his martyrdom is also thought to be a forgery from around the same time.
I found this interesting as well:
The letters of St. Ignatius have proved to be important testimony to the development of catholic theology, since the number of extant writings from this period of Church history is very small. They bear signs of being written in great haste and without a proper plan, such as run-on sentences and an unsystematic succession of thought. Ignatius is one of the earliest catholic writers to re-emphasize loyalty to a single bishop in each city (or diocese) who is assisted by both presbyters (priests, a.k.a. elders) and deacons. Earlier writings [[[the Bible]]] only mention either bishops or presbyters, and give the impression that there was usually more than one bishop per congregation.So, according to the inspired word of God, there were more than “one bishop [elder/overseer] per congregation.”
This guy, Ignatius, who, I'm guessing liked the power wanted “loyalty” to one bishop, and I'm guessing he was that bishop.
Hi DavidMy point was the Catholic Church existed long before Irene said.
The seven letters are authentic…
The seven letters considered to be authentic are:
To the Ephesians
To the Magnesians
Letter to the Trallians
To the Romans
To the Philadelphians
To the Smyrnaeans
To Polycarp, Bishop of SmyrnaThe Spurious letters that followed were…
Letters of Pseudo-Ignatius
Epistles attributed to Saint Ignatius but of spurious origin include:[6]Epistle to the Tarsians
Epistle to the Antiochians
Epistle to Hero, a Deacon of Antioch
Epistle to the Philippians
The Epistle of Maria the Proselyte to Ignatius
Epistle to Mary at Neapolis, Near Zarbus
First Epistle to St. John
Second Epistle to St. John
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Virgin Mary
Reply of the Blessed Virgin to this LetterThe Spurious letters do not negate the Authentic!
I Like the way you inject the Bible in there where it says “ealier writings”, can you show me where the Bible says there was more than “One” ” bishop per congregation?
WJ
If you read the parts of your reference that I underlined, I think they touch on both the comments you made. The spurious do not negate the authentic, but what does your reference say?
And what does it say with regard to there being more than one bishop per congregation? I underlined it for you.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
