Recruiting Forum Off-Topic Thread II

[Bassmaster_Vol]

A canon of books was not decided on at the council of Nicea, but it set the stage for it. Constantine started ordering Bibles after it, and the first records of church leaders deciding on a canon is in the decades following the council of Nicea.

As for "not deciding the course of Christian canon or beliefs," or "defending against Arianism" most historians would probably call this statement apocryphal (pardon the pun, I just couldn't resist). Prior to the Council of Nicea, there was no orthodoxy to defend and branches of the church in different areas often had somewhat differing (and sometimes vastly differing) interpretations of the relation of Jesus, God, and the Holy Spirit.

You're right that the main matter of dispute was Arianism vs Trinitarianism. But those are vastly opposing ideas about the nature of Christ! And a big chunk of the church leaders gathered at Nicea went into the whole ordeal with a "let's get all of this figured out and agreed upon once and for all" mindset, not a "we have to defend the church from this heresy!" mindset. Most of the people there were looking to find a compromise between two sides that were (at the time) tearing the Christian world apart. The Trinitarian side came out on top in the end, of course. However, before this the council Arians were very much a part of the church. A lot of bishops and church leaders went in Arian, argued for Arianism for a few weeks, and ultimately signed on in the end when it became clear the Trinitarians were gaining the upper hand. Arians didn't become "enemies" of the church until after the Council of Nicea all came to an agreement over what the official stance of the church was going to be on the relation of Jesus, God, and the Holy Spirit.


The reason the Council of Nicea is important is because before the council, there was no official church "stance" on the very nature of christ. Arianism and it's view of Jesus as a lesser being than God started in the 3rd century and was all the rage by the 4th century, but it wasn't the first movement. You can go through just about decade from the time Christianity began until the council of Nicea (and long after it as well, I guess) and find sects of the church that had differing views on the nature of Christ in relation to God and the Holy Spirit. You can even see evidence in books from the NT of early movements in the first and second century, like Docetism (basically a belief some had that Jesus never existed as a man but only as a spirit in the shape of a man), that had relatively large followings and made it difficult for the church to organize and grow.


The Council of Nicea allowed the early church to come to its first ever consensus about the holy trinity and thus set the path for the way that basically all Christians in the world from about the 8th-9th century onwards see the Holy Trinity. Saying that council didn't decide the course of Christian beliefs just isn't true.

There is some truth in what you're saying, but not all of it. I am not denying the importance of Nicea, but by saying they uphold orthodoxy, the meaning is that they upheld the truths of the Scriptures. There was nothing at Nicea that set the stage for canon. Athanasius who was present at Nicea had a canon, but the canon was not something that was ever picked by the church, it was simply recognized. Nobody picked and chose books and left out others that had any credibility at all. There was no conspiracy as I said about what books should be in canon and what shouldnt that you jokingly mentioned earlier.

There were lots of heresies about Christ in the early church, including those that John dealt with in the epistle of first John, that seemed to be a Docetic view, or perhaps Cerithian. Whatever it was, it was some form of Proto-Gnosticism. But it isn't as tho these were part of the church. John argues that those with the wrong view of Christ are not in the church (1 John 5:1). I don't know if I'm reading you wrong, but any idea of a conspiracy deciding which Jesus would be the true Jesus and that Arianism had any real claim, is just false. Nicea and Athanasius upheld He biblical truth. Remember, this is the early church, Nicea was in 325, there was no systematic theology, but we can look back and see that they got it right when we examine the Scriptures.

 

[Tennessee Golfer]

No. Jesus spelled it out in his own words right there in the bible: "take this and drink it, for it is my blood." He never said "take this and drink it, because it represents my blood."




And? You can make this argument for every form of religion until about 250-300 years ago! Heck, it's very likely that a good number of the apostles themselves weren't literate.


I'll put my money on the one that can actually trace their lineage all the way back to the first leaders of the church, not any of the hundreds of offshoots that started over a thousand years later and can't even decide on whether they're allowed to have a piano in their church or whether drinking alcohol is allowed or not (despite the fact that Jesus himself made alcohol).




I wasn't trying to imply that there is debate over authorship/dating of the Gospels, by any means (though there is still a lot of debate/study amongst scholars over why exactly John is so different from the Synoptic Gospels...probably the closest answer to that is just the obvious one: it was written the latest and in a different political climate).


As far as the Council of Nicea goes, most churches had some collection of between 20-30 books they considered canon. There was some debate over some of the books that rounded out the current day NT, such as Hebrews, Revelations, and one or two others. In the decades that followed the early church created an orthodoxy, the first attempts at settling on a canon began and the result was the current NT used by the Catholic church (which of course influenced the canon of Protestant offshoots).

For someone who doesn't give it any credibility you sure are trying awfully hard to tear it down.

 

[Darth_Shiveman]

Could you show me the scripture for your first sentence? God doesn't need a mouthpiece...His holy scriptures are His mouthpiece. Jesus said in Revelation 22:18-19 to not add to nor take away from the scriptures. That was around 95-96 AD when John wrote Revelation through inspiration of the Holy Spirit. That is when the scriptures reached full completion; therefore, anything that came after that was added and is against Jesus' command.

By that logic, there's a great chance the Gospel of John was added under Jesus' command lol it's often dated around 105 AD.

But anyway, the idea isn't difficult to understand. It's called Apostolic succession. The catholic church can trace it's lineage back to the earliest church leaders, such as Paul. Paul, who was touched and inspired by the holy spirit, passed on his gifts to Timothy in 1 Timothy 4:14 by laying hands on him:

Do not neglect your gift, which was given you through prophecy when the body of elders laid their hands on you.

Other apostles did the same, publicly, and that inspiration has been passed on throughout the catholic church's history all the way up until Francis.

 

[Darth_Shiveman]

There is some truth in what you're saying, but not all of it. I am not denying the importance of Nicea, but by saying they uphold orthodoxy, the meaning is that they upheld the truths of the Scriptures. There was nothing at Nicea that set the stage for canon. Athanasius who was present at Nicea had a canon, but the canon was not something that was ever picked by the church, it was simply recognized. Nobody picked and chose books and left out others that had any credibility at all. There was no conspiracy as I said about what books should be in canon and what shouldnt that you jokingly mentioned earlier.

1. I never referenced any conspiracy.
2. The Council of Nicea absolutely set the stage for biblical canon. It was the next logical after finally settling on an orthodoxy for the first time in church history.

There were lots of heresies about Christ in the early church, including those that John dealt with in the epistle of first John, that seemed to be a Docetic view, or perhaps Cerithian. Whatever it was, it was some form of Proto-Gnosticism. But it isn't as tho these were part of the church. John argues that those with the wrong view of Christ are not in the church (1 John 5:1). I don't know if I'm reading you wrong, but any idea of a conspiracy deciding which Jesus would be the true Jesus and that Arianism had any real claim, is just false.

Arians were absolutely a part of the early Church. If they weren't, then why would so many church leaders who identified as Arians be invited to the council of Nicea in the first place?


Writers of the books that would become the NT had beef with Docetists, but the NT was basically finished by 100-120 AD at the latest and there were a LOT of varying interpretations of those works in the years following.

You keep using the word conspiracy, but I don't think that's the right term. The right term could just be "schisms" or maybe even "history" because it's a fact that there were many groups within the early church who had differing views of Christ than the overwhelming majority of Christians today hold. And it's a fact that the Council of Nicea was step one in establishing that order.

Nicea and Athanasius upheld He biblical truth. Remember, this is the early church, Nicea was in 325, there was no systematic theology, but we can look back and see that they got it right when we examine the Scriptures.

If things had gone Arius' way instead of Athanasius' way, you'd be making the opposite exact argument right now. It's not as if Arians' theology was without any biblical backing.

 

[bignewt]

Interesting stuff fellas!

 

[Bassmaster_Vol]

By that logic, there's a great chance the Gospel of John was added under Jesus' command lol it's often dated around 105 AD.

But anyway, the idea isn't difficult to understand. It's called Apostolic succession. The catholic church can trace it's lineage back to the earliest church leaders, such as Paul. Paul, who was touched and inspired by the holy spirit, passed on his gifts to Timothy in 1 Timothy 4:14 by laying hands on him:



Other apostles did the same, publicly, and that inspiration has been passed on throughout the catholic church's history all the way up until Francis.

This is so absurdly false it isn't even funny. In spite of Catholicism's claims, they are absurd. There is nothing in the New Testament that indicates that Peter was somehow superior to the others and that the Apostles appealed to or submitted to him. In fact, Paul chastized Peter in Galatians 2 and at the Jerusalem council in Acts 15, James was the leader, not Peter. The Bible knows nothing of a Pope. The early church knows nothing of a pope, there is nothing in the writings of the apostolic fathers or church fathers that shows any sort of papal supremacy. In fact, they often ignored and even chided the pope. He was even accused of heresy! There is certainly no apostolic succession traced down to Francis.

Protestants certainly aren't offshoots. The were protestors. What the reformers saw going all the way back to wycliffe in the 15th century, was that the church had become corrupted. The church was taking advantage of people, teaching them things that certainly weren't biblical such as indulgences and of course justification by works. We find nothing in the early writings regarding any of these catholic dogmas such as indulgences or Marian dogmas or purgatory. The church had become corrupted, they had the Bible in Latin, said Mass in Latin, and the people did not know Latin and so were just told to believe what they church told them. Some of the priests and bishops were illiterate! This is clearly seen in the complaints of the Germans that bishoprics had become about money! People would buy their priesthood as investments!

What the Reformers saw was that nothing that was being taught by the church in regards to these things was true. This came to a head in 1517 when Tetzel was making his rounds promising salvation to those who would give money to help build St. Peter's "every time a coin in the coffee rings, a soul from purgatory springs". That sound biblical? Luther nailed his 95 theses on October 31 at Castle church complaining about the abuses of Rome. The rest is history. Later he would come to understand the truth of Romans and Galatians and the rest of the Bible regarding justification by faith alone, again, a doctrine corrupted by the Catholic Church. Protestantism isn't an offshoot. it is a reformation, a protest against the abuses of Rome. We believe in Scripture alone and receive all of our beliefs from the Bible. Rome isn't this way, as they believe in the infallible church, and tradition (which they can't actually produce). But the Bible knows nothing of Popes, cardinals, purgatory, mass, transubstantition, Marian Dogmas, indulgences or many other Catholic heresies.

 

[Glitch]

No. Jesus spelled it out in his own words right there in the bible: "take this and drink it, for it is my blood." He never said "take this and drink it, because it represents my blood."

As far as the last supper is concerned, Jesus taught and spoke in parables and metaphors almost constantly throughout His time on earth. The last supper was no exception.

Matthew 26:26-28

26 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.”
27 Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. 28 This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29 I tell you, I will not drink from this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”

The bread and wine were clearly metaphors for the body and blood. Spelled out in Jesus' own words. Right there in the Bible.

 

[bignewt]

This is so absurdly false it isn't even funny. In spite of Catholicism's claims, they are absurd. There is nothing in the New Testament that indicates that Peter was somehow superior to the others and that the Apostles appealed to or submitted to him. In fact, Paul chastized Peter in Galatians 2 and at the Jerusalem council in Acts 15, James was the leader, not Peter. The Bible knows nothing of a Pope. The early church knows nothing of a pope, there is nothing in the writings of the apostolic fathers or church fathers that shows any sort of papal supremacy. In fact, they often ignored and even chided the pope. He was even accused of heresy! There is certainly no apostolic succession traced down to Francis.

Protestants certainly aren't offshoots. The were protestors. What the reformers saw going all the way back to wycliffe in the 15th century, was that the church had become corrupted. The church was taking advantage of people, teaching them things that certainly weren't biblical such as indulgences and of course justification by works. We find nothing in the early writings regarding any of these catholic dogmas such as indulgences or Marian dogmas or purgatory. The church had become corrupted, they had the Bible in Latin, said Mass in Latin, and the people did not know Latin and so were just told to believe what they church told them. Some of the priests and bishops were illiterate! This is clearly seen in the complaints of the Germans that bishoprics had become about money! People would buy their priesthood as investments!

What the Reformers saw was that nothing that was being taught by the church in regards to these things was true. This came to a head in 1517 when Tetzel was making his rounds promising salvation to those who would give money to help build St. Peter's "every time a coin in the coffee rings, a soul from purgatory springs". That sound biblical? Luther nailed his 95 theses on October 31 at Castle church complaining about the abuses of Rome. The rest is history. Later he would come to understand the truth of Romans and Galatians and the rest of the Bible regarding justification by faith alone, again, a doctrine corrupted by the Catholic Church. Protestantism isn't an offshoot. it is a reformation, a protest against the abuses of Rome. We believe in Scripture alone and receive all of our beliefs from the Bible. Rome isn't this way, as they believe in the infallible church, and tradition (which they can't actually produce). But the Bible knows nothing of Popes, cardinals, purgatory, mass, transubstantition, Marian Dogmas, indulgences or many other Catholic heresies.

That is kinda my problem with the bible as it stands today...how many times has it been translated, altered added or deleted from? Especially if the Catholics had sole understanding and responsibility of it for centuries? I realize it comes down to faith but you gotta wonder what it originally said. Except of course for the old testament because the Jewish scholars probably locked down their oral histories and stories long ago and that was that.

 

[Darth_Shiveman]

As far as the last supper is concerned, Jesus taught and spoke in parables and metaphors almost constantly throughout His time on earth. The last supper was no exception.

Matthew 26:26-28

26 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.”
27 Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. 28 This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29 I tell you, I will not drink from this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”

The bread and wine were clearly metaphors for the body and blood. Spelled out in Jesus' own words. Right there in the Bible.

Sorry, but it looks pretty clear there. 26 and 27 he calls it his flesh and blood and says to imbibe it and then 28 he says it's for the forgiveness of sins.

It doesn't help your point that there are lots of letters from early church leaders going back to the early 2nd century that shows they obviously believed the holiness of the Eucharist.

Calling the parts of the Bible you disagree with metaphors isn't exactly compelling evidence. Rather, you'd need a verse arguing against transubstiation for a compelling one.

 

[OGbabyaviVol]

By that logic, there's a great chance the Gospel of John was added under Jesus' command lol it's often dated around 105 AD.

But anyway, the idea isn't difficult to understand. It's called Apostolic succession. The catholic church can trace it's lineage back to the earliest church leaders, such as Paul. Paul, who was touched and inspired by the holy spirit, passed on his gifts to Timothy in 1 Timothy 4:14 by laying hands on him:



Other apostles did the same, publicly, and that inspiration has been passed on throughout the catholic church's history all the way up until Francis.

Just to clarify… Are you saying that those who were given the gift of the Holy Spirit by the apostles also had the power to give that gift to those after them?

 

[OGbabyaviVol]

Sorry, but it looks pretty clear there. 26 and 27 he calls it his flesh and blood and says to imbibe it and then 28 he says it's for the forgiveness of sins.

It doesn't help your point that there are lots of letters from early church leaders going back to the early 2nd century that shows they obviously believed the holiness of the Eucharist.

Calling the parts of the Bible you disagree with metaphors isn't exactly compelling evidence. Rather, you'd need a verse arguing against transubstiation for a compelling one.

The blood that Jesus shed on the cross was shed for the forgiveness of sins...The bread and fruit of the vine that represents his body and blood is not for the forgiveness of sins. The emblems that he speaks of are a memorial to help us continuously remember the perfect sacrifice that he made on our behalf, although we were not deserving of it.

Question: when did Catholicism begin? When did the church that Jesus shed His blood for begin?

 

[Vols4us]

Fellow Christian brothers - you may want to use Greek thought processes when relating to Darth. He really doesn't understand the Hebrew, Aramic, or contexts. If he did, he would have understood the transformation of the wine and bread at the Last Supper. He would benefit greatly from reading Lee Stroble's books.

When the Lord personally works in your life all doubts leave. The non-believer usually thinks we are deceiving ourselves. The believer knows there are no other explanations for what has occurred to them and within the heart. In none of those circumstances are taking innocent lives justified among many other sinful actions. The Islamist justifies his/her sinful actions as required of them by their perceived holy book and required of them for entry into heaven. They try to earn their way there by doing what the book/documents/leaders say. The very premise is disgusting. McVeigh called into question his personal salvation if he was a Christian by the actions he took (per Paul). Upon death he stood before a holy God to account for his possibly unrepentant sin. The actions he took are never justified in Christian faith, but, are justified and even required in Islamic faith per their holy book and supporting documents.

The Pope no more represents all of Christianity than I do. We stand before the Lord individually and are held accountable in the same way.

 

[Bassmaster_Vol]

1. I never referenced any conspiracy.
2. The Council of Nicea absolutely set the stage for biblical canon. It was the next logical after finally settling on an orthodoxy for the first time in church history.



Arians were absolutely a part of the early Church. If they weren't, then why would so many church leaders who identified as Arians be invited to the council of Nicea in the first place?


Writers of the books that would become the NT had beef with Docetists, but the NT was basically finished by 100-120 AD at the latest and there were a LOT of varying interpretations of those works in the years following.

You keep using the word conspiracy, but I don't think that's the right term. The right term could just be "schisms" or maybe even "history" because it's a fact that there were many groups within the early church who had differing views of Christ than the overwhelming majority of Christians today hold. And it's a fact that the Council of Nicea was step one in establishing that order.



If things had gone Arius' way instead of Athanasius' way, you'd be making the opposite exact argument right now. It's not as if Arians' theology was without any biblical backing.

1. Council of Nicea did not set the stage for canon. The church had been using the books of the New Testament long before this. It isn't as tho Nicea came along and said, okay, these as the books in the canon and these are not. That's why I keep referencing a conspiracy. Lot of folks think that's what happened, wrongly. By the end of the first century, the church was already circulating he four gospels and some of the Pauline corpus. Marcion the heretic had formulated his canon in the mid 2nd century which sped up the church's need to formulate he canon. There were many early versions of the canon, Muratorian canon in the mid 2nd century, Origen, Irenaeus, all of these had a list of NT books before Nicea. These list included most books that are currently in our Nt, some added Shepherd of Hermas and the Didache. Eusebius has a list at the end of the 3rd century with 3 categories of books: the universally agreed upon that included 22 books of the NT; books that were debatable but mostly accepted James, Jude, 2nd Peter, 2nd and 3rd John, then the doubtful books that were the Shepherd of Hermas, Didache Epistle of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians. Athanasius at the end of the 4th century has a canon and this canon is our NT today, all 27 books. Two synods of the church would eventually confirm this canon in 393 and 397. s you can see, Nicea did not set the stage for Canon. The canon was in the works long before Nicea. And even then, these books were already being used by the church. They were circulating and being used in worship by the church from the end of the 1st century. These 27 books were included not because some authority decided it, but rather, because their inherent authority was recognized by the church. Four questions were asked: 1. Did he books have their own inherent authority? 2. Did the church use them in worship? 3. Was the book consistent with other books in the canon? 4. And most important, was the book associated with an apostle?

Second, I never denied that Arians were a part of the visible early church, but. biblically, they were not part of the church. And it isn't as tho Nicea decided these guys were heretics when they were just part of the church before. Arias was excommunicated at the council of Alexandria in 321. His teachings had become a problem however, so Nicea was called and the orthodox view and Athanasius won and the word homoousios was formed to describe the person of Christ. It is the orthodox view, because it is the biblical view. Arianism was and still is a heresy.

And no, if things had gone the other way, which, of course, they couldn't have, I wouldn't be arguing for Arius. There is no biblical support for the teachings of Arianism. Period. I understand that we live in a postmodern world, but there is such a thing as truth.

 

[Darth_Shiveman]

This is so absurdly false it isn't even funny. In spite of Catholicism's claims, they are absurd. There is nothing in the New Testament that indicates that Peter was somehow superior to the others and that the Apostles appealed to or submitted to him. In fact, Paul chastized Peter in Galatians 2 and at the Jerusalem council in Acts 15, James was the leader, not Peter. The Bible knows nothing of a Pope. The early church knows nothing of a pope, there is nothing in the writings of the apostolic fathers or church fathers that shows any sort of papal supremacy. In fact, they often ignored and even chided the pope. He was even accused of heresy! There is certainly no apostolic succession traced down to Francis.

This shows a misunderstanding of Apostolic succession: the apostles were inspired by God, they passed that gift on to their successors. Thus their successors actions and words were inspired by God.


Also, it was Paul who laid hands on Timothy and passed on his gift, not Peter. I'm not sure how the fact that Paul, Peter, and James all struggled for control over the early church is relevant to Apostolic Succession.

Protestants certainly aren't offshoots. The were protestors. What the reformers saw going all the way back to wycliffe in the 15th century, was that the church had become corrupted. The church was taking advantage of people, teaching them things that certainly weren't biblical such as indulgences and of course justification by works. We find nothing in the early writings regarding any of these catholic dogmas such as indulgences or Marian dogmas or purgatory. The church had become corrupted, they had the Bible in Latin, said Mass in Latin, and the people did not know Latin and so were just told to believe what they church told them. Some of the priests and bishops were illiterate! This is clearly seen in the complaints of the Germans that bishoprics had become about money! People would buy their priesthood as investments!

What the Reformers saw was that nothing that was being taught by the church in regards to these things was true. This came to a head in 1517 when Tetzel was making his rounds promising salvation to those who would give money to help build St. Peter's "every time a coin in the coffee rings, a soul from purgatory springs". That sound biblical? Luther nailed his 95 theses on October 31 at Castle church complaining about the abuses of Rome. The rest is history. Later he would come to understand the truth of Romans and Galatians and the rest of the Bible regarding justification by faith alone, again, a doctrine corrupted by the Catholic Church. Protestantism isn't an offshoot. it is a reformation, a protest against the abuses of Rome. We believe in Scripture alone and receive all of our beliefs from the Bible. Rome isn't this way, as they believe in the infallible church, and tradition (which they can't actually produce). But the Bible knows nothing of Popes, cardinals, purgatory, mass, transubstantition, Marian Dogmas, indulgences or many other Catholic heresies.

1. Protestants are an offshoot. You can play semantics all day and call them "reformers," but all they did was take the Catholic Church's orthodoxy, change the mix up a bit more to their own liking, and end up with movements that were >90% alike to Catholicism. i.e. They made offshoots.

2. There were some corrupt catholic priests and bishops, no doubt. But they weren't in the Apostolic succession. Those that were had divine inspiration and there is a biblical precedent for that, so it doesn't matter when their words/actions happened. It's no different than if they came from Paul himself.

 

[Bassmaster_Vol]

That is kinda my problem with the bible as it stands today...how many times has it been translated, altered added or deleted from? Especially if the Catholics had sole understanding and responsibility of it for centuries? I realize it comes down to faith but you gotta wonder what it originally said. Except of course for the old testament because the Jewish scholars probably locked down their oral histories and stories long ago and that was that.

That's a good question Newt, the great truth is that we know the Catholic Church has not changed or modified the Scriptures. The New Testament is the most attested book in all of ancient history. We have over 24,000 manuscript fragments from several different language. That is far and away better than anything else. 2nd by the way is Homer's Iliad with its 650 copies. When compared together, these manuscripts agree with one another 98% of the time. The errors are mostly spelling errors, some are scribal editions, and we know where they all are, and none of them affect doctrine in any way. We don't have to worrying about any adding or deleting, because when we look at the manuscripts we have, in spite of crossing national boundaries, language boundaries and other things, they still agree with one another. We know that what we have today is what the Apostles wrote, with those view variants that I mentioned a moment ago that doesn't affect anything.

 

[Darth_Shiveman]

The blood that Jesus shed on the cross was shed for the forgiveness of sins

Yes, and when a priest goes through the holy ritual of communion, wine becomes that blood and drinking it forgives sins.

Question: when did Catholicism begin? When did the church that Jesus shed His blood for begin?

With his apostles after he came back to the dead and revealed himself to them.

 

[Bassmaster_Vol]

This shows a misunderstanding of Apostolic succession: the apostles were inspired by God, they passed that gift on to their successors. Thus their successors actions and words were inspired by God.


Also, it was Paul who laid hands on Timothy and passed on his gift, not Peter. I'm not sure how the fact that Paul, Peter, and James all struggled for control over the early church is relevant to Apostolic Succession.



1. Protestants are an offshoot. You can play semantics all day and call them "reformers," but all they did was take the Catholic Church's orthodoxy, change the mix up a bit more to their own liking, and end up with movements that were >90% alike to Catholicism. i.e. They made offshoots.

2. There were some corrupt catholic priests and bishops, no doubt. But they weren't in the Apostolic succession. Those that were had divine inspiration and there is a biblical precedent for that, so it doesn't matter when their words/actions happened. It's no different than if they came from Paul himself.

I encourage you to study church history. We won't get anywhere when we use the same terms to mean different things. Apostolic succession is understood as the Roman Catholic belief that Peter was the first pope and that following him there is succession of popes all the way down to Francis. You even mentioned Francis in your so I assumed that is what you meant. There is nothing I have ever seen from anyone to indicate an apostolic succession like you just mentioned. Paul did not pass on his gift to Timothy and thus make him inspired. Inspiration was limited to the writers of the NT and only then when they wrote the New Testament. Timothy was not inspired, nor was anyone else outside of the Apostles.

2. Your comment about Protestants just shows a lack of understanding of the Protestant Reformation. The idea that Luther just wanted to modify Catholicism more to his liking is silly. Not to mention when you consider all the other men, Tyndale, Hus, Wycliffe, Calvin, Zwingli, Bucer, Knox, the Puritans, and many more, some of whom died terrible deaths. The reformation was a rescuing of the gospel. Not an offshoot of Catholics. If you really want to understand what has happened, I encourage you to study it. There are so many great resources available. James white even has all of his history lectures on Sermon audio. I encourage you to take advantage of those.

 

[LouderVol]

eye c wut is going on hur

 

[bignewt]

That's a good question Newt, the great truth is that we know the Catholic Church has not changed or modified the Scriptures. The New Testament is the most attested book in all of ancient history. We have over 24,000 manuscript fragments from several different language. That is far and away better than anything else. 2nd by the way is Homer's Iliad with its 650 copies. When compared together, these manuscripts agree with one another 98% of the time. The errors are mostly spelling errors, some are scribal editions, and we know where they all are, and none of them affect doctrine in any way. We don't have to worrying about any adding or deleting, because when we look at the manuscripts we have, in spite of crossing national boundaries, language boundaries and other things, they still agree with one another. We know that what we have today is what the Apostles wrote, with those view variants that I mentioned a moment ago that doesn't affect anything.

Must be a fascinating if not tedious job to be a text historian.

 

[bignewt]

the eyes have it

 

[VolsDoc81TX]

This is so absurdly false it isn't even funny. In spite of Catholicism's claims, they are absurd. There is nothing in the New Testament that indicates that Peter was somehow superior to the others and that the Apostles appealed to or submitted to him. In fact, Paul chastized Peter in Galatians 2 and at the Jerusalem council in Acts 15, James was the leader, not Peter. The Bible knows nothing of a Pope. The early church knows nothing of a pope, there is nothing in the writings of the apostolic fathers or church fathers that shows any sort of papal supremacy. In fact, they often ignored and even chided the pope. He was even accused of heresy! There is certainly no apostolic succession traced down to Francis.

Protestants certainly aren't offshoots. The were protestors. What the reformers saw going all the way back to wycliffe in the 15th century, was that the church had become corrupted. The church was taking advantage of people, teaching them things that certainly weren't biblical such as indulgences and of course justification by works. We find nothing in the early writings regarding any of these catholic dogmas such as indulgences or Marian dogmas or purgatory. The church had become corrupted, they had the Bible in Latin, said Mass in Latin, and the people did not know Latin and so were just told to believe what they church told them. Some of the priests and bishops were illiterate! This is clearly seen in the complaints of the Germans that bishoprics had become about money! People would buy their priesthood as investments!

What the Reformers saw was that nothing that was being taught by the church in regards to these things was true. This came to a head in 1517 when Tetzel was making his rounds promising salvation to those who would give money to help build St. Peter's "every time a coin in the coffee rings, a soul from purgatory springs". That sound biblical? Luther nailed his 95 theses on October 31 at Castle church complaining about the abuses of Rome. The rest is history. Later he would come to understand the truth of Romans and Galatians and the rest of the Bible regarding justification by faith alone, again, a doctrine corrupted by the Catholic Church. Protestantism isn't an offshoot. it is a reformation, a protest against the abuses of Rome. We believe in Scripture alone and receive all of our beliefs from the Bible. Rome isn't this way, as they believe in the infallible church, and tradition (which they can't actually produce). But the Bible knows nothing of Popes, cardinals, purgatory, mass, transubstantition, Marian Dogmas, indulgences or many other Catholic heresies.

I was raised Southern Baptist. I switched because my wife and I thought one denomination would be easier for raising children...

I am now Catholic. I will no longer go to hell for drinking alcoholic beverages or for dancing. I will definitely go to purgatory, but there is an option for Heaven afterwards. :hi:

There is a verse in Romans that states that you should let your brother worship in his own manner.

This post isn't exactly aimed at you Bass, but more at those that think one denomination is better than another. Each and every one has its good and bad points. Not one is superior to another. Those that believe that their version have started wars and killed others for minor variations in doctrine. Not so sure that is what God or Jesus intended.

Please don't go all LBJ/NBA on this too :no:
Darth has lept off that cliff long ago.

 

[Glitch]

Sorry, but it looks pretty clear there. 26 and 27 he calls it his flesh and blood and says to imbibe it and then 28 he says it's for the forgiveness of sins.

It doesn't help your point that there are lots of letters from early church leaders going back to the early 2nd century that shows they obviously believed the holiness of the Eucharist.

Calling the parts of the Bible you disagree with metaphors isn't exactly compelling evidence. Rather, you'd need a verse arguing against transubstiation for a compelling one.

Wow. You really can't admit that you are wrong can you. Where did it say that Jesus turned the bread to flesh or the wine to blood. They are very clearly symbols.

As Bass stated, the blood that he was referring to was shed when Jesus was being beaten, flogged, and crucified. He was telling His disciples, again, that he was about to be killed and that they should remember what He was about to do through the ceremony of the bread and the cup.

The Catholic church added so many ideas and methods of maintaining their absolute control over the people. Is it really much of a coincidence that less than a century after the printing press was invented and books could be mass produced that Martin Luther wrote his 95 Theses? When people began to be able to read for themselves and see what the Bible truly said, they realized that the Catholic Church had corrupted many practices and was not properly representing Christians. There are many denominations of Protestants and I don't believe any of them are better than the others. The main things that a church should teach are belief that Jesus was the Son of God and died for the forgiveness of our sins, prayer, love your neighbors as yourself, and "love God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind." The rest is personal preference. If you like instruments or don't like instruments does not change the basic truths of Christianity. Whether you consume alcohol or are a teetotaler does not change the fact that God sent His Son to die for all of our sins. Strip away all of the human elements and get back to the very basics of what Jesus taught. That is the true essence of Christianity.

 

[Glitch]

I was raised Southern Baptist. I switched because my wife and I thought one denomination would be easier for raising children...

I am now Catholic. I will no longer go to hell for drinking alcoholic beverages or for dancing. I will definitely go to purgatory, but there is an option for Heaven afterwards. :hi:

There is a verse in Romans that states that you should let your brother worship in his own manner.

This post isn't exactly aimed at you Bass, but more at those that think one denomination is better than another. Each and every one has its good and bad points. Not one is superior to another. Those that believe that their version have started wars and killed others for minor variations in doctrine. Not so sure that is what God or Jesus intended.

Please don't go all LBJ/NBA on this too :no:
Darth has lept off that cliff long ago.

Agree with you here Doc. My mom's family was Catholic growing up. She switched to the Methodist church when she married my dad. We currently attend a Baptist church but attended a church in Indiana that simply called itself Greenwood Christian Church. The way in which one church worships shouldn't matter, as long as the basic essence of Jesus' teaching is the core of that church. Some churches have communion every week. Some only do it once a month. Others do it sporadically. Jesus never put a schedule on when to take communion. He only said to do it in remembrance of Him. People tend to overthink Christianity. It is really simple. Have faith that Jesus has paid for your sin and live your life, to the best of your ability, in a way that mirrors how Jesus lived His life here on earth. Do that and everything else should fall into place.

 

[bignewt]

It really should be that simple...alas we are talking about man.

 

[Bassmaster_Vol]

I was raised Southern Baptist. I switched because my wife and I thought one denomination would be easier for raising children...

I am now Catholic. I will no longer go to hell for drinking alcoholic beverages or for dancing. I will definitely go to purgatory, but there is an option for Heaven afterwards. :hi:

There is a verse in Romans that states that you should let your brother worship in his own manner.

This post isn't exactly aimed at you Bass, but more at those that think one denomination is better than another. Each and every one has its good and bad points. Not one is superior to another. Those that believe that their version have started wars and killed others for minor variations in doctrine. Not so sure that is what God or Jesus intended.

Please don't go all LBJ/NBA on this too :no:
Darth has lept off that cliff long ago.

You are not wrong in that there are errors with every denomination. That's why we have denominations. We are all fallible men trying to understand infallible Scripture. There will be disagreements. Where you're wrong however, is concluding that Catholicism is another denomination. It isn't. Catholicism has a different gospel. Catholicism rejects the gospel. At the council of Trent they anathematized anyone who believes that salvation is by faith alone. Even if you believe that salvation is by faith and works as Catholicism does, then you can't believe it's just another denomination. They are claiming a different gospel. They claim the mass is another propitiation, that they offer Christ up as a sacrifice every week during the mass. The bible on the other hand, teaches in Hebrews 10 that Christ has died once and for all, and He has perfected everyone for whom He died for all time. Salvation therefore, is by faith alone in the finished work of Christ (Ephesians 2:8-9; Romans 3;4, Galatians etc). I encourage you to examine this. Ask yourself the question, how is one made right with God? Protestants and Catholics do not answer than question the same way. How would you answer that question? I'm not asking you to answer me, but to examine yourself, and really ask how it is that you can be made right with God.