Fruitless Dialogs

[Livin_the_MASS]

[quote]why is everything about conversion why cant we all just get along ?[/quote]

[quote]why cant we all just get along ?[/quote]

We should be loving to one another no matter what!


Jesus said he would be a cause of division even within the family home. So one cannot say because you don't agree with what I know as Tuth, water it down in anyway just to get along, you can do it with charity and love with out watering it down, but you can never water down the Truth.

Jesus almost got stoned, thrown off an edge of a cliff, the Pharisees were always trying to set traps to catch Him to put Him to death.

Once you know the Truth you can never deny it.


[quote]isnt the belivers relationship with Christ what matters? [/quote]

Judas had a realtionship with Christ but it wasn't a good one. Explain more what you mean.

God Bless
Jason

Edited April 22, 2004 by Jason

[Dave]

[quote name='yezad' date='Apr 21 2004, 10:52 PM'] Jesus is the truth [/quote]
Well, I was just about to post this link anyway. Yes, Jesus is the truth, but He taught us certain things. Go here: [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=2906&st=0entry47090"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s...t=0entry47090[/url]

[yezad]

Jesus died for sinners.
a relationship with christ is a positive thing to build a relationship with anyone requires work conversation and commetment.

[Dave]

Yezad, please go to the link I provided.

[p0lar_bear]

[quote name='yezad' date='Apr 21 2004, 10:47 PM'] why is everything about conversion why cant we all just get along ?
isnt the belivers relationship with Christ what matters? [/quote]
Even if you just look at people's definition of "Jesus" and "relationship" you have significant enough differences to need conversion.

Arius had a relationship with Jesus, he thought that He not God by nature, but by grace (an exalted creature), but he had a relationship with Him.

Some people think that Jesus and the Father are the exact same person. We understand that they are two persons (three with the Holy Spirit) in one God.

To some people, all that is needed for a relationship with Jesus is saying a little prayer one time. Others recognize that it involves more work than that (i.e. regular prayer and constantly conforming oneself to Christ).

Some people think that Jesus came only to give us good example, others realize that He did much more than that.


Where is the cut off for what is acceptable? At what point does someone need/not need conversion? Who gets to decide what is essential to the Faith and what is not?

[ironmonk]

[quote name='yezad' date='Apr 21 2004, 11:02 PM'] Jesus died for sinners.
a relationship with christ is a positive thing to build a relationship with anyone requires work conversation and commetment. [/quote]
We can't have a relationship with Christ if we disobey Him.

We can't have a relationship with Christ if we do not follow Christ's way.

Please go to the link provided by Dave.

Please meditate on what Christ said...

[b]John 3:36 [/b]
[color=red]Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but [u][b]whoever disobeys the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God remains upon him[/b][/u].[/color]


We better know what Christ taught since 33 AD. It does matter what we do. If we disobey Christ, then we have the wrath of God on us.


God Bless,
ironmonk

[the lumberjack]

in 2000 years, the Roman Catholic church has yet to provide anything solid to stand upon, as you are constantly "developing" doctrine, though we have had the bible now for well over 1600 years...

[Dave]

[quote name='the lumberjack' date='Apr 22 2004, 10:35 AM'] in 2000 years, the Roman Catholic church has yet to provide anything solid to stand upon, as you are constantly "developing" doctrine, though we have had the bible now for well over 1600 years... [/quote]
That's a really weak argument. Just because doctrine develops doesn't mean the Church has nothing solid to stand upon. Development of doctrine means that, over time, the Church gains new insights into its teachings and comes to understand them more fully. And so they might be presented differently as time goes on. But the Church NEVER understands its teachings to mean the opposite of what they once meant. That has NEVER happened, and it NEVER will.

[cmotherofpirl]

rotfl

The books in the bible were picked out and guarenteed inspired by the Church.

If the church is not "solid" then the bible is a collection of pretty stories.

You can't have an inspired Bible if you don't have an divinely inspired Church.

The bible is A CATHOLIC book.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='the lumberjack' date='Apr 22 2004, 10:35 AM'] in 2000 years, the Roman Catholic church has yet to provide anything solid to stand upon, as you are constantly "developing" doctrine, though we have had the bible now for well over 1600 years... [/quote]
2000 years is solid.

All other churches who use the bible are less than 500 years old.

How can they not be the groups that left in Acts 20:30?

The very fact that someone uses the bible proves the Catholic Church solid because it was the Catholic Church that picked the 27 books of the NT, out of over 200 or so.

God Bless,
ironmonk

[Quietfire]

mispost.

Edited April 22, 2004 by Quietfire

[dUSt]

[quote name='yezad' date='Apr 21 2004, 08:52 PM'] Jesus is the truth [/quote]
Yes. So let's use the Church that He has given us to grow closer to Him.

God bless.

[dUSt]

[quote]in 2000 years, the Roman Catholic church has yet to provide anything solid to stand upon, [/quote]
The Church provided us the Bible. That's pretty solid, is it not?

[quote]as you are constantly "developing" doctrine, though we have had the bible now for well over 1600 years...[/quote]
No. Actually, you use a Bible that is missing books--a version of the Bible that has only been around for about 500 years. We have had the Catholic Bible for 1600 years, this is true--but you reject the Catholic Bible, so you shouldn't be making that claim.

God bless.

[the lumberjack]

[quote]The first generation of Christians didn't see any need for a permanent written record of the sayings and stories of Jesus. Jesus' return and the restoration of the Kingdom of God on earth were imminent--why bother preserving stories if the world was about to end? Stories were simply passed along orally, primarily as a means of preaching and convincing outsiders. But as the first generation began to die off and hopes for the Second Coming dimmed, there was a need to preserve Jesus' words and deeds for posterity.[/quote]

oh my...theres your basis for tradition...and the basis for the Bible being the ultimate test for all doctrine...hmmm, interesting.

[quote]The road to canonization of the New Testament was quite a bit rockier and quite the reverse of the Old. What ended in orthodoxy actually had its roots in heresy. While the Jews examined books to see if they were consistent with the main religious text (the Torah), the early Christians engaged in a more fundamental argument about what constituted Christianity and especially about the nature of Christ. Judaism was a centuries-old ancient religion with clear traditions.  Christianity was new, had no tradition, and was torn with disagreement about what it was and what it should be.

The first officially sanctioned canon of the New Testament was attempted by Irenaeus of Lyon. Formalizing doctrinal authority seemed to be the answer. He felt there were two sources of authority: Scripture and the apostles. A work could be accepted as canonical if the early church fathers used it. He never really compiled a list of books, but he did establish the basis for subsequent determinations of orthodoxy.[/quote]

the apostles who were with Christ, and knew His teachings, not some assumed successor there of... and hmm, whats this? SCRIPTURE is put first? oh my. :0

I'll finish this later...gotta go play a softball game.

God bless.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='the lumberjack' date='Apr 22 2004, 02:20 PM']
oh my...theres your basis for tradition...and the basis for the Bible being the ultimate test for all doctrine...hmmm, interesting.




God bless. [/quote]
What the bible says about Tradition....

2 Timothy 3:14
But you, remain faithful to what you have learned and believed, [b]because you know from whom you learned it[/b],


2 Thess 2:15
Therefore, brothers, stand firm and [b]hold fast to the traditions that you were taught[/b], either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.

2 Tim 2:2
And [b]what you heard [/b]from me through many witnesses [b]entrust to faithful people[/b] who will have the ability to teach others as well.


Romans 10:17
Thus [b]faith comes from what is heard[/b], and what is heard comes through the word of Christ.


1 Peter 1:25
But the word of the Lord abides for ever.’ That word is the good news which was [b]preached to you[/b]


Ephesians 3:5
which was not made known to human beings in other generations as it has now [b]been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit[/b],


Ephesians 2:20
[b]built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the capstone[/b].

1 Corin 11:2
I praise you because you remember me in everything and[b] hold fast to the traditions[/b], just as I handed them on to you.

1 Corin 15:11
Therefore, whether it be I or they, [b]so we preach and so you believed[/b].


Acts 2:42
They devoted themselves to the teaching of the apostles and to the communal life, to the breaking of the bread and to the prayers.


Acts 8:31
He replied, "[b]How can I, unless someone instructs me?[/b]" So he invited Philip to get in and sit with him.




[quote]the apostles who were with Christ, and knew His teachings, not some assumed successor there of... and hmm, whats this?  SCRIPTURE is put first?  oh my. :0

I'll finish this later...gotta go play a softball game.[/quote]


That's wrong. I suggest you look it up on Britannica.com - I'll copy the premium article below.

Also, the ONLY Scripture at the time was the Septuagint (OT) until 400 AD, you've said so yourself... Why do you state points that contradict each other? What good is the New Testament if the Catholic Church did not have the authority by God to make it?

Only the Gospels were generally accepted in Irenaeus' time.

Here are a few quotes by the man - who was Catholic...

[b]Irenaeus[/b]
"As I said before, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although she is disseminated throughout the whole world, yet guarded it, as if she occupied but one house. She likewise believes these things just as if she had but one soul and one and the same heart; and harmoniously she proclaims them and teaches them and hands them down, as if she possessed but one mouth. For, while the languages of the world are diverse, nevertheless, the authority of the tradition is one and the same" (Against Heresies 1:10:2 [A.D. 189]).

"That is why it is surely necessary to avoid them [heretics], while cherishing with the utmost diligence the things pertaining to the Church, and to lay hold of the tradition of truth. . . . What if the apostles had not in fact left writings to us? Would it not be necessary to follow the order of tradition, which was handed down to those to whom they entrusted the churches?" (ibid., 3:4:1).

...

"It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors to our own times—men who neither knew nor taught anything like these heretics rave about.

"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles.

"With this church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree—that is, all the faithful in the whole world—and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (ibid., 3:3:1–2).



The idea of a complete and clear-cut canon of the New Testament existing from the beginning, that is from Apostolic times, has no foundation in history. The NT is a result of development. The Gospels have been accepted since about 130 AD, the other books and letters where what was in question...
Councils and People that were majorly involved in determining the New Testament Canon:[list]
[*]Council of the African Church held at Hippo (393 AD) - Roman Catholic Bishops
[*]Council of Carthage (397 AD) - Roman Catholic Bishops
[*]St. Augustine (354-430 AD) - Roman Catholic Bishop
[/list]
Athanasius first lists our present 27 New Testament books as such in 367. Disputes still persist concerning several books, almost right up until 397, when the Canon is authoritatively closed by the Council of Carthage with Pope Innocent I, approval. In 405 Pope Innocent I, sent the list of the Sacred Books to one of the bishops, Exsuperius of Toulouse.

The Catholic Bible was the Bible for ALL Christians until the sixteenth century, when the 'reformers' changed it.


Encyclopædia Britannica Article

The New Testament canon
Conditions aiding the formation of the canon
The New Testament consists of 27 books, which are the residue, or precipitate, out of many 1st–2nd-century-AD writings that Christian groups considered sacred. In these various writings the early church transmitted its traditions: its experience, understanding, and interpretation of Jesus as the Christ and the self-understanding of the church. In a seemingly circuitous interplay between the historical and theological processes, the church selected these 27 writings as normative for its life and teachings—i.e., as its canon (from the Greek kanon, literally, a reed or cane used as a measuring rod and, figuratively, a rule or standard). Other accounts, letters, and revelations—e.g., the Didache (Teaching of the Twelve Apostles), Gospel of Peter, First Letter of Clement, Letter of Barnabas, Apocalypse (Revelation) of Peter, Shepherd of Hermas—exist, but through a complex process the canon was fixed for both the Eastern and Western churches in the 4th century. The canon contained four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John), Acts, 21 letters, and one book of a strictly revelatory character, Revelation. These were not necessarily the oldest writings, not all equally revelatory, and not all directed to the church at large.

The Old Testament in its Greek translation, the Septuagint (LXX), was the Bible of the earliest Christians. The New Covenant, or Testament, was viewed as the fulfillment of the Old Testament promises of salvation that were continued for the new Israel, the church, through the Holy Spirit, which had come through Christ, upon the whole people of God. Thus, the Spirit, which in the Old Testament had been viewed as resting only on special charismatic figures, in the New Testament became “democratized”—i.e., was given to the whole people of the New Covenant. In postbiblical Judaism of the first Christian centuries, it was believed that the Spirit had ceased after the writing of the Book of Malachi (the last book of the Old Testament canon) and that no longer could anyone say “Thus saith the Lord,” as had the prophets, nor could any further holy writ be produced.

The descent of the Spirit on the community of the Messiah (i.e., the Christ) was thus perceived by Christians as a sign of the beginning of the age to come, and the church understood itself as having access to that inspiration through the Spirit. Having this understanding of itself, the church created the New Testament canon not only as a continuation and fulfillment of the Old Testament but also as qualitatively different, because a new age had been ushered in. These 27 books, therefore, were not merely appended to the traditional Jewish threefold division of the Old Testament—the Law (Torah), the Prophets (Nevi’im), and the Writings (Ketuvim)—but rather became the New Testament, the second part of the Christian Bible, of which the Old Testament is the first.

Because of a belief that something almost magical occurs—with an element of secrecy—when a transmitted oral tradition is put into writing, there was, in both the Old and New Testaments, an expression of reluctance about committing sacred material to writing. When such sacred writings are studied to find the revealed word of God, a settled delimiting of the writings—i.e., a canon—must be selected. In the last decade of the 1st century, the Synod of Jamnia (Jabneh), in Palestine, fixed the canon of the Bible for Judaism, which, following a long period of flux and fluidity and controversy about certain of its books, Christians came to call the Old Testament. A possible factor in the timing of this Jewish canon was a situation of crisis: the fall of Jerusalem and reaction to the fact that the Septuagint was used by Christians and to their advantage, as in the translation of the Hebrew word ‘alma (“young woman”) in chapter 7, verse 14, of Isaiah—“Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel”—into the Greek term parthenos (“virgin”).

As far as the New Testament is concerned, there could be no Bible without a church that created it; yet conversely, having been nurtured by the content of the writings themselves, the church selected the canon. The concept of inspiration was not decisive in the matter of demarcation because the church understood itself as having access to inspiration through the guidance of the Spirit. Indeed, until c. AD 150, Christians could produce writings either anonymously or pseudonymously—i.e., using the name of some acknowledged important biblical or apostolic figure. The practice was not believed to be either a trick or fraud. Apart from letters in which the person of the writer was clearly attested—as in those of Paul, which have distinctive historical, theological, and stylistic traits peculiar to Paul—the other writings placed their emphases on the message or revelation conveyed, and the author was considered to be only an instrument or witness to the Holy Spirit or the Lord. When the message was committed to writing, the instrument was considered irrelevant, because the true author was believed to be the Spirit. By the mid-2nd century, however, with the delay of the final coming (the Parousia) of the Messiah as the victorious eschatological (end-time) judge and with a resulting increased awareness of history, increasingly a distinction was made between the apostolic time and the present. There also was a gradual cessation of “authentically pseudonymous” writings in which the author could identify with Christ and the Apostles and thereby gain ecclesiastical recognition.


The process of canonization
The process of canonization was relatively long and remarkably flexible and detached; various books in use were recognized as inspired, but the Church Fathers noted, without embarrassment or criticism, how some held certain books to be canonical and others did not. Emerging Christianity assumed that through the Spirit the selection of canonical books was “certain” enough for the needs of the church. Inspiration, it is to be stressed, was neither a divisive nor a decisive criterion. Only when the canon had become self-evident was it argued that inspiration and canonicity coincided, and this coincidence became the presupposition of Protestant orthodoxy (e.g., the authority of the Bible through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit).



Roman Catholicism
Encyclopædia Britannica Article

About AD 95 Clement, bishop of Rome, in his letter to the church in Corinth ( First Letter of Clement ), expressed the view that bishops succeeded the Apostles.

originally titled Letter To The Church Of Corinth; also called I Clement, a letter to the Christian Church in Corinth from the church of Rome, traditionally ascribed to and almost certainly written by St. Clement I of Rome, c. AD 96. It is extant in a 2nd-century Latin translation, which is possibly the oldest surviving Latin Christian work. Regarded as scripture by many 3rd- and 4th-century Christians, it was transmitted in manuscripts with a sermon known as the Second Letter of Clement, written c. 125-140 by an unknown author.

Concerned about a dispute in the Corinthian Church in which younger members had deposed older men from the ministry, the letter opposed the deposition and discussed the orders of the ministry, which it asserted were established by the Apostles and were the will of God. The First Letter of Clement was an important influence on the development in the church of the episcopal orders of the ministry (bishops, priests, deacons), and it has been used to support the doctrine of the apostolic succession, according to which bishops represent a direct, unbroken line of succession from the Apostles.



The idea of apostolic succession appears in the writings of Irenaeus, a Church Father who died about 202. Against the Gnostics (dualistic sects that maintained that salvation is not from faith but from some esoteric knowledge) Irenaeus urged that the Catholic teaching was verified because a continuous succession of teachers, beginning with the Apostles, could be demonstrated. In the 3rd and 4th centuries problems of schism within churches were resolved by appealing to the power of orders (i.e., the powers a person has by reason of his ordination either as deacon, priest, or bishop) transmitted by the imposition of hands through a chain from the Apostles. Orders in turn empowered the subject to receive the power of jurisdiction (i.e., the powers an ordained person has by reason of his office). In disputes between Rome and the Eastern churches the idea of apostolic succession was centred in the Roman pontiff, the successor of Peter; it will be observed that this goes beyond the idea of collegial succession. Apostolic authority is defined as the power to teach, to administer the sacraments, and to rule the church. Apostolic succession in the Roman Catholic understanding is validated only by the recognition of the Roman pontiff; and the Roman Catholic Church understands the designation "apostolic" in the creed as referring to this threefold power under the primacy of the Roman pontiff.

The idea of apostolic succession appears in the writings of Irenaeus, a Church Father who died about 202. Against the Gnostics (dualistic sects that maintained that salvation is not from faith but from some esoteric knowledge) Irenaeus urged that the Catholic teaching was verified because a continuous succession of teachers, beginning with the Apostles, could be demonstrated. In the 3rd and 4th centuries problems of schism within churches were resolved by appealing to the power of orders (i.e., the powers a person has by reason of his ordination either as deacon, priest, or bishop) transmitted by the imposition of hands through a chain from the Apostles. Orders in turn empowered the subject to receive the power of jurisdiction (i.e., the powers an ordained person has by reason of his office). In disputes between Rome and the Eastern churches the idea of apostolic succession was centred in the Roman pontiff, the successor of Peter; it will be observed that this goes beyond the idea of collegial succession. Apostolic authority is defined as the power to teach, to administer the sacraments, and to rule the church. Apostolic succession in the Roman Catholic understanding is validated only by the recognition of the Roman pontiff; and the Roman Catholic Church understands the designation "apostolic" in the creed as referring to this threefold power under the primacy of the Roman pontiff.





If you reply, and want a reply back from me, refute what I have here with historical evidence and scripture. Otherwise, I will only correct errors that I see for the benefit of others.

Do you wish to dialog or monolog?


God Bless,
ironmonk