Succession Of Lies

[reyb]

[quote name='Groo the Wanderer' timestamp='1335923829' post='2425882']
St. Paul was a Catholic bishop. He ordained St. Timothy for one.



Oh that's right. You want to see the video of the ordination Mass as proof.
[/quote]


Of course, according to Irenaeus Apostle Paul is one with you (orthodox Christians) while to Valentinus Apostle Paul is also a Gnostic . It is really very funny they never asked Apostle Paul himself thru his letters.

(Please see [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism_and_the_New_Testament"]http://en.wikipedia....e_New_Testament[/url]).

[b]Paul and the early church[/b]

The continual growth of Gnostic followings throughout the 2nd century troubled proto-orthodox Christians. To refute it [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irenaeus"]Irenaeus[/url] wrote a vast five-volume book (On the Detection and Overthrow of the So-Called Gnosis commonly referred to as [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Detection_and_Overthrow_of_the_So-Called_Gnosis"]Against Heresies[/url]). The significance of Paul's influence was sufficient for Irenaeus to consider it important to proclaim that Paul was never gnostic and never supported gnostic teachings, using the evidence of the Pastoral epistles and the Gospel of John to support it.

Despite Irenaeus' claims for Paul's non gnosticism, [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valentinius"]Valentinus[/url], the leader of a large faction of gnostics, claimed that Paul had initiated his own teacher [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theudas_(teacher_of_Valentinius)"]Theudas[/url] into the Deeper Mysteries of Christianity, which revealed a secret gnostic doctrine of God
------------------------
To me, Apostle Paul is neither of the two.

Let us discuss this in other topic.

Edited May 2, 2012 by reyb

[reyb]

[quote name='mortify' timestamp='1335925982' post='2425902']
In other words, the Son of God never incarnated. He never walked the earth, never tought apostles, and never suffered on the cross. You must also believe that the Bible we have in our hand is corrupted.

Please let me know if I am wrong here
[/quote]


I never arrived to a conclusion that the message of the books on the bible is corrupted although there are variations in its translation, which seems purposely fitted to whatever the translator wishes to show. Your Church’s intention is obvious on how this bible was organized and compiled because Catholics arranged this book in order to justify the truthfulness of their claim that ‘the day of the lord has already come’.

[indent=1](please see [url="http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/bibleorigin.html"]http://www.godandsci...ibleorigin.html[/url])[/indent]

[indent=1]The Early church had three criteria for determining what books were to be included or excluded from the [i]Canon of the New Testament[/i].[/indent]

[indent=1]First, the books must have [i]apostolic authority[/i]-- that is, they must have been written either by the [i]apostles themselves[/i], who were eyewitnesses to what they wrote about, or by [i]associates of the apostles[/i].[/indent]

[indent=1]Second, there was the criterion of [i]conformity to what was called the "rule of faith."[/i] In other words, was the document congruent with the basic Christian tradition that the church recognized as normative.[/indent]

[indent=1]Third, there was the criterion of whether a document had enjoyed [i]continuous acceptance and usage[/i] by the church at large.[/indent]

[indent=1](From History of the Bible: How The Bible Came To Us
by [url="http://www.godandscience.org/formmail12.html"]Wesley Ringer[/url])[/indent]

So, from the above manner in choosing among many letters, books or whatever (which are all considered sacred during that time), Catholic’s intention is clear. They are already showing and sharing that the day of the lord has already come notwithstanding the fact that this ‘realization of the coming of the Messiah named Jesus’ is just a belief and not truths in our world of physical realities. It has been recorded that your early fathers did it in opposition to the canon of Marcion.

[indent=1]After Marcion, Christians began to divide texts into those that aligned well with the "canon" (measuring stick) of accepted theological thought and those that promoted heresy. This played a major role in finalizing the structure of the collection of works called the Bible. It has been proposed that the initial impetus for the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-orthodox_Christianity"]proto-orthodox Christian[/url] project of canonization flowed from opposition to the canonization of Marcion.[17][/indent]

[indent=1](from [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon"]http://en.wikipedia..../Biblical_canon[/url]).[/indent]

Now, although the intention of the organizer and translator of this bible is tainted in favoring their own pre-conceived belief nevertheless, the message of each book in this bible is the same. It is about The Christ of God. And since only God can reveal Him, it is therefore immaterial whether they organized, arranged or compiled these books in accordance with their own belief. It is just the same, God will reveal to you his Christ thru these sacred books.

What I mean is this: Even if you are holding just one book for example, the book of Genesis, you can still see Christ because if you really know who said ‘Let us make man in our own image and our own likeness’. You should know him who speaks of this 'covenant' thru Christ.

Edited May 3, 2012 by reyb

[Nola Seminarian]

[quote name='reyb' timestamp='1334726927' post='2420058']
My intention in posting this letter is to inform all Christians especially deeply devoted Catholics like priest and bishops that you are in the wrong side of the fence and looking at the opposite direction to see Christ. Whether you believe me or not, or whatever you might think of me, is not my concern anymore. Since I am very tired of committing sins against my God for not doing things I know I must do. I am now discharging my responsibilities to you and I do not want to be blamed by anyone not even by me for being apathetic and unmoved towards you. I am not lying. God is my witness. When you closed your eyes. You will be restless forever if you do not learn to seek him now since his judgment has already been given when He said, ‘So I declared on oath [b]in[/b] [b]my[/b] [b]anger[/b], ‘They shall never enter [b]my[/b] rest.’. Your offerings are to demons because you let yourself be deceived rather than to seek and find Him. After you hear me, your doings are no longer unintentional and having any excuses in front of the Judgment seat of God.

Not too long ago, the writer of Second Thessalonians warn his listeners - including you - from a teaching supposedly comes from them in a form of prophecies, letters or word of mouth saying that the Christ has already come. This teaching, which you now wholeheartedly accepted, is the one you called ‘orally transmitted tradition’ of the early Catholics using the Book of Luke as one of their sources. They warned you not to accept it because it will lead you to lies and deception.

Early Catholics (and even today) erroneously understood Luke. They thought he is informing the world that the prophesied Christ has already come. Luke is not and was not declaring the fulfillment of Jewish prophesies about the coming of Christ because the Jewish prophesies about this coming is an erroneous interpretation to the book of Moses. Luke’s testimony is not a historical reality or true to life story and therefore all key figures in that story like Jesus, Mary and Peter do not exist in our world or physical realities. The Book of Luke is just a story. He makes a story about the mystery of the Coming of Christ in a form of reality. He gives it to us so that we will seek and find Christ in heavens although the seeker is still here on earth. That is the Christ he saw and all witnesses have seen from the beginning of time.


1. This orally transmitted tradition is a lie from the very beginning.
[/quote]

ok so is your basic presupposition that St. Luke's Account of the Gospel is straw for the burning because he did not meet Jesus?

Edited May 3, 2012 by Nola Seminarian

[reyb]

[quote name='Nola Seminarian' timestamp='1336020483' post='2426430']
ok so is your basic presupposition that St. Luke's Account of the Gospel is straw for the burning because he did not meet Jesus?
[/quote]

To Catholics, Luke is not a witness of Christ but to me, he is a true witness. Please read my previous post.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='reyb' timestamp='1336051077' post='2426493']
To Catholics, Luke is not a witness of Christ but to me, he is a true witness. Please read my previous post.
[/quote]

wrong. You don't need to see Jesus to be his witness. Luke saw Paul who saw Christ. Luke saw Mary who bore Christ.

[reyb]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' timestamp='1336057616' post='2426511']
wrong. You don't need to see Jesus to be his witness. Luke saw Paul who saw Christ. Luke saw Mary who bore Christ.
[/quote]


[color=#000000]Are you saying Luke become a witness of Jesus Christ (although he did not see Jesus) because he is a follower of Paul? How about other followers of Paul like Theudas (Please see [/color][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theudas"][color=#000000]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theudas[/color][/url][color=#000000]) Or Linus (see [/color][url="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Timothy+4:21&version=NIV"][color=#000000][b]2 Timothy 4:21[/b][/color][/url][color=#000000])? Do you consider them witnesses of Jesus Christ too?[/color]

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='Basilisa Marie' timestamp='1335928986' post='2425926']
There's a big difference between Muslims giving their lives and Christians giving their lives. Early Christians were told, "Convert or die, or better yet we'll torture your kids in front of you." Muslims committed acts of war on people in the name of the faith. See the difference?

[/quote]
Reyb fails to get the connection between laying down your life for love (God) and laying it down for evil (satan).

[thessalonian]

[quote name='reyb' timestamp='1336051077' post='2426493']
To Catholics, Luke is not a witness of Christ but to me, he is a true witness. Please read my previous post.
[/quote]
[b] [url="http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/r/rsv/rsv-idx?type=DIV2&byte=5416666"]2Tim.2[/url][/b]
[list=1]
[*][[b]2[/b]] and what you have heard from me before many[b] witness[/b]es entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.
[/list]
Luke is a witness of this type. He heard from Paul and passed it along. Mark also is a witness of this type who heard from Peter. They wrote down what they gathered from Peter and Paul. Why is that difficult to understand. They heard the word of God and wrote it down. Non-catholics have this idea that everything happened so miraculously. God is at work in the ordinary. Luke and Mark didn't have to see visions and dream dreams. They saw God in the Apostles.

[thessalonian]

Reyb

By the way one does not have to have written scripture to be a witness or to have spoken the word of God. Very few apostles wrote scripture. Were there words any less the Word of God when they told stories of Christ's life and spread the gospel? Were they lesser apostles because they did not write scripture like Mathew, John, Peter, Paul ....???

Edited May 3, 2012 by thessalonian

[Groo the Wanderer]

I find it incredibly odd Reyb, that you are so willing to discount the writings of those that were there in the beginning and for the next 2000 years, yet you display unshakable faith in Wikipedia.

Catholic Church - 2000 years of history, wisdom, knowledge. Unbroken line of succession. Same teachings then as now.
Wiki - around less than 20 years. Multiple entries containing false information. Editable by anyone. Banned by most colleges as a research tool.


your call....

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' timestamp='1336057616' post='2426511']
wrong. You don't need to see Jesus to be his witness. Luke saw Paul who saw Christ. Luke saw Mary who bore Christ.
[/quote]
Just askin' but if Luke wasn't a direct witness, how come he was the only one to tell of the 'good thief'? Where did Luke obtain this testimony? Anybody have any reason as to why the others ommitted such an important lesson? Possibly one of the most important!

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='Groo the Wanderer' timestamp='1336087078' post='2426684']
I find it incredibly odd Reyb, that you are so willing to discount the writings of those that were there in the beginning and for the next 2000 years, yet you display unshakable faith in Wikipedia.

Catholic Church - 2000 years of history, wisdom, knowledge. Unbroken line of succession. Same teachings then as now.
Wiki - around less than 20 years. Multiple entries containing false information. Editable by anyone. Banned by most colleges as a research tool.


your call....
[/quote]
I hate to state the obvious but after all these years of discussion with Reyb, I'm sorry to say yer all wastin' yer time. He is fixated on his own opinions.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1336087261' post='2426687']

Just askin' but if Luke wasn't a direct witness, how come he was the only one to tell of the 'good thief'? Where did Luke obtain this testimony? Anybody have any reason as to why the others ommitted such an important lesson? Possibly one of the most important!
[/quote]

Divine Revelation. This is how Moses could write of Noah and the flood never having actually witnessed the events.

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1336088353' post='2426699']
Divine Revelation. This is how Moses could write of Noah and the flood never having actually witnessed the events.
[/quote]
And the other three?

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1336088353' post='2426699']
Divine Revelation. This is how Moses could write of Noah and the flood never having actually witnessed the events.
[/quote]
I agree in principle that a person can be a witness by divine revelation. St Paul for example. However for the sake of discussion with sceptics we really need more earthly evidence.