Scriptur-a-o Versions 0-1-2-3

[Circle_Master]

Actually, even Paul, though commissioned by Christ himself, went to the Church (Peter and the Apostels) to affirm his Apostleship.

to affirm - not to receive. You just admitted he was commissioned by Christ himself - point closed.

That is akin to asking why Peter "stood up among the 11", and why Jesus gave HIM the keys to the kingdom, when he had denied Jesus 3 times and cut a highpriests hear off.  Why wouldn't Jesus have chosen John to begin with; the desciple that Jesus loved?

What does love have to do with chosing. Peter is the one who said "You are the Christ". We are all loved by God - Peter was given the proclamation from God, thus Jesus gave him the keys of heaven so he could bring people... 'manually' into the church. Like you see in Acts with the Samarians receiving the Holy Spirit after they believed. Could you imagine the confusion if the Samarians got the Spirit without going through the Jews of Israel? They have been at extreme odds at each other since the return from Babylon - would have immediately started their own church and said the Jews were wrong.

The fact is, the Pope, the leader of the Church, and prime pontif, is chose as the Successor to Peter not on prior "experience", but on who the Holy Spirit wishes it to be.

See, if John had filled Peters spot as the Pope, then who would have succeded John?  It would have to have been someone?  But the Spirit didn't wish John to lead the Apostles upon the death of Peter.

The fact is, Pope, was never used until after the 5th century.

[Jake Huether]

The fact is, Pope, was never used until after the 5th century.

You got us on that one. Pope is an English word. It would have been the Greek equivelant.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

[Jake Huether]

to affirm - not to receive. You just admitted he was commissioned by Christ himself - point closed.

What point. We believe all Popes / Bishops / Priests are commissioned by Christ, but affirmed by the Church.

Not closed... Bishops don't select the Pope, Christ does. They affirm.

Successors weren't chosen by the Church. They were affirmed by the Church, called by God.

My brain hurts at this point in time, and I must be leaving work (i.e the computer).

Have fun.

[Circle_Master]

You got us on that one. Pope is an English word. It would have been the Greek equivelant.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

cya later Jake - good talking

Gregory the Great 590-604 is the first church father to accept the title of Pope. All writings of 'a pope' spring after his time. That is my point. It is not existant before then. I know pope is english - whatever the latin equivalent is was first given to him.

[Mary's Knight, La]

circle,

pope comes from the latin word for father so now if you really want to argue your point you would have to say he refused to be called father while he was a priest as well as that all those appointed and affirmed to lead the church before him never accepted any title similar to father or paternal figure... and pope is just a name for the office, you have not proven that the office was non-existant. the title could have been "grand royal pumbah who resembles a purple polka-dotted elephant" but "pope" isn't nearly as much as a mouthful and much closer to the function of the office.

[Circle_Master]

then it was not the word - but the office as head of the entire church. my apologies.

[Anna]

Hi Bruce...

Just wondering,

Do you have any kids?

I do. And I have grandkids, too.

And I've loved my kids from the moment I learned that God had given them to me, even before they were born.

I've loved them when they were sick, loved them when they did well in school, loved listening to them sing and practice musical instruments, and playing sports...

And loved them when they got into trouble.

My love has never changed.

My love developed over time though.

The love that I had when I was expecting my first child has expanded and developed over the past near quarter century.

It's the same love, but it's even deeper now. Now we're both adults. We're both mothers. We love at a new level...

This is how the Church is.

Her Teachings haven't CHANGED. She didn't for instance, teach ten commandments, then increase it to twelve, or reduce it to five.

She didn't cast out seven books from Scripture after 1200 years.

She didn't suddenly stop midstream, and go, "wait, that's wrong, let's believe THIS way now." Contrary to your thinking.

Modes of worship, singing, praising may have evolved and developed, because people change and cultures change.

But the WORSHIP we give to God has not changed.

The devotion we show to the Church Christ established has not changed.

The submission to the Authority Christ instituted has not changed.

Our adherence to the Scriptures, the OT books She preserved and NT books She wrote, has not changed.

And the Sacred Traditions observed by the Apostles are still observed by us today.

I loved my baby 25 years ago.

I love all my babies today...and grandbabies.

Christ established a Church in 33 AD.

He instituted a leader for that Church, and ordained His Apostles into a holy priesthood.

That Church still stands today...with many saints added to its numbers.

The Truth it possessed in 33 AD is still as pure, and even more clear, now, in 2004 AD.

Pax Christi. <><

[Bruce S]

The Truth it possessed in 33 AD is still as pure, and even more clear, now, in 2004 AD.

We agree.

Absolutely.

The TRUTH it possesed in 33 is pure and right.

See.

That was simple.

[jasJis]

We agree.

Absolutely.

The TRUTH it possesed in 33 is pure and right.

See.

That was simple.

Twisty Boy. You've put more twists in what she said than the circus :clown: puts in a ballon hat.

I see how you mis-spoke of her post and left out the key point of her statement that the Church possesed the TRUTH, then, and now.

Bruce, where did the City on the Hill hide? :leave:

[cmotherofpirl]

incorrect - when they drew lots it was before the Holy Spirit came - thus before the Church began.

The last inspired book was in the 90's by John. The earliest canon we have is from 85 - the Muratorian fragment. Check this out for a list of the earliest church fathers - not yours from 400 a.d. and on. http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon3.html The Word of God has always been refered to as Scripture in the bible. Except for when it was Jesus - that was the true voice. The Word of the Lord shall stand forever in Isaiah - referring to Scripture (must, they got an oral law like your apostolic tradition, however that was seen to be wrong, Jesus said so)

Scripture was never added to after the Council of Carthage and the Catholic Church said that was what it would agree with. That was a good 300 years however after the last Scripture was written - not a very good testimony there. And your second line - prove it. There is one verse similar - it was written to the Apostles though - not the church.

This is productive - thanks.

This is incorrect - those who are involved in the study of hermeneutics will study based on the original texts in hebrew and greek - not on the interpretations. Only the extremely lazy student doesn't go to primary or secondary sources

THe early Church was also using books like the shepard of Hermes, the letters of clement, and several other documents before the church defined what would be considered scripture.

[Winchester]

Brucey,

So your theses (and what does that rhyme with, children?) fit in with the Bible being assembled by an outside authority how? I mean, historical fact demands that a governing body of men (as a Catholic, I believe they were led by GOd, not acting solely on their human merits) determined what of the many scriptures being read would actually be considered canonical.

Interesting question: Which Bible do you use?