Dave Posted January 25, 2004 Share Posted January 25, 2004 You do realize that is spoken to the apostles, and not promised to the church. The apostles comprised the first hierarchy of the Church, with Peter as the first Pope. So yes, it applies to the whole Church. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TABBY Posted January 25, 2004 Share Posted January 25, 2004 (edited) did you look at any of them? None of them say the church will be led into the full truth. I suggest you check up on your sources before posting in the future. I sure did. For example.. Acts 9:2; 22:4; 24:14,22 - "and asked him for letters to the synagogues at Damascus, so that if he found any belonging to the Way, men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem.", "I persecuted this Way to the death, binding and delivering to prison both men and women,", "But this I confess to you, that according to the Way, which they call a sect, I worship the God of our fathers, believing everything laid down by the Law and written in the Prophets, But Felix, having a rather accurate knowledge of the Way, put them off, saying, "When Lysias the tribune comes down, I will decide your case." - these have nothing to do with what you said. or.... The Church is being identified as the "way" spoken in Isaiah 35:8 Matt 10:20; Lk 12:12 "For it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you.", "for the Holy Spirit will teach you in that very hour what you ought to say." which is Christ speaking to the apostles about being able to have a defense for themselves. I think you are forgetting who the apostles are.... interesting. what is the NDE and ECF? NDE= Near death experience ECF= Early Church Fathers. You do realize that is spoken to the apostles, and not promised to the church. Who do you think the apostles were? The apostles were part of the Church. Edited January 25, 2004 by TABBY Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phatcatholic Posted January 25, 2004 Author Share Posted January 25, 2004 Can you not find information that is not written by Catholic, that will back up you case if not, I will not reply to your posting. I don't remember give you permission to call me anything by truth. You don't know me or my name. thank you. first off, i do know ur name b/c u emailed me privately. secondly, sorry bro, but its just hard for me to call you "truth" b/c i don't think u have it. thirdly, when i do speak of "truth" i want it to be clear that i'm speaking about Truth (w/ a capital T, ya know, that objective Truth that we must all live by) and not about a person. and ur answer reveals to me that u did not take a look at a one of those links. if u did, u would see that it doesn't matter what site i got the info from. these are quotes taken straight out of the works that these people wrote. every single quotation is referenced. walk into the most protestant, anti-catholic library you can possibly find, and if they have a reference section for the Church Fathers, u will still find the very quotations i have provided for you. ya know that big Protestant CD about the Church Fathers that ironmonk always talks about? i bet all that info is in there too. so, ur plea that all this info comes from catholic sources holds no weight, has nothing to do w/ the info i have provided for you, is groundless, holds no merit, and still leaves you w/o an adequate reply. read the info, Larry. do your homework. the burden of proof is on you. Good Luck and God Bless You in your search for Truth, phatcatholic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laudate_Dominum Posted January 25, 2004 Share Posted January 25, 2004 That is assuming that those who wrote the New Testament were part of this institution. Why don't you find it odd most of your beliefs are seen in church father's writings but not Scripture? You would think the apostles would know what is important and what isn't. Circle, Dude, of course the NT writers were part of this institution. Read Eusebius or something if you haven't already. Also the Apostles taught by letter and by word of mouth and passed on the basic structures, practices and beliefs of the Church. When Paul was writing his letters he was writing to particular people and communities and I'm sure he did not have it in mind that he was writing Scripture so why would he have been thinking "hmm, I'd better get everything in there since in 1500 years some guys will break away from the Church and try to interpret what I'm writing against the Church". When the Early Church discussed the canon and when the councils of Hippo and Carthage ruled on the canon they did so on the basis of the Sacred Tradition of the Church. You can read the acts of these councils, I've seen them and read parts of them. It was easy for the four Gospels because the Tradition was pretty unanimous regarding them, but with the other books practices varied from region to region so the main rule for determining the canonicity was Sacred Tradition. The reason we know that the books they included and the books that were excluded are Divinely inspired and Scriptural is because the Christ given authority of the Church, perpetuated by the laying on of hands to the successors of the Apostles is guarded and guided by the Holy Spirit when speaking in an official capacity on matters of faith and morals. Protestants do not have a basis for the authority of the Canon, that's why guys like Truth (Larry?) can refer to things like the apocryphal book of Enoch as if it's Scripture. And Martin Luther had no authority to revise the Canon. It's too bad that people of the protestant tradition (a tradition of men) have been gyped in this regard. Peace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phatcatholic Posted January 26, 2004 Author Share Posted January 26, 2004 larry ("truth"), i eagerly await ur reply to my most recent post. holla back, phatcatholic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TABBY Posted January 26, 2004 Share Posted January 26, 2004 larry ("truth"), i eagerly await ur reply to my most recent post. holla back, phatcatholic wait, he hasnt even replied to mine yet. Where did he go anyways? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muschi Posted January 26, 2004 Share Posted January 26, 2004 "Truth"- Would you be interested in learning about materials from Protestants who have converted to the Catholic faith including one who did a study on the history of the Bible? I can even provide you with names of those who were once Catholic, left the Church for Protestantism and later came back. Would any of that interest you? Don't feel like you are being picked on please! That is not the goal of this phorum in any way. We just happen to feel just as strongly about our faith as you do about yours. The most important thing will be this; Can we discuss our differences without forgetting what we have in common.....yes, we DO hold some things in common, without hostility or rancor? I look foward to hearing from you. God bless you, my friend! - Muschi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Truth Posted January 26, 2004 Share Posted January 26, 2004 If you are going to attack mary, LEAVE... If you dont believe in the extreme importance of mary (that should be, but isnt) in ALL Christian faith, then look at the wedding feast at cana (for starters). Mary directed her Son, the Son of God, to do things, namely the water into wine... If Jesus had enough respect for his mother to follow her directives, how much more should be respect his mother? Even at the crucifixion, Jesus tells Mary to behold her son, and john to behold his mother... Jesus gave Mary the Chruch, and gave the church, mary to be their mother... Why do you guy say things like this. Christ gave Mary John not the church, and John to Mary because he was his beloved. He was to care for her as if she was his mother. Mary was to depend on him as if he was her son. This was common practice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Truth Posted January 26, 2004 Share Posted January 26, 2004 You do realize that is spoken to the apostles, and not promised to the church. The apostles comprised the first hierarchy of the Church, with Peter as the first Pope. So yes, it applies to the whole Church. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Truth Posted January 26, 2004 Share Posted January 26, 2004 first off, i do know ur name b/c u emailed me privately. secondly, sorry bro, but its just hard for me to call you "truth" b/c i don't think u have it. thirdly, when i do speak of "truth" i want it to be clear that i'm speaking about Truth (w/ a capital T, ya know, that objective Truth that we must all live by) and not about a person. and ur answer reveals to me that u did not take a look at a one of those links. if u did, u would see that it doesn't matter what site i got the info from. these are quotes taken straight out of the works that these people wrote. every single quotation is referenced. walk into the most protestant, anti-catholic library you can possibly find, and if they have a reference section for the Church Fathers, u will still find the very quotations i have provided for you. ya know that big Protestant CD about the Church Fathers that ironmonk always talks about? i bet all that info is in there too. so, ur plea that all this info comes from catholic sources holds no weight, has nothing to do w/ the info i have provided for you, is groundless, holds no merit, and still leaves you w/o an adequate reply. read the info, Larry. do your homework. the burden of proof is on you. Good Luck and God Bless You in your search for Truth, phatcatholic I am sorry than if I emailed you and gave you my name. Back to your sources, it would not make it true because some Catholic wrote it 5 years or 2000 years ago. It is still Catholic directed at Catholic. If you in context of the scripture show me the same thing I will take it as truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatholicAndFanatical Posted January 26, 2004 Share Posted January 26, 2004 Why do you guy say things like this. Christ gave Mary John not the church, and John to Mary because he was his beloved. He was to care for her as if she was his mother. Mary was to depend on him as if he was her son. This was common practice. Because John Represents the Church. Always has always will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phatcatholic Posted January 26, 2004 Author Share Posted January 26, 2004 it would not make it true because some Catholic wrote it 5 years or 2000 years ago. It is still Catholic directed at Catholic. If you in context of the scripture show me the same thing I will take it as truth. my whole point is that the early Church is the Catholic Church. so, if you are saying here that the quotes i provided come from Catholics, then you have basically just proven my point (i bet even Circle would admit that this is a blunder on ur part). look at what we have established: --i gave you some of the earliest recorded testimony from Christians in the early Church. --they have the same beliefs that Catholics today have. --you essentially admitted that the early Christians i quoted were Catholic --therefore, both from your point-of-view and mine, the early Church was the Catholic Church. enough said. Good Luck and God Bless You in your search for Truth, phatcatholic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatholicAndFanatical Posted January 26, 2004 Share Posted January 26, 2004 Back to your sources, it would not make it true because some Catholic wrote it 5 years or 2000 years ago. It is still Catholic directed at Catholic. If you in context of the scripture show me the same thing I will take it as truth. We'd be happy to give Non-Catholic sources from 100AD...if there was such a thing. I can show you Catholic Church Fathers from 80AD to Today. Can you show me Non-Catholic Fathers from that early on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatholicAndFanatical Posted January 26, 2004 Share Posted January 26, 2004 bump Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TABBY Posted January 26, 2004 Share Posted January 26, 2004 (edited) Truth, where are you? Why do you do this every time? It would be better if you just said, "I dont know the answer" than just ignore it and have us waiting. you say you have "proof" but never provide. You have told us on other threads, that you will present these proofs, but fail to do so. People has been asking you questions but yet you fail to answer them. Why? Do you not know this is a debate on evidence and not opionions? Opionions is not facts. you have people waiting for your reply. Either give out your evidence, or just say, "I dont know"....at least say something instead of have us waiting. Edited January 26, 2004 by TABBY Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now