I started a new thread because the other two are getting voluminous and WAY off topic.

Faith, you are dead wrong concerning the "oneness of the Church." Your opinion that every church was autonomous just ain't so. I chose three out of many quotes I could have used to debunk your claim.

"Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere." Irenaeus,Against Heresies,3:3:2 (A.D. 180),in ANF,I:1415-416

"A question of no small importance arose at that time. For the parishes of all Asia, as from an older tradition, held that the fourteenth day of the moon, on which day the Jews were commanded to sacrifice the lamb, should be observed as the feast of the Saviour's passover. It was therefore necessary to end their fast on that day, whatever day of the week it should happen to be. But it was not the custom of the churches in the rest of the world to end it at this time, as they observed the practice which, from apostolic tradition, has prevailed to the present time, of terminating the fast on no other day than on that of the resurrection of our Saviour...Thereupon Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia, with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox; and he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate.But this did not please all the bishops. And they besought him to consider the things of peace, and of neighborly unity and love. Words of theirs are extant, sharply rebuking Victor. Among them was Irenaeus, who, sending letters in the name of the brethren in Gaul over whom he presided, maintained that the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord should be observed only on the Lord's day. He fittingly admonishes Victor that he should not cut off whole churches of God which observed the tradition of an ancient custom ..." Pope Victor & Easter(c.A.D. 195),Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History 5:23,24,in NPNF2,I:241-243

"And he says to him again after the resurrection, 'Feed my sheep.' It is on him that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church's) oneness. No doubt the others were all that Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, and it is (thus) made clear that there is but one flock which is to be fed by all the apostles in common accord. If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church? This unity firmly should we hold and maintain, especially we bishops, presiding in the Church, in order that we may approve the episcopate itself to be the one and undivided." Cyprian,The Unity of the Church,4-5 (Primacy Text,A.D. 251/256),NE,228-229

********

I would really like to know how you can possibly jive these quotes of HISTORICAL RECORD with your notion of autonomy . . . ?

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), July 06, 2004

Answers

To the top please.

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), July 06, 2004.

What are the questions directed towards me?

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 06, 2004.

Gail--

If you could quote Scripture that says that we have to follow Rome--I would listen...

But even these early church fathers are unaware of Roman Catholicism as it exists since the time of Constatine...

I don't disagree that we need to follow the apostolic teachings that came from Peter and Paul.

I just disgree that Roman Catholicism is the by-product of those great God-inspired men.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), July 06, 2004.

Faith,

First of all, if that were the case, i.e., that the Church was "hijacked by a bunch of Catholics," there would be evidence of that in the writings of the fathers. THERE IS NONE! All you have to support your claim are allegations by anti-Catholic maniacs. THAT IS IT! Out of all of the historical records we have, including the councils themselves, there is NOTHING written about those apostate Catholics taking over the Church!!!

Secondly, you made a claim on the other thread that the early church was comprised of many autonomous churches and that no one had authority over them.

Can you tell me, from reading the above, whether it appears as if the Church, 1st, 2nd, 3rd centuries, had a governing central hierarchy?

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), July 06, 2004.

Gail, Was Vatican II an infallible council?

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 06, 2004.

Gail--

Just look into the New Testament.

Show me one example where any one church governed another...

Also., I never said anything about a hijack.

Clearly the churches just grew and developed and eventually one got power hungry....making claims and forcing other churches to go along with them. It was never a good thing, not from the very begining.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), July 06, 2004.

Faith,

The first council was the Council of Jerusalem. That council made determinations. The apostles and elders, after discussion, set forth decrees that were binding on all the faithful. Those scriptures were discussed on another thread. I don't think I need to post them here again.

The above quotes make it quite clear that the hierarchy begun at Pentecost was carried on through the 1st, 2nd and 3rd centuries.

Can you see from the above quotes that there was an governmental hierarchy over the Church?

Gail

P.S. David, can we just stick to this issue for now? We aren't talking about the infallibility of the Vatican II. Perhaps another thread . . .?

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), July 06, 2004.

Yes Gail, I moved it to the Is Mary Virgin after Jesus? thread.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 06, 2004.

Please Gail..,

I want you to cite the Scripture that supports your claim.

It is very simple.

Show me book, chapter and verse from the New Testament where God established an hierarchy to govern all local churches., and show me these churches fully recognizing Rome as their Mother Church.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), July 06, 2004.

Faith,

Scripture calls for deacons, bishops, presbyters. You claim that your church uses this model for itself. That's great. My Church uses that as it's role model also. I have merely shown that this role model, or Church hierarchy of bishops, deacons etc. exceeded the time of the apostles and flourished. It was consistently ONE unit, as is evidenced by the quotes I have provided.

There was no such thing as a Baptist Church with its set of doctrines; no such thing as a Methodist Church with its different set of doctrines; no such thing as Assemblies of God with its set of beliefs. THERE WAS ONE CHURCH. When there was a problem they all came together as a council and hammered at the issue as they did at the Council of Nicea in response to the Arian heresy.

Your challenge to me that I find a scripture that prophesies all that was-to-be is ridiculous. Christ established a Church and gave that Church authority to govern. He expected His people to remain in that Church.

Gail

P.S. "What, has Christ been divided?" "Some say I am of Apollos, I am of Peter" And even "I am of Jesus." Yet you say that is precisely what Christ established . . . DIVISION!

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), July 06, 2004.

Gail--

You said:

Faith, Scripture calls for deacons, bishops, presbyters. You claim that your church uses this model for itself. That's great. My Church uses that as it's role model also. I have merely shown that this role model, or Church hierarchy of bishops, deacons etc. exceeded the time of the apostles and flourished. It was consistently ONE unit, as is evidenced by the quotes I have provided.

But., it was a local thing.., and no one church had to answer to another, Gail. And that is what many protestant churches have returned to--they have left the rule of Rome in their wake....

When do you suppose that Rome began ruling all the other churches-- and do you think they did so without a fight??

There was no such thing as a Baptist Church with its set of doctrines; no such thing as a Methodist Church with its different set of doctrines; no such thing as Assemblies of God with its set of beliefs.

There was also no such thing as the Roman Catholic Church either, Gail.

THERE WAS ONE CHURCH. When there was a problem they all came together as a council and hammered at the issue as they did at the Council of Nicea in response to the Arian heresy.

That does not show that that is what Christ established or the apostles intended. Please show the New Testament examples of the churches functioning like that.

Your challenge to me that I find a scripture that prophesies all that was-to-be is ridiculous. Christ established a Church and gave that Church authority to govern. He expected His people to remain in that Church.

I did not ask for prophecy Gail--I asked you to give me New Testament examples of the churches operating under the rule of Rome. If Christ wanted that--surely it should be evident right away., or He should have said as much.

When Jesus speaks of His body being united--He is speaking about all believers under His Word....

And all churches that remain in His Word are united in Christ.

P.S. "What, has Christ been divided?" "Some say I am of Apollos, I am of Peter" And even "I am of Jesus." Yet you say that is precisely what Christ established . . . DIVISION!

The difference is in recognizing just what is the true church of Jesus Christ. It is not any one religion or church structure on earth- -but it is His Body of believers--those baptized by His Holy Spirit-- in faith., who have been born-again by the power of His Word.

The fact that churches--including the Catholic Church--have experienced division since the begining--proves to me that Christ's kingdom is not of this world.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), July 07, 2004.

Faith says (in response to Gail's comment about the Council of Nicea):

"That does not show that that is what Christ established or the apostles intended. Please show the New Testament examples of the churches functioning like that."

Faith, we've already been there. The Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 is the prime example of a dispute within the Church, the leaders of the Church then collectively decided how to resolve the dispute. That collective decision was binding on the rest of the Church. It's too bad you weren't around in Antioch 2000 years ago, you could have raised the objection that a Council in Jerusalem had no business telling the Church in Antioch what to do.

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), July 07, 2004.

This shows the importance of the apotolic teachings and Scripture itself as our guide. This is the early church--where the apostles themselves were still doing their mission work of setting up churches everywhere they went. We are to follow these same apostles according to the New Testament letters as well.

Nowhere in Act 15--do you see any apostle commanding any church to be under the rule of Rome. We can see that we are to follow the apostolic teachings....

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), July 07, 2004.

Faith, if you can't be shown by the scriptures referenced above regarding the Council of Jerusalem and the subsequent quotes from the EARLY Church history, I really cannot imagine what kind of evidence you need! I posted the Council of Nicea which was, I believe, the first big council of the Church since Jerusalem. There is no evidence to suggest the churches were autonomous and ample evidence to suggest they were ONE!

Gail

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), July 07, 2004.

Gail,

Selective Cut and Paste church history does not prove your point. I have to go, be back in an hour or so, but your going to have to do better than that to prove your point.

bye for now

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 07, 2004.

ek,

Sorry, I mean about Roman Catholicism, not this disucssion with Faith

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 07, 2004.

All I am asking for, Gail--

...Is Scriptural support for the notion that Christ established a head church in Rome to govern all others....

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), July 07, 2004.

Gail, the first Christian church was first started at Antioch. Antioch still has a Patriarch with the keys of Peter!!!

Pat riarch

Claim Peter as fouder

Their list of Patriarchs:

Patria rchs of Antioch from Peter

Patriarchs of Antioch Chronological List Traditionally, lists of patriarchs have been drawn in a spiral form. Such a spiral can be found on the Patriarchal Throne at Dayro d- Mor Hananyo (Deir az-Za`faran). As is not uncommon with historical accounts, sources for the chronological lists of the Patriarchs differ on dates. The source for the following list is: Ishaaq Saaka, kaniisatii as-Suryaaniyya. (Damascus: 1985).

Linked here is a personal communication from Touma Issa (dt. 15 Jan 1998) noting errors in the following list. Errors verified have been corrected. As resources permit, SOR will verify the other observations and revise the list.

1 St. Peter the Apostle 37-67 2 St. Evodius 67-68 3 St. Ignatios I Nurono (the Illuminator) 68-107 4 St. Heron 107-127 5 St. Korneilos 127-154 6 St. Heros 154-169 7 St. Theophilos 169-182 8 St. Maximos I 182-191 9 St. Seraphion 191-211 10 St. Ascelpiadis the Confessor 211-220 11 Philitus 220-231 12 Zbina 231-237 13 St. Babulas the Martyr 237-251 14 Fabius 254-551 15 S. Demetrianos 254-260 16 Paul I of Samosate 260-268 17 Domnus I 268-273 18 Timos 273-282 19 Cyrille I 283-303 20 Tyrannos 304-314 21 Vitalis 314-320 22 St. Philogone 320-323 23 Paulinos of Tyre 323-324 24 Ostatheous 324-337 The Arians took control of the See of Antioch and appointed the following Patriarchs: Eulalius 331-333 Euphornius 333-334 Philaclus 334-342 Stephanos 342-344 Leonce 344-357 Eudoxyos 358-359 Euzoios 360 25 Malatius 360-381 26 St. Flavin I 381-404 27 Porphyros 404-412 28 Alexander 412-417 29 Theodotos 417-428 30 John I 428-442 31 Domnus II 442-499 32 Maximos II 449-455 Maximos abdicated and the Chalcedonians seized control over the See of Antioch and appointed the following Patriarchs: Basil 456-458 Aqaq 458-459 33 Martoros 459-468 34 Peter II the Fuller (Qassar) 468-488 35 Bladius 488-498 36 Flavin II 498-512 37 St. Severius the Great 512-538 The Chalcedonians took control of the See of Antioch in 518 and sent Mor Severius to exile and appointed the following Patriarchs whose line continues in the Byzantine (Rum/Antiochene Orthodox) Patriarchate: Paul the Jew 518-521 Euphrosius 521-528 Ephrem of Amid 528-546 Six years after the death of Mor Severius, Sargius of Tella became the Syriac Orthodox Patriarch. 38 Sargius of Tella 544-546 During this turbulent time, the Holy See remained vacant for 4 years. 39 Paul II the Black of Alexandria 550-575 He was deposed in 575 for joining the Chalcedonians. The Holy See remained vacant for the next few years. 40 Peter III of Raqqa 581-591 41 Julian I 595-591 42 Athanasius I Gammolo 595-631 43 John II of the Sedre 631-648 44 Theodore 649-667 45 Severius II bar Masqeh 667-681 46 Athanasius II 683-686 47 Julian II 686-708 48 Elias I 709-723 49 Athanasius III 724-740 50 Iwanis I 740-754 After the death of Iwanis, two Patriarchs were appointed at the behest of the Caliph: Euwanis I 754-? Athanasius al-Sandali ?-758 51 George I 758-790 52 Joseph 790-792 53 Quryaqos of Takrit 793-817 54 Dionysius I of Tellmahreh 817-845 55 John III 846-873 56 Ignatius II 878-883 57 Theodosius Romanos of Takrit 887-896 58 Dionysius II 897-909 59 John IV Qurzahli 910-922 60 Baselius I 923-935 61 John V 936-953 62 Iwanis II 954-957 63 Dionysius III 958-961 64 Abraham I 962-963 65 John VI Sarigta 965-985 66 Athanasius IV of Salah 986-1002 67 John VII bar `Abdun 1004-1033 68 Dionysius IV Yahya 1034-1044 Due to internal conflicts within the Church, the Holy See was vacant for the next few years. 69 John VIII 1049-1057 70 Athanasius V 1058 -1063 71 John IX bar Shushan 1063-1073 72 Baselius II 1074-1075 After the death of Baselius, John Abdun got himself appointed Patriarch and caused trouble in the Church. He was deposed but continued causing trouble until 1091. 73 Dionysius V Lazaros 1077-1078 74 Iwanis III 1080-1082 75 Dionysius VI 1088-11090 76 Athanasius VI bar Khamoro 1091-1129 77 John X bar Mawdyono 1129-1137 78 Athanasius VII bar Qutreh 1138-1166 79 Michael I the Great 1166-1199 80 Athanasius VIII 1200-1207 81 John XI 1208-1220 82 Ignatius III David 1222-1252 83 John XII bar Ma`dani 1252-1263 84 Ignatius IV Yeshu 1264-1282 85 Philoxenos I Nemrud 1283-1292 86 Michael II 1292-1312 87 Michael III Yeshu 1312-1349 88 Baselius III Gabriel 1349-1387 89 Philoxenos II the Writer 1387-1421 90 Baselius IV Shem`un 1421-1444 91 Ignatius Behnam al-Hadli 1445-1454 92 Ignatius Khalaf 1455-1483 93 Ignatius John XIII 1483-1493 94 Ignatius Nuh of Lebanon 1493-1509 95 Ignatius Yeshu I 1509-1512 96 Ignatius Jacob I 1512-1517 97 Ignatius David I 1517-1520 98 Ignatius Abd-Allah I 1520-1557 99 Ignatius Ne`met Allah I 1557-1576 100 Ignatius David II Shah 1576-1591 101 Ignatius Pilate I 1591-1597 102 Ignatius Hadayat Allah 1597-1639 103 Ignatius Simon I 1640-1659 104 Ignatius Yeshu II Qamsheh 1659-1662 105 Ignatius Abdul Masih I 1662-1686 106 Ignatius George II 1687-1708 107 Ignatius Isaac Azar 1709-1722 108 Ignatius Shukr Allah II 1722-1745 109 Ignatius George III 1745-1768 110 Ignatius George IV 1768-1781 111 Ignatius Matthew 1782-1817 112 Ignatius Yunan 1817-1818 113 Ignatius George V 1819-1837 114 Ignatius Elias II 1838-1847 115 Ignatius Jacob II 1847-1871 116 Ignatius Peter IV 1872-1894 117 Ignatius Abdul Masih II 1895-1905 Abdul Masih was deposed in 1905. 118 Ignatius Abd Allah II 1906-1915 119 Ignatius Elias III 1917-1932 120 Ignatius Afram I Barsoum 1933-1957 121 Ignatius Jacob III 1957-1980 122 Ignatius Zakka I Iwas 1980-

Copyright © Syriac Orthodox Resources. All Rights Reserved. Last Update: December 20, 2001

So, Gail, if the Church of Antioch is older, and biblical, can it be then the true Church of Peter?

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), July 07, 2004.

Faith said:

"All I am asking for, Gail--

...Is Scriptural support for the notion that Christ established a head church in Rome to govern all others.... "

Here is your scriptural support:

Matthew 16:18, Jesus appoints Peter to head the Church. He doesn't limit it to a local church. Of course, Faith will argue that Jesus gave the keys to everyone, suggests that this verse is redundant.

Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15. According to Faith, disputes will never arise in the Church so we don't need a dispute resolution mechanism. Either Acts 15 deals with one issue and solves it and tells us what to do, or it provides a mechanism for dispute resolution to be used by the universal church. I believe the latter.

The actual location of Rome is insignificant, it just happened to be where Peter lived and since Peter was the leader of the universal church, Rome was were his successor was chosen.

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), July 07, 2004.

Thanks James!

David, you know I could flood this forum with quotes. I have only selected a few here and there because sometimes "less is better." Not one of you has responded to the quotes I have provided, so why should I bother providing more?

No one has read the Council of Nicea that I posted either. Or if you have, no comment! I cannot force either of you to LOOK at the evidence because you simply do not want to believe and WON'T BELIEVE no matter what is presented to you.

When I started looking at the evidence for Catholocism I wanted one thing and one thing only . . . the truth. I had no bias, no preconceived notions. But Faith and David, you have a bias and no amount of historical record or scripture is going to sway that bias.

Look, if you REALLY want to know the TRUTH, read, read, read, NOT JUST THE QUOTES, but the ENTIRE letters of the early martyrs of our faith. Read what they wrote, how they lived, how they thought, what they practiced, and then PRAY, PRAY, PRAY and ask the Lord to show you the truth. It is ultimately up to Him anyway to give you revelation from the Holy Spirit. All I can do is point you to the record.

Otherwise, maybe we should just stopping discussing Catholocism. We are just going over the same thing over-and-over again.

God Bless,

Gail

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), July 07, 2004.

Elpidio, I notice in your excerpt, "The Arians took control of the See of Antioch." If this group is still Arian, then they are still as much the heretic now as they were then! You have provided me with nothing more than a list compiled by someone. Who made up the list? Where does it come from?

I am done with reading "history-according-to-so-and-so." Why should I read someone else' rendition of history when I can read the writings of the Patriarchs themselves?

Gail

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), July 07, 2004.

Gail,

If just reading Church History is enough to make one a Romanist, why haven't men like James White, William Webster, David King, Eric Svendsen, Jason Engwer, and Tim Enloe converted?

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 07, 2004.

Perhaps David it is because they use Church History like a drunk uses a lamppost, for support rather than illumination. Did these guys really read church history in a search for truth, or did they read it to confirm their already held biases.

Take the case of Faith, her bias against Catholicism has her convinced that Acts chapter 15 is only about circumcision. She misses the real message there.

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), July 07, 2004.

In addition, David, some have converted such as Scott Hahn. Certainly there will always be those with hard hearts.

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), July 07, 2004.

David, the men you mention are pro-active and on the offense. They are not searching for truth. Their speciality is "debate." They exist to win the argument . . . nothing more.

I hope that when you go to ccel.org that you read the letters in their entirety and not just part-and-parcel quotes provided by these men. You have to read the letters in their entirety to really get a sense of who they were and what they believed, as well as what they practice. When I stumbled on to ccel.org I was AMAZED that these writings were available. I never knew they existed, much less ON- LINE! They truly are a great treasure!

Gail

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), July 08, 2004.

James--

Jesus never appointed Peter as head. Jesus is the head--the rock and foundation of His church. His church is founded on His death and resurrection...the good news.

Yours is a misinterpretation.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), July 08, 2004.

Faith, how do you know YOUR's isn't a mispresentation?

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), July 08, 2004.

Faith,

You have your own interpretation of Matthew 16:18 which you hold to be infallible. The problem however, is that every other Protestant gets to interpret the Bible in their own way as well. That's why there are so many different denominations. Take for example, just among one group, Baptists, there are a bunch of different varieties:

1. There are seventh day baptists that believe you should worship on Saturday. 2. There are baptists who believe you should only use the King James Version of the bible. 3. There are Baptists who believe that it is alright to ordain women as pastors. 4. There are independent baptists who believe it is evil to have any association with other baptists. 5. You have baptists that believe in predestination. 6. Some baptists believe that it is ok to cooperate with Catholics in activities such as protesting abortion.

Is it the Holy Spirit that is telling us that all of these permutations of protestants is bringing forth the Kingdom of God? What you are saying here is that Jesus left us a Church, and as seen in Acts, Churches get involved in disputes, however you are saying that Jesus didn't leave us a mechanism for resolving disputes accross the universal church.

Like I said before, there is much more Scriptural support for the governance of the universal church by the use of councils, than there is for the Protestant idea that when you don't like something you go off and start your own denomination.

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), July 08, 2004.

James--

You are not being honest if you think that the Catholic Church is immune to these same problems.

Maybe within your own sect of Catholicism--many churches agree with you. But there are so many Catholic sects that don't. Just look at traditional Catholicism.

My point is that this is a human problem. Therefore., I do not believe that the true church of Jesus Christ is any of these earthly institutions--including protestant denominations.

Christ's universal church is His body of believers--those baptised by the Holy Spirit into Him through His Word to us.

Follow the Scriptures and find a church that does that the best. But church fellowship is something God wants for us--and it has nothing to do with the kingdom which is spiriual and won't be established in the physical until all the Gentiles have come in..

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), July 08, 2004.

But Faith, what you don't seem to understand is that we believe the Catholic Church is what scripture AND history teach. Why can't you give us the same benefit of the doubt that you give yourself and others? You surely do know by now, even if you don't agree, that we have some very good arguments defending our faith, and yet it is inconceivable to you that someone like myself or James can honestly believe that the Catholic Church IS what scripture teaches. But it is!

Would you come at anyone else from any Christian denomination with such venom? Would you go after the Methodists, the Presbyterians, the Word of Faithers . . . anyone at all? If not, why?

Gail

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), July 08, 2004.

Well.., ask David how I feel about Cavinism..,

Or., ask any Jehovah's Witness that I have entertained in my home-- what experience they have had with me.

Go to my Religion and Ethics board:

http://disc.server.com/Indices/175790.html

..and ask Bauer how I feel about Baha'u'llah--

...Ask Richard what I have said about the Urantia Papers--

...Ask Gog what I think of his version of Christianity..or Hammer what I have said of his version of Christianity.

Or test my knowledge about the Muslim faith and their God Allah.

It is not only the Catholic religion that I find unbiblical.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), July 08, 2004.

That's an aweful lot of research you are asking me to do just to guess at your answer.

You said, "Follow the Scriptures and find a church that does that the best." ANSWER: Already have!!

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), July 08, 2004.

Well I respectfully disagree with your conclusion--based on my knowledge of the Scriptures in comparrison to your chosen religion.

But then--that's what we are all doing here. We each want to share what we believe is the truth.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), July 08, 2004.

But why do you think your interpretation of scripture is better than mine?

Gail

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), July 08, 2004.

Gail,

You can't interpret scripture. If you do, it's your own private interpretation. So why should we trust you?

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 08, 2004.

David, you are not deciding to trust Gail. If I've followed you correctly, you will have to decide to trust the Church just as Gail has. Gail, or any true Catholic, does not make those interpretations. The Holy Spirit provides the truth. We only decide to believe it or not believe it. On the other hand, Protestantism has the problem of "interpretation". If I am to trust Protestantism, I'm gonna have to believe that the Holy Spirit has provided each denomination with different "truths". Why should I believe Luther, Calvin, and the other men?

.......................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 08, 2004.

Catholics can't engage in interpretation of scripture,

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 08, 2004.

I believe that that is my point. Catholics have a choice to believe or to walk away from the Church. Protestants have the same choices as they are capable of subdividing their faith even further.

..................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 08, 2004.

It would seem rather obvious that if I were to walk into a Mass here in my town and one in Illinois, I would experience the same thing. The structure of the Mass, the Liturgy, and the Homily would generally be the same. I'm not so sure that we could same the same for non-Catholic services of smaller denominations. It has been stated that the church of Christ varies greatly. Some cannot associate themselves with other churches of the same name, musical instruments or not.

...................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 08, 2004.

David, I think you misunderstood my point.

Faith said: "Well I respectfully disagree with your conclusion-- based on my knowledge of the Scriptures IN COMPARISON TO YOUR CHOSEN RELIGION."

Faith bases her knowledge of scripture against my "chosen religion." She cannot fathom the possibility that my decision was intellectually based on scripture. I merely pointing out that her interpretation is certainly no better than mine. They are at least of equal value, are they not?

Gail

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), July 08, 2004.

How could they be, Gail--we can't both be right..,Hmm?

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), July 08, 2004.

Hi!

From Clement of Rome's Epistle to the Corinthians

CHAPTER 42 -- THE ORDER OF MINISTERS IN THE CHURCH.

The apostles have preached the Gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ [has done sol from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first- fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus says the Scripture a certain place, "I will appoint their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith."

How dare he say such a thing?! How dare he teach Corinthians? Especially when Saint John the Apostle was still alive!?

-- Vincent (love@noemail.net), July 09, 2004.

Now for some real meat and potatoes, Acts 20:17-31. Refer to what Paul says in verse 28.

(NIV)

17 From Miletus, Paul sent to Ephesus for the elders of the church. 18 When they arrived, he said to them: "You know how I lived the whole time I was with you, from the first day I came into the province of Asia. 19 I served the Lord with great humility and with tears, although I was severely tested by the plots of the Jews. 20 You know that I have not hesitated to preach anything that would be helpful to you but have taught you publicly and from house to house. 21 I have declared to both Jews and Greeks that they must turn to God in repentance and have faith in our Lord Jesus. 22 "And now, compelled by the Spirit, I am going to Jerusalem, not knowing what will happen to me there. 23 I only know that in every city the Holy Spirit warns me that prison and hardships are facing me. 24 However, I consider my life worth nothing to me, if only I may finish the race and complete the task the Lord Jesus has given me-- the task of testifying to the gospel of God's grace. 25 "Now I know that none of you among whom I have gone about preaching the kingdom will ever see me again. 26 Therefore, I declare to you today that I am innocent of the blood of all men. 27 For I have not hesitated to proclaim to you the whole will of God. 28 Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood. 29 I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. 30 Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. 31 So be on your guard!

Ooh! Somebody had orders to tend to the flock. What could it all mean?

-- Vincent (love@noemail.net), July 09, 2004.

Still wondering?

Acts 15:6-21 NIV

6 The apostles and elders met to consider this question. 7 After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: "Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8 God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9 He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10 Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? 11 No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are." 12 The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the miraculous signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them. 13 When they finished, James spoke up: "Brothers, listen to me. 14 Simon has described to us how God at first showed his concern by taking from the Gentiles a people for himself. 15 The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written: 16" 'After this I will return and rebuild David's fallen tent. Its ruins I will rebuild, and I will restore it, 17that the remnant of men may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who bear my name, says the Lord, who does these things' 18that have been known for ages. 19 "It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20 Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21 For Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath

Here come Paul and Barnabas for some Q&A and who answers? Peter. Who makes the final call? James?! He's not even an apostle, or is he? Peter does not make the call because James is the bishop of Jerusalem. Maybe he intends on being bishop somewhere else. You think??? hmm. This is a real quandary. Paul...going to ask James for directions who makes his call based on Peter's judgement. This sets precendent. Why is this book called the "Acts of the Apostles?" James is not among the twelve.

Note, referring to this event, Paul writes:

Galatians 1:18-19 NIV "18Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days. 19 I saw none of the other apostles--only James, the Lord's brother"

Paul calls James an apostle because of transfer of authority - not in the sense of "among the twelve", but as the leader of a church - a bishop.

Church Tradition has it Peter let James "the brother of the Lord" lead the church in Jerusalem out of deference(the first shall be last and the last shall be first) and also because he had plans to not tarry long. He moved around installing bishops here and there sending bishops everywhere until he came to his final place of residence - the See of Peter, Rome. Noone else at the time could lay claim to being the Bishop of Rome. . . . So, in answer to faith01 How could they be, Gail--we can't both be right..,Hmm?

No, the Church is right. faith01 is wrong.

Peace,

-- Vincent (love@noemail.net), July 09, 2004.

Sorry Vincent..,

But the church in the New Testament--and the gospel they handed us-- the apostolic teachings as well--are not the same church as the Roman Catholic Church.

We can follow the same apostles and hear their gospel message and understand how a local church should funtion simply by turning to the New Testament--the Living Word of God.....

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), July 09, 2004.

Faith says:

"But the church in the New Testament--and the gospel they handed us-- the apostolic teachings as well--are not the same church as the Roman Catholic Church."

Can you provide evidence from Scripture to prove this? Once again, you are stating your opinion as fact, when it is only your fallible opinion.

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), July 09, 2004.

Alright, that's enough. I'm stopping this. This thread is closed. All I see is "my church this", "your church that".

No further posting may take place in this thread. Any posts after this will be deleted.

-- (Christian_Moderator@@hotmail.com), July 09, 2004.

-- (Christian_Moderator@@hotmail.com), July 09, 2004.

-- (Christian_Moderator@@hotmail.com), July 09, 2004.