Why do you believe the bible?

WPutnam · Jul 31, 2003

DHK replied, where I last said:

Was not the apostles the "first clergy" of the church Christ founded? If so, then take it from Pentecost until the very first schism (The Orthodox in about the 9th century) and see if you can identify the "true church" founded if it is not identical to the same church called the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is the only church who can trace her history back to the apostles and to Jesus Christ. No other church comes close at all, finding their origins from a protester bolting away from the original church Christ founded.

I mentioned before "You assume too much." Why?
The Apostolic Church claims the same thing.
Click to expand...

"Apostolic Church"? What denomination is that? Claiming such does not negate the claims of the original church, especially a church who can prove her history with facts, artifacts and ancient writings, that are as obvious as any documented history.

The Church of Christ claims the same thing.
Click to expand...

Again, an obviously Protestant denomination cannot make itself the original church by simply calling itself the "Church of Christ." Can another country on some desert island make the valid claim of being the "United States of America" by a simple declaration?

Both of the above churches, to make such a statement, must prove it!

Show me their proofs,, or declare them to be the frauds that they are! And at the same time, try to disprove the claims of the Catholic Church in the face of documentation you cannot deny…unless you are also going to also doubt or deny that the individual buried under a tomb stone with the epitaph of Abraham Lincoln is the same guy so written of!

Dozens of cults/sects, etc. claim that their heritage comes straight from the Apostles. Why should your claim be any more valid than theirs? I maintain that the Catholic Church began in the fourth century, and had nothing to do with the Apostles. The Catholic Church began with Constantine, when he made "Christianity" a state-religion, with the consequence of paganizing Christianity, and Christianizing paganism.
Click to expand...

The answer is obvious, DHK, documented proof. Documented by both historical extra-scriptural writings of the early church fathers and archaeology, as seen in the catacombs, with the earliest known images of the Mother of Jesus, and epitaphs on ancient Christian tombs that request prayers on behalf of the souls that have left the dust and bones of the departed within. This occurred long before Constantine, the purported "author of Catholicism," was even conceived!

Baptists maintain that there were in every age, Christians (true Bible believers), holding to the same principles that Baptists do today, though not necessarily called by the name Baptist. In other words there have been Biblical churches in every age since Pentecost outside of the Catholic Church. It has not been due to the Catholics that we have our canon of Scripture, nor a good many other things that the Catholic Church wants to take credit for. I can credit them for entering into Christianity such unbiblical practices as Mariolatry, idolatry, praying to the dead, purgatory, etc--all of which came from paganism.
Click to expand...

DHK, do me a real big favor and document these "true believers" who existed all this time, other then the Christian community called the Catholic Church. Show me this "competing church" that does not exist, silch nada, nowhere! Between Pentecost and the 16th century, other then the Orthodox schism, there has been only one church! If you don't believe that, then back up your assertion with proof and documentation.

As I mentioned and explained before the canon of Scripture was determined by the Apostolic community early on near the end of the first century.
Click to expand...

Then explain to me the need for church synods in the latter 3rd century which undertook the job of collating and canonizing and declaring a listing of books, called the New Testament? Why would this have to be done if indeed, this was already done in the 1st century? Also, please document to all of us, exactly how this was done, DHK.

I last said:

This is why the Old Testament remains as scripture in our Christian bibles. And from that grand old testament, we still to this day, read of it's prophets and the beautiful psalms. Yet it remains a closed covenant as to the gospel of Christ as he gave it orally to His apostles.

Christ sometimes spoke orally. When He did, there were men like Matthew to write down what he said and record it. It then became part of the New Testament. What about the Old Testament?
Click to expand...

Er, ah, DHK, I think it can be safely assumed that Christ ALWAYS "spoke orally."

We of course both agree that Matthew recorded what Christ said, ORALLY. So did Mark, Luke and John. But Christ did not use the apostles as a "dictation service," having them gather under an olive tree and write as He spoke! If you believe that, can you find documentation, scripturally or otherwise, that the apostles did exactly that?

Finally, what about the Old Testament, DHK? Is that not what I was talking about in my last above?

Luke 4:16-21
16 And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read.
17 And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written,
18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,
19 To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.
20 And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him.
21 And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.
--It is apparent that Jesus taught the Old Testament from a "book" or scroll, not orally. The Scriptures were written down.
Click to expand...

DHK, we both know that Christ taught from the Old Testament! Notice how Christ used that grand old book to indicate that He is the one predicted! When Christ taught from that Old Testament, He then spoke to them what it was saying. And to do so, He spoke! He did not write! It was Luke who recorded what it was that Christ said! When did Luke write this? Did Christ instruct him to do so? We don't know as scripture itself is silent on the matter.

(John 5:39 KJV) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
--The Scriptures--those that were written down in the Old Testament, that they could search. They were not something nebulous and oral.
Click to expand...

I don't understand your point here, DHK. Reading and searching the scriptures, which is obviously the Old Testament John is speaking of here, is what they were commended to do, but note the words that say this was spoken first, then recorded later by John! The spoken word from the apostles does not become scripture until they are written. And even then, it took a few hundred years before such was declared of them, by the only authority around who could do so - THE CHURCH! (Christ had already ascended to the Father in heaven, and all of the apostles were dead - the end of the apostolic era.)

DHK then quoted scripture:

Jude 17 But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ;

The authority given to Peter in Mat.16:19 is given to all the Apostles in Mat.18:18, and that is in the context of church discipline. The keys refer to the keys of knowledge, or the knowledge of the gospel. Compare Scripture with Scripture.
Click to expand...

And I replied:

Agreed, not knowing the intention of your statement here. But please note that it was only Peter who received the "keys of the kingdom" and was indeed, the first to receive the power to "bind and loose." And while we Catholics see this as ample evidence of the primacy, Jesus gives to Peter, we also note the giving of great authority to the rest of the apostles as well. For example, my local bishop has authority over his diocese, which includes my parish. And if I were to be the "disobedient brother" we see in the verses the precede Matthew 18:18, and the matter is "taken to the church," my bishop can exercise his authority against me!

"Please note that it was only Peter..." Obviously not. Every apostle, disciple, believer has the keys (the gospel message) that is able to open the door of salvation. Think about the word key for a minute. You say that "Keys" has to do with authority. I disagree. A key is a tool used to lock or unlock a door. It does not necessarily have to do with authority per se. Often in eastern countries people have servants. They give to their servants the keys to the house. It is the servants duty to lock and unlock the house. He is like a watchman, a servant of his master. But he has the keys. Jesus said I have "the keys of Hell and of death." He alone can open the door of death. I will not die until Christ wants me to die. He has that key. He once gave the key of knowledge to the Pharisees. He has taken it away, and given it to his disciples. I have the key of knowledge (the gospel), so that I can open the door of eternal life by presenting that glorious message of salvation to someone who has never heard it before, and will receive it. I am the servant who bears the key that Christ has given me, as He has given to every Christian to use. It is called the gospel. The command to use it is contained in the Great Commission.
Click to expand...

What makes you think that the "keys" is the "gospel message," DHK?

Would it not have been better had Christ told Peter, "I will give you the gospel message" instead of the statement "I will give you the keys of the kingdom" if that is what He really meant? Had not Christ been giving them, all of them - all twelve apostles - the "gospel message" all along up to this point? Why is He now singling-out Simon, now called Peter in this awesome exchange in Matthew 16:18-19 if he is simply referring to something He has been doing with all of them up to this point?

Instead, I think I have pointed out the obvious metaphor "keys" represents by referring to Isaiah 22:22, which I will quote here:

"I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder, when he opens, no one will shut, when he shuts, no one will open"

I get goose bumps when I see this in juxtaposition with "…whatsoever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; whatsoever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Paraphrased from Matthew 16:19)

Anyway, do you see the obvious metaphor for "authority" that screamingly leaps out at you here? Do you now see the "authority," Christ is giving Peter here? And yes, Christ shares this authority with the other apostles in 18:18, but the reference first to Peter, with him being the "holder of the keys" is the obvious reference to a primacy, Christ is giving him. From here on out, despite the problems Peter still has with his "up front, impetuousness, sticking his nose out, and being rebuked often" problems (a sign of LEADERSHIP!) that we see that Peter is almost always mentioned first in a listing of the apostles, as in "Peter and the others…, etc" and that his name is mentioned far more often then the other apostles, even his being rebuked by Paul in Galatians whereby Paul actually emphasizes Peter's leadership role, rather then diminishes it, else why it is mentioned if Peter were not the leader?

And what did the early fathers think of the primacy of Peter? Here is a sample:

http://www.catholic.com/library/Peter_Primacy.asp

(Continued in next message)

WPutnam · Jul 31, 2003

(Continued from previous message)

I last commented:

But a guy named John Paul II in Rome has passed to him the "keys of the kingdom" that Peter had, in succession as Bishop of Rome, another topic we can discuss in another thread…

I highly doubt that John Paul II has any key at all. Being saved by one's own good works is not being saved at all. Being saved through Mary is not being saved at all. These are the messages that come from the pope--a good works salvation; a Mariolotry salvation.
Click to expand...

There is little I can do to lift your doubt in this matter, but I try the best I can, DHK. There is just so much one can say, letting the rest be on the shoulders of the holy Spirit. We can discuss this business of "good works" sometimes, and also "Mariolotry," which I deny, but that stray too far of the topic.

But anyway, just to be mean and outright ornery , I thought I would post this:

THE SUCCESSION OF POPES

St. Peter (?- 67) THE APOSTLE
St. Linus (67-76)
St. Anacletus (76-88)
St. Clement (88-97)
St. Evaristus (97-105)
St. Alexander I (105-115)
St. Sixtus I (115-125)
St. Telesphorus (125-136)
St. Hyginus (136-140)
St. Pius I (140-155)
St. Anicetus (155-166)
St. Soter (166-175)
St. Eleutherius (175-189)
St. Victor I (189-199)
St. Zephyrinus (199-217)
St. Callistus (217-222)
St. Urban (222-230)
St. Pontain (230-235)
St. Anterus (235-236)
St. Fabian (236-250)
St. Cornelius (251-253)
St. Lucius I (253-254)
St. Stephen I (254-257)
St. Sixtus II (257-258)
St. Dionysius (259-268)
St. Felix (269-274)
St. Eutychian (275-283)
St. Caius (283-296)
St. Marcellinus (296-304)
St. Marcellus I (308-309)
St. Eusebius (309?-310?)
St. Meltiades (311-314)
St. Sylvester I (314-335)
St. Marcus (336-336)
St. Julius I (337-352)
Liberius (352-366)
St. Damasus I (366-384)
St. Siricius (384-399)
St. Anastasius I (399-401)
St. Innocent I (401-417)
St. Zozimus (417-418)
St. Boniface I (418-422)
St. Celestine I (422-432)
St. Sixtus III (432-440)
St. Leo I (440-461)
St. Hilary (461_468)
St. Simplocius (468-483)
St. Felix III (II)(483-492)
St. Gelasius I (492-496)
St. Anastasius II (496-498)
St. Symmachus (498-514)
St. Hormisdas (514-523)
St. John I (523-526)
St. Felix IV (III)(526-530)
Boniface II (530-532)
John II (533-535)
St. Agapitus I (535-536)
St. Silverius (536-537)
Vigilius (537-555)
Pelagius (556-561)
John III (561-574)
Benedict I (575-579)
Pelagius II (579-590)
St. Gregory (590-604)
Sabinianus (604-606)
Boniface III (607-607)
St. Boniface IV (608-615)
St. Deusdedit(Adeodatus I) (615-618)
Boniface V (619-625)
Honorius I (625-638)
Severinus (640-640)
John IV (640-642)
Theodore I (642-649)
St. Martin I (649-655)
St. Eugene I (654-657)
St. Vitalian (657-672)
Adeodatus II (672-676
Donus (676-768)
St. Agatho (678-681)
St. Leo II (682-683)
St. Benedict II (684-685)
John V (685-686)
Conon (686-687)
St. Sergius I (687-701)
John VI (701-705)
John II (705-707)
Sisinnius (708-708)
Constantine (708-715)
St. Gregory II (715-731)
St. Gregory III (731-741)
St. Zachary (741-752)
St. Stephen II (752-752)
Stephen II (III)(752-757)
St. Paul I (757-767)
Stephen III(IV)(768-772)
Adrian I (772-795)
St. Leo III (795-816)
Stephen IV(V)(816-817)
St. Paschal I (817-824)
Eugene II (824-827)
Valentine (827-827)
Gregory IV (827-844)
Sergius II (844-847)
St. Leo IV (847-855)
Benedict III (855-858)
St. Nicholas I (858-867)
Adrian II (867-872)
John VIII (872-882)
Marinus I (882-884)
St. Adrian III (884-885)
Stephen V(VI)(885_891)
Formosus (891-896)
Boniface VI (896-896)
Stephen VI(VII)(896-897)
Romanus (897-897)
Theodore II (897-897)
John IX (898-900)
Benedict IV (900-903)
Leo V (903-903)
Sergius III (904-911)
Anastasius III (911-913)
Landus (913-914)
John X (914-928)
Leo VI (928-928)
Stephen VII(VIII)(928-931)
John XI (931-935)
Leo VII (936-939)
Stephen VIII(IX)(939-942)
Marinus II (942-946)
Agapitus II (946-955)
John XII (955-964)
Leo VIII (963-965)
Benedict V (964-966)
John XIII (965-972)
Benedict VI (973-974)
Benedict VII (974-983)
John XIV (983-984)
John XV (985-996)
Gregory V (996-999)
Sylvester II (999-1003)
John XVII (1003-1003)
John XVIII (1004-1009)
Sergois IV (1009-1012)
Benedict VIII (1012-1024)
John XIX (1024-1032)
Benedict IX (1032-1044)
Sylvester III (1045-1045)
Benedict IX (1045-1045)
Gregory (1045-1046)
Clement II (1046-1047)
Benedict IX (1047-1048)
Damasus II (1048-1048)
St. Leo IX (1049-1054)
Victor II (1055-1057)
Stephen IX(X)(1057-1058)
Nicholas II (1059-1061)
Alexander II (1061-1073)
St. Gregory VII (1073-1085)
Bl. Victor III (1086-1087)
Bl. Urban II (1088-1099)
Paschal II (1099-1118)
Gelasius II (1118-1119)
Callistus II (1119-1124)
Honorius II (1124-1130)
Innocent II (1130-1143)
Celestine II (1143-1144)
Lucius II (1144-1145)
Bl. Eugene III (1145-1153)
Anastasius IV (1153-1154)
Adrian IV (1154-1159)
Alexander III (1159-1181)
Lucius III (1181-1185)
Urban III (1185-1187)
Gregory VIII (1187-1187)
Clement III (1187-1191)
Celestine III (1191-1198)
Innocent III (1198-1216)
Honorius III (1216-1227)
Gregory IX (1227-1241)
Celestine IV (1241-1241)
Innocent IV (1243-1254)
Alexander IV (1254-1261)
Urban IV (1261-1264)
Clement IV (1265-1268)
Bl. Gregory X (1271-1276)
Bl. Innocent V (1276-1276)
Adrian V (1276-1276)
John XXI (1276-1277)
Nicholas III (1277-1280)
Martin IV (1281-1285)
Honorius IV (1285-1287)
Nicholas IV (1288-1292)
St. Celestine V (1294-1294)
Boniface VIII (1294-1303)
Bl. Benedict XI (1303-1304)
Clement V (1305-1314)
John XXII (1316-1334)
Benedict XII (1334-1342)
Clement VI (1342-1352)
Innocent VI (1352-1362)
Bl. Urban V (1392-1370)
Gregory XI (1370-1378)
Urban VI (1378-1389)
Boniface IX (1389-1404)
Innocent VII (1404-1406)
Gregory XII (1406-1415)
Martin V (1417-1431)
Eugene IV (1431-1447)
Nicholas V (1447-1455)
Callestus III (1455-1458)
Pius II (1458-1464)
Paul II (1464-1471)
Sixtus IV (1471-1484)
Innocent VIII (1484-1492)
Alexander VI (1492-1503)
Pius III (1503-1503)
Julius II (1503-1513)
Leo X (1513-1521)
Adrian VI (1522-1523)
Clement VII (1523-1534)
Paul III (1534-1549)
Julius III (1550-1555)
Marcellus II (1555-1555)
Paul IV (1555-1559)
Pius IV (1559-1565)
St. Pius V (1566-1572)
Gregory XIII (1572-1585)
Sixtus V (1585-1590)
Urban VII (1590-1590)
Gregory XIV (1590-1591)
Innocent IX (1591-1591)
Clement VIII (1592-1605)
Leo XI (1605-1605)
Paul V (1605-1621)
Gregory XV (1621-1623)
Urban VIII (1623-1644)
Innocent X (1644-1655)
Alexander VII (1655-1667)
Clement IX (1667-1669)
Clement X (1670-1676)
Bl. Innocent XI (1676-1689)
Alexander VIII (1689-1691)
Innocent XII (1691-1700)
Clement XI (1700-1721)
Innocent XIII (1721-1724)
Benedict XIII (1724-1730)
Clement XII (1730-1740)
Benedict XIV (1740-1758)
Clement XIII (1758-1769)
Clement XIV (1769-1774)
Pius VI (1775-1799)
Pius VII (1800-1823)
Leo XII (1823-1829)
Pius VIII (1829-1830)
Gregory XVI (1831-1846)
Pius IX (1846-1878)
Leo XIII (1878-1903)
St. Pius X (1903-1914)
Benedict XV (1914-1922)
Pius XI (1922-1939)
Pius XII (1939-1958)
John XXIII (1958-1963)
Paul VI (1963-1978)
John Paul I (1978-1978)
John Paul II (1978-present)

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+

Jesus Christ says to Peter.........

I will entrust to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven.
Whatever you declare bound on earth shall be bound in heaven;
whatsoever you declare loosed on earth, shall be loosed in
heaven.

Matthew, chapter 16 verse 19

Doubting Thomas · Jul 31, 2003

Bill,

The "Constantinian-fall" paradigm is more or less debunked in D.H.Williams' (who is a BAPTIST) Retrieving the Tradition and Renewing Evangelicalism.

DHK's link regarding the heterogeneity of baptismal practices is pretty interesting. How does one respond to that, given the fact that infant baptism appears to be a novelty introduced into the church rather than being a practice from the beginning? (Mr. Williams in the book I reference also points out the infant baptism was rare until about the 4th or 5th century).

God Bless.

Frank · Jul 31, 2003

I am a member of the church of Christ. As a Christian, I do follow the new testament of Christ. One who follows the new testament can be like those of the first century by imitating the pattern found in the Bible. In essence, a Christians heritage comes from Christ. Christian means OF CHRIST, no more no less. This is all I desire to be and will be. The foundation for this is the scriptures. Note: Isaiah 62:2;56:5, Acts 11:26, Acts 4:12, I Pet. 4:16, Acts 26:28, Romans 16:16, Acts 20:28, I Thes. 1:1; 2:14, II Thes.1:1.

The Bible teaches all who are saved in accordance with the gospel of Christ are a part of his church. Acts 2:47. This is the case when anyone continues in the apostles doctrine,fellowship, breaking of bread and in prayers. Acts 2:42.

Personally, I do not believe the Bible teaches one must historically find an unbroken link to the church. To my knowledge God has not declared, implied or approved of this in the scriptures. Therefore, it is a non- essential to my faith.

However, according to the Bible, the Lord's church will always exist. Daniel 2:44-47, I Cor. 15:24. In this sense, Christians may say they are a part of the first century church. Gal. 3:26-29, Acts 2:47, Col. 1:12,13, I Cor. 12:13.

If one has any doctrinal questions about the church, I will be glad to address them.

Doubting Thomas · Jul 31, 2003

Originally posted by Frank:
I am a member of the church of Christ. As a Christian, I do follow the new testament of Christ. One who follows the new testament can be like those of the first century by imitating the pattern found in the Bible. In essence, a Christians heritage comes from Christ. Christian means OF CHRIST, no more no less. This is all I desire to be and will be.
..........................................
If one has any doctrinal questions about the church, I will be glad to address them.
Click to expand...

Frank,

What does the Church of Christ teach regarding:

(1)the nature of the Lord Supper: is it merely symbolic or does it involve the "real Presence" of Christ?

(2)how authoritative does the COC consider the great ecumenical creeds such as the Nicene and the Apostles Creed and the "Athanasian" Creed?

(3)What is the predominant eschatological view--premillenialism, postmillenialism, or amillenialism? (Or "pan-millenialism ? )

Just curious. Thanks.

WPutnam · Jul 31, 2003

Doubting Thomas replied:

Bill,

The "Constantinian-fall" paradigm is more or less debunked in D.H.Williams' (who is a BAPTIST) Retrieving the Tradition and Renewing Evangelicalism.
Click to expand...

Good! I'm glad this claim as been refuted bhy a good BAPTIST! I see simply too many writings of the early church fathers whose writings are as "Catholic" as can be, even before Constantine was ever born!

DHK's link regarding the heterogeneity of baptismal practices is pretty interesting. How does one respond to that, given the fact that infant baptism appears to be a novelty introduced into the church rather than being a practice from the beginning? (Mr. Williams in the book I reference also points out the infant baptism was rare until about the 4th or 5th century).
Click to expand...

I look for the link and probably landed on the wrong one, as I found nothing about baptism.

But from a favorite source of mine, Catholic Answers, I offer the following two links:

http://www.catholic.com/library/Infant_Baptism.asp

http://www.catholic.com/library/Early_Teachings_of_Infant_Baptism.asp

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+

"…Noah during the building of the ark, in which a few persons, eight in all, were saved through water. This prefigured baptism which saves you now…"

1 Peter 3:20-21

DHK · Jul 31, 2003

Originally posted by WPutnam:

Baptists maintain that there were in every age, Christians (true Bible believers), holding to the same principles that Baptists do today, though not necessarily called by the name Baptist. In other words there have been Biblical churches in every age since Pentecost outside of the Catholic Church. It has not been due to the Catholics that we have our canon of Scripture, nor a good many other things that the Catholic Church wants to take credit for. I can credit them for entering into Christianity such unbiblical practices as Mariolatry, idolatry, praying to the dead, purgatory, etc--all of which came from paganism.
Click to expand...

[QB]

DHK, do me a real big favor and document these "true believers" who existed all this time, other then the Christian community called the Catholic Church. Show me this "competing church" that does not exist, silch nada, nowhere! Between Pentecost and the 16th century, other then the Orthodox schism, there has been only one church! If you don't believe that, then back up your assertion with proof and documentation.
Click to expand...

There is plenty of evidence around if one is willing to look for it outside of Catholic sources. However, even Catholics attest to it. I do recall in varius sources, one Cardinal Hosius, who reportedly said that there was a group of people who as far as he could determine lived most holy lives and he dated them right back to the Apostles. (I'd have to find the exact quote). Who was he talking about? The Waldenses. There is plenty of history on the Waldenses. A lot of it is written by their enemies and thus only highlights some of the fringe outcasts or bad apples, not giving the Waldenses a fair representation. But you can find a lot of history that gives a fair representation of them as well. It has been my experience that when the Catholics of today want to refer to the Waldenses they refer to them as outlandish heretics, and pick out one or two doctrines that the whole did not believe. It would be akin to one of the Baptists pointing to the Bishop of Boston as representative of all Catholics. Conclusion: You must be a sexual pervert to be a good Catholic. That is the way that some Catholics read Baptist history--revisionist history. They don't bother to look at all the facts.

As I mentioned and explained before the canon of Scripture was determined by the Apostolic community early on near the end of the first century.
Click to expand...

Then explain to me the need for church synods in the latter 3rd century which undertook the job of collating and canonizing and declaring a listing of books, called the New Testament? Why would this have to be done if indeed, this was already done in the 1st century? Also, please document to all of us, exactly how this was done, DHK.
Click to expand...

The early Christians knew what the canon of Scripture was. Jesus, Paul,Peter, John and others warned of false prophets and teachers that would come and not spare the flock; to beware of them. They came in sheep's clothing just as was prophesied. Many of them impersonated Paul, wrote letters in the name of Paul. Others wrote other books claiming inspiration for themselves. They were frauds, false teachers. The early church had no problem with these as they sat under the teaching of the Apostles, and those next to them. But two or three generations removed the false teachers began to make larger inroads gaining more influence. It was needful at some point for some of the church leaders to gather together and for the sake of the churches, weed out the spurous from what had all along been the true canon. The true canon had already existed. What needed to be esablished was that these fraudulent writings were indeed not of God, and should be exposed as such.

I last said:
This is why the Old Testament remains as scripture in our Christian bibles. And from that grand old testament, we still to this day, read of it's prophets and the beautiful psalms. Yet it remains a closed covenant as to the gospel of Christ as he gave it orally to His apostles.

Finally, what about the Old Testament, DHK? Is that not what I was talking about in my last above?
Click to expand...

If this is the quote you are referring to, I am not sure of the point that you are trying to make.

DHK, we both know that Christ taught from the Old Testament! Notice how Christ used that grand old book to indicate that He is the one predicted! When Christ taught from that Old Testament, He then spoke to them what it was saying. And to do so, He spoke! He did not write! It was Luke who recorded what it was that Christ said! When did Luke write this? Did Christ instruct him to do so? We don't know as scripture itself is silent on the matter.
Click to expand...

Luke 1:1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

Acts 1:1 The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach,

Rev.1:18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.
19 Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter;

1 John 1:1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;
2 (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and show unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us
3 That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.
4 And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full.

The Apostles were duty bound as eyewitnesses of the Lord's life to record what they saw and heard, for all mankind to read about, as they were guided by the Holy Spirit (2Pet.1:20,21)

The spoken word from the apostles does not become scripture until they are written. And even then, it took a few hundred years before such was declared of them, by the only authority around who could do so - THE CHURCH! (Christ had already ascended to the Father in heaven, and all of the apostles were dead - the end of the apostolic era.)
Click to expand...

That is an assumption. Who is to say that God needed the Catholic Church to canonize or inscripurate the very words that He had John write to mke them Scripture. You have the cart before the horse don't you? God does as He wills completely independently of the Catholic Church. He does not need, nor ever has needed the Catholic Church. The Scriptures declare that God has need of nothing (otherwise He wouldn't be God), and that includes the Catholic Church. God was perfectly capable of canonizing the New Testament at the end of the first century without the Catholic Church as He did--not hundreds of years later. What is written on all U.S. currency? "In the Catholic Church we trust." NOT!

What makes you think that the "keys" is the "gospel message," DHK?
Click to expand...

(John 10:9 KJV) I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.
--Christ is the door. To enter and find salvation you must have the key--the gospel.

(Acts 14:27 KJV) And when they were come, and had gathered the church together, they rehearsed all that God had done with them, and how he had opened the door of faith unto the Gentiles.
--The door of faith was opened. How? Only by the gospel. The gospel was the key to opening the door.

(1 Cor 16:9 KJV) For a great door and effectual is opened unto me, and there are many adversaries.
--A great door was opened to Paul. A door to preaching the gospel. The key was the gospel itself. Had it not been for the gospel, the door would not have been opened for him.

(2 Cor 2:12 KJV) Furthermore, when I came to Troas to preach Christ's gospel, and a door was opened unto me of the Lord,
--Another door was opened. The same key was used. The key was the gospel, the preaching of the gospel to be specific. That is what opened the door.
The key is the gospel. He gave the command in the Great Commisssion in Mat.28:19,20. He chooses not to use figurative language all the time, as in Mat. 28:19,20, but did so on this occaision

Anyway, do you see the obvious metaphor for "authority" that screamingly leaps out at you here? Do you now see the "authority," Christ is giving Peter here? And yes, Christ shares this authority with the other apostles in 18:18, but the reference first to Peter, with him being the "holder of the keys" is the obvious reference to a primacy, Christ is giving him.
Click to expand...

Nope! I don't see any reference to an Isaiah passage given in Mat.16, or any reason why Peter would be thinking about such an Old Testament passage when Jesus had clearly used the word "key" in a different way already. This has nothing to do with "authority" in the way that you use it. It has to do with locking and unlocking, opening and shutting. The reference you give has nothing whatsoever to do with Math.16:19.

From here on out, despite the problems Peter still has with his "up front, impetuousness, sticking his nose out, and being rebuked often" problems (a sign of LEADERSHIP!) that we see that Peter is almost always mentioned first in a listing of the apostles, as in "Peter and the others…, etc" and that his name is mentioned far more often then the other apostles, even his being rebuked by Paul in Galatians whereby Paul actually emphasizes Peter's leadership role, rather then diminishes it, else why it is mentioned if Peter were not the leader?
Click to expand...

From here on in they continually argue about who is to be the greatest among them. It was never decided, and Jesus never addressed it, except to say that he who would be greatest would be servant of all. Jesus never gave Peter any kind of pre-eminenet position at all. In fact he rebuked him more than any of the other apostles, save Judas Iscariot.
DHK
Click to expand...

Kathryn · Jul 31, 2003

DHK says:

There is plenty of evidence around if one is willing to look for it outside of Catholic sources. However, even Catholics attest to it. I do recall in varius sources, one Cardinal Hosius, who reportedly said that there was a group of people who as far as he could determine lived most holy lives and he dated them right back to the Apostles. (I'd have to find the exact quote). Who was he talking about? The Waldenses. There is plenty of history on the Waldenses. A lot of it is written by their enemies and thus only highlights some of the fringe outcasts or bad apples, not giving the Waldenses a fair representation. But you can find a lot of history that gives a fair representation of them as well. It has been my experience that when the Catholics of today want to refer to the Waldenses they refer to them as outlandish heretics, and pick out one or two doctrines that the whole did not believe. It would be akin to one of the Baptists pointing to the Bishop of Boston as representative of all Catholics. Conclusion: You must be a sexual pervert to be a good Catholic. That is the way that some Catholics read Baptist history--revisionist history. They don't bother to look at all the facts.
Click to expand...

There is no evidence that the Waldensians, who called themselves the “Poor of Lyons” were around from the time of the apostles. They do not even believe that. I highly recommend the book by Cambridge University Press The Waldensian Dissent Persecution and Survival c. 1170-c.1570. The author Gabriel Audisio is Professor of Early Modern History at University of Provence, France. He has published widely on the history of Provence and Piedmont, and on sixteenth-century religious history; he is also the author of a handbook of palaeography, Lire Le Fracais d’heir (1991).

Here is an interesting quote from his book:

“To rebut the accusation of being innovatory, the Poor of Lyons set about tracing back their origins as far as possible. Ancient times were a guarantee of authenticity, of intrinsic truth. As we know, both Luther and the sixteenth-century Protestants took the same step, refusing to be suspected of innovation. And how much further can one go than the apostles, the founding fathers of the Church?

This was illustrated by Pierre Griot, who, when questioned in 1532 by the inquisitor as to the authors of ‘this law’, replied that they were the apostles. This was certainly what the community members told one another. Two of Griot’s superiors, whom we will have occasion to return to further on, wrote in 1530 that their people had survived in spite of hardship ‘for four hundred years and even, as our elders tell us, since apostolic times’. This legend persisted until the nineteenth century but no-one today could take it seriously.

Without wishing to assert direct links with the apostles, another opinion was also held among the Poor of Lyons which was taken up and challenged by their adversaries; this alleged that their origins dated back to the time of Pope Sylvester…The dissenters from Lyons were said to be the descendants of the first opposers of the Roman Church’s historical deviation. This belief may have become common within the group in the fourteenth century, but even from the first half of the thirteenth century, anti-Waldensian polemicists had set about refuting it. No-one today can subscribe to this point of view either. Such debates are no longer valid; it is now unanimously accepted that the Poor of Lyons date back to the twelfth century. Pg 7
Click to expand...

Here is another article from: Ronald F. Malan, M.A.
Genealogist and Trustee, Piedmont Families Organization

Let's begin with a comment of my own. Many of the older Waldensian histories speak of them as a body of Christians, hiding in the Alps from the days of the original apostles, or at least from the time of Claude, archbishop of Turin. But the eminent French historian Jean-Pierre Poly has shown that from 883 until 972-nearly a century-Saracen pirates fully controlled southeastern France and the Alpine passes. All inhabitants of the areas later known as the Waldensian Valleys were swept off. There simply could not have been a continuous group there.

Those older histories make many unsupported (and unsupportable) claims for the Waldensians. But during this past century, historians interested in the Waldensians have (1) discovered new documents, (2) compared and contrasted more carefully the surviving relevant documents from various countries, (3) used more formal logical methods to assess an author's purpose in creating a document, and (d) used other disciplines such as linguistics to analyze and interpret those documents. The result is a more reliable history.

http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~waldense/history.htm#I2
Click to expand...

God Bless

DHK · Jul 31, 2003

Your own history condemns you.

This was illustrated by Pierre Griot, who, when questioned in 1532 by the inquisitor as to the authors of ‘this law’, replied that they were the apostles. This was certainly what the community members told one another. Two of Griot’s superiors, whom we will have occasion to return to further on, wrote in 1530 that their people had survived in spite of hardship ‘for four hundred years and even, as our elders tell us, since apostolic times’. This legend persisted until the nineteenth century but no-one today could take it seriously.
Click to expand...

They themselves testify that they have origins dating back to the Apostles. But the Catholics and their inquisitors say this is a legend that no one can take seriously. The mortal enemies of the Waldenses, the ones who tortured them, held crusades against them, murdered them, goes to the very extent to say that they didn't exist. Of course they would do anything to cover up their sordid past. They are still doing the same thing today. Lies and lies and lies to cover up sexual scandals, to hide sexual perverts, and also to revise history--to tell the world that really the murderous Catholic Church isn't really the big bad monster that actual history makes it out to be. Yes Virgina the holocaust was real, and so was the Inquistion--and neither one can be denied.

Let's begin with a comment of my own. Many of the older Waldensian histories speak of them as a body of Christians, hiding in the Alps from the days of the original apostles,
Click to expand...

Listen to your own quotes. Many of the older Waldensian histories speak of them as a body of Christians...from the days of the original apostles." Maybe you ought to read their histories and listen to them instead of being brainwashed by the RC's
DHK

Kathryn · Jul 31, 2003

DHK:
Actually, I am reading from them. You can huff and puff all you want, these are not Catholic sources. This is the Waldensians themselves and French historians from credible universities. I will let you know more as I read and study their history from non-Catholic sources. Very interesting! I may have to start a thread of it's own for this.

You may want to read about those Muslum pirates in southern France for 100 years that would have made it impossible for the Waldensians to have lived where they say they are from before the 12th Century. They admit that they never did go back to the apostles. They consider themselves the mother of the Reformation however.

God Bless

DHK · Jul 31, 2003

Originally posted by Kathryn:
DHK:
Actually, I am reading from them. You can huff and puff all you want, these are not Catholic sources. This is the Waldensians themselves and French historians from credible universities. I will let you know more as I read and study their history from non-Catholic sources. Very interesting! I may have to start a thread of it's own for this.

You may want to read about those Muslum pirates in southern France for 100 years that would have made it impossible for the Waldensians to have lived where they say they are from before the 12th Century. They admit that they never did go back to the apostles. They consider themselves the mother of the Reformation however.

God Bless
Click to expand...

It is interesting reading. My point was that you need to read those very histories that the Catholic historians condemned. Why did the older Waldenses claim to be from the apostles? Do they have a legitimate claim? What makes you think that they don't other than the denial of other Catholics and possibly some atheists.
DHK

MikeS · Jul 31, 2003

Originally posted by DHK:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by MikeS:
No, pointers to where the Pope teaches unscriptural salvation.
Click to expand...

ARTICLE II
I. "LORD, LOOK UPON THE FAITH OF YOUR CHURCH"
168 It is the Church that believes first, and so bears, nourishes and sustains my faith. Everywhere, it is the Church that first confesses the Lord: "Throughout the world the holy Church acclaims you", as we sing in the hymn Te Deum; with her and in her, we are won over and brought to confess: "I believe", "We believe". It is through the Church that we receive faith and new life in Christ by Baptism. In the Rituale Romanum, the minister of Baptism asks the catechumen: "What do you ask of God's Church?" And the answer is: "Faith." "What does faith offer you?" "Eternal life."[54]

169 Salvation comes from God alone; but because we receive the life of faith through the Church, she is our mother: "We believe the Church as the mother of our new birth, and not in the Church as if she were the author of our salvation."[55] Because she is our mother, she is also our teacher in the faith.
Click to expand...

[/QUOTE]And this shows the Pope teaching salvation by works, and salvation through Mariolatry? Don't think so!

BTW, I find nothing shocking in what you quoted from the CCC. In fact, I embrace that understanding wholeheartedly. The role of the Church, as a supernatural organism created by Christ, is exactly as described.

DHK · Jul 31, 2003

Originally posted by MikeS:

BTW, I find nothing shocking in what you quoted from the CCC. In fact, I embrace that understanding wholeheartedly. The role of the Church, as a supernatural organism created by Christ, is exactly as described.
Click to expand...

The role of the Catholic Church as the mother of the new birth, a supernatural organism created by Christ is exactly described where in the Bible??

Try described by the paganistic religion of Constantine instead. You might have more success than looking in the Bible.
DHK

MikeS · Jul 31, 2003

Originally posted by DHK:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by MikeS:

BTW, I find nothing shocking in what you quoted from the CCC. In fact, I embrace that understanding wholeheartedly. The role of the Church, as a supernatural organism created by Christ, is exactly as described.
Click to expand...

The role of the Catholic Church as the mother of the new birth, a supernatural organism created by Christ is exactly described where in the Bible??

[/QUOTE]Same place as, ah, the Trinity?

Try described by the paganistic religion of Constantine instead. You might have more success than looking in the Bible.
DHK
Click to expand...

But you forget, nobody knows and understands more about the Bible than the Church, the pillar and foundation of the truth. Not you, not me, not anybody on this Board, not any of the 30,000+ non-Catholic denominations on the planet.

DHK · Jul 31, 2003

Originally posted by MikeS:
But you forget, nobody knows and understands more about the Bible than the Church, the pillar and foundation of the truth. Not you, not me, not anybody on this Board, not any of the 30,000+ non-Catholic denominations on the planet.
Click to expand...

That is a very arrogant statement Mike. You talk of the Catholic Church as if the Church is your God, and it is the Church that you are worshipping and not God. The Catholic Church is not infallible. The Catholic Church is not omniscient. I dare say that there are many on this board that would go one on one with any Catholic apologist, the Pope included provided that everything is based on the Bible.
DHK

Kathryn · Jul 31, 2003

DHK:

It is interesting reading. My point was that you need to read those very histories that the Catholic historians condemned. Why did the older Waldenses claim to be from the apostles? Do they have a legitimate claim? What makes you think that they don't other than the denial of other Catholics and possibly some atheists.
Click to expand...

This author is not a Catholic historian, he is Gabriel Audisio, Professor of Early Modern History at the University of Provence which is in the Provence and Piedmont area of France. He is reading and translating documents even of the Waldensians themselves in their original primitive Provencial language.

One of the reasons that the earlier claims were false was because they did not take into account that the "Donation of Constantine" was a forged document which they used to support their claim. Another reason is that historically, they could not have existed where they lived because of the Muslim occupation of the southern France for over 100 years in the 10th Century. No Catholics or Waldensians could have lived side by side with these Muslims. They wiped out everyone there. The other reason is that the founder of this group and his followers for many years were Catholic.

The only time they could have started according to themselves and French historians is in the 12th Century. Their own documents show them to have started out as Catholics, it wasn’t until much later that they were excommunicated.

The founder and his group of Poor of Lyons even went to Rome to appeal to the Pope for permission to preach. They have Bibles that have even survived. One Waldensian even cites “Water quencheth a flaming fire, and alms resisteth sins” Ecclesiasticus 3:33 They believed very strongly in a works based salvation. Their literal interpretation of the Bible compelled them to believe one could not be saved unless they gave away all their belongings.

I have only started reading this book and intend to read other sources also, but this one in particular is recommended by the Waldensians of today as a reliable history. As I read more I will be glad to post what I learn.

God Bless

P.S. Another interesting thing is this groups opposition to the Albigenses in the area who they considered heretics.

MikeS · Jul 31, 2003

Originally posted by DHK:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by MikeS:
But you forget, nobody knows and understands more about the Bible than the Church, the pillar and foundation of the truth. Not you, not me, not anybody on this Board, not any of the 30,000+ non-Catholic denominations on the planet.
Click to expand...

That is a very arrogant statement Mike. You talk of the Catholic Church as if the Church is your God, and it is the Church that you are worshipping and not God. The Catholic Church is not infallible. The Catholic Church is not omniscient. I dare say that there are many on this board that would go one on one with any Catholic apologist, the Pope included provided that everything is based on the Bible.
DHK [/QUOTE]Nonsense, DHK! I, a creature whom Christ created, simply accept and submit to the Church which Christ created. It has been said that there is a certain logic to believing in both the Church and the Bible, or in disbelieving in both the Church and the Bible, but there is no logic in disbelieving in the Church while believing in the Bible. I agree. What is the pillar and foundation of the truth again?

Arrogant: Having or displaying a sense of overbearing self-worth or self-importance.
Marked by or arising from a feeling or assumption of one's superiority toward others

How could I be arrogant regarding the Church? I am not the Church. I did not create it. I, a sinner, have simply and by the grace of God been led into it. I don't guard my membership jealously; quite the contrary, I invite one and all to come and share the fullness of truth! I love the Church only because it is a creation of Christ, as the living guardian and interpreter of the deposit of faith, and as evangelist to the world. It is only because of your great disdain for the Church that you see my love for it as worship. It is God alone that I worship, but thanks for asking.

And, I stand by my assertion that nobody and no organization knows and understands the Bible better than the Church. How could it be otherwise? Who is the arrogant one, other than the one who claims to know and understand the Bible better than the pillar and foundation of the truth?

DHK · Aug 1, 2003

Originally posted by MikeS:
Nonsense, DHK! I, a creature whom Christ created, simply accept and submit to the Church which Christ created.
Click to expand...

You may be one of God's creations; but the Catholic Church is man's organization; perhap's falling under John 8:44 where Jesus said "Ye are of your father the devil" There is no evidence that the Catholic Church is of Christ Himself. There is even more evidence that it has all the markings of most cults.

It has been said that there is a certain logic to believing in both the Church and the Bible,
Click to expand...

No, To believe in the Bible is to believe in God. To believe in the Catholic Church is to believe in man's organization, and if you read hundreds of Protestant commnetaries they will say that to believe in the Catholic Church or its head, is to believe in the Antichrist.

or in disbelieving in both the Church and the Bible, but there is no logic in disbelieving in the Church while believing in the Bible. I agree.
Click to expand...

No, there is a great deal of logic in disbelieving the Catholic Church while believing the Bible. That is my testimony. I was Roman Catholic for 20 years. I trusted Christ as my Saviour, but did not immediately leave the Catholic Church. Upon studying the Bible I saw how it contradicted the Catholic church, or more accurately vice-versa. I was compelled to make a choice. I could either follow the Bible or follow the Catholic Church. I could not do both because they were at so much variance with each other. I chose the Bible, thank God.

What is the pillar and foundation of the truth again?
Click to expand...

The church, assembly, local church. The word means assembly in every case. It never means universal church or organization as the RC's use it. It is always use in a local sense and simply means assembly. Look it up for yourself--ekklesia.

And, I stand by my assertion that nobody and no organization knows and understands the Bible better than the Church. How could it be otherwise? Who is the arrogant one, other than the one who claims to know and understand the Bible better than the pillar and foundation of the truth?
Click to expand...

The devil knows the Bible well too.
DHK

Carson Weber · Aug 1, 2003

MikeS,

Ex-Catholics have great potential to become the most vehement anti-Catholics. Usually, this is because they received such poor catechesis as Catholics; they left the Church; and then they attack what they don't understand, and if they do come to understand the Church, this newfound understanding requires an admission that they left what they didn't understand, which involves a humility that is painful to take on. This lack of humility and the complimentary prideful attitude tend to result in the continual misrepresentation of the Catholic Church. What is the remedy? Prayer and loving humility - for both the ex-Catholic and for those who desire his return to the one fold of Christ.

John Gilmore · Aug 1, 2003

Originally posted by WPutnam:
In 1930, all Protestant churches stood head and shoulders with the Catholic Church in condemning the use of artificial birth control. Today, who stands with her, sir? Not one church! At one time, all churches prohibited a divorce on any grounds (and not to be confused with annulments, which finds that a marriage was null in the first place) but who stands with her today?

Click to expand...

The doctrine of the Lutheran Church is defined solely by her Confesssions and not by any private teaching. I have searched my library and the internet. I have not found a single official doctrinal statement prior to 1930 that condemns artificial birth control.

The Lutheran Church has always permitted divorce/remarriage for desertion or adultery. Divorce or annulment for any other reason is not recognized (e.g., marriage to an unbeliever). This has not changed.

Articles that can not be tolerated . . .That the married may be divorced on account of [diverse] faith, and the one may abandon the other and be married to another person who is of his faith. Formula of Concord, 1576
Click to expand...

Unjust also is the tradition which forbids an innocent person to marry after divorce. Smalcald Articles, 1537
Click to expand...

Why do you believe the bible?

WPutnam <img src =/2122.jpg>

WPutnam <img src =/2122.jpg>

Doubting Thomas Active Member

Frank New Member

Doubting Thomas Active Member

WPutnam <img src =/2122.jpg>

DHK <b>Moderator</b>

Kathryn New Member

DHK <b>Moderator</b>

Kathryn New Member

DHK <b>Moderator</b>

MikeS New Member

DHK <b>Moderator</b>

MikeS New Member

DHK <b>Moderator</b>

Kathryn New Member

MikeS New Member

DHK <b>Moderator</b>

Carson Weber <img src="http://www.boerne.com/temp/bb_pic2.jpg">

John Gilmore New Member

Useful Searches

Why do you believe the bible?

WPutnam <img src =/2122.jpg>

WPutnam <img src =/2122.jpg>

Doubting Thomas Active Member

Frank New Member

Doubting Thomas Active Member

WPutnam <img src =/2122.jpg>

DHK <b>Moderator</b>

Kathryn New Member

DHK <b>Moderator</b>

Kathryn New Member

DHK <b>Moderator</b>

MikeS New Member

DHK <b>Moderator</b>

MikeS New Member

DHK <b>Moderator</b>

Kathryn New Member

MikeS New Member

DHK <b>Moderator</b>

Carson Weber <img src="http://www.boerne.com/temp/bb_pic2.jpg">

John Gilmore New Member