Do Sabbath-keepers celebrate Easter?

Bob said

Not at all. I am showing, based on historical fact, not imaginary fancy, that there is ACTUAL DOCUMENTED PROOF on record, for all the world to see, that ERROR and HERESY were recoreded in the very early Church. And these heresies were not the Real Presnece, Infant Baptism, or Apostolic Succession.

These fly-by-night excuses for Scholastic Apologists, come around here claiming all NT scripture telling of coming errors, is 'fulfilled' by ALL Catholic teachings from the time of the Apostles till the Reformation, is honestly an almost comical view, for anybody remotely farmiliar with any historical studies. You simply have to be blind or grossly subjective to even think one could believe such things in a systemic fashion. In fact, all credibility is lost, scholastically speaking, when you see this junk, knowing full well that these people have not checked it out fully or parially, or have an obvious alterior motive. In either case, it is hard to take them seriously.

 

Your own scholars and historians "admit" that permanent changes came into the Church with paganism (see the quotes in the previous posts).

Your own scholars admit that even infant Baptism is not the practice of the first century NT church.

How can you blame all this on non-Catholics when your own leaders confess it?

As I said - the errors that they do identify are not the "only errors on the planet" and surely you can also find cases where errors were rejected by the Roman Church.


In Christ,

Bob

 

I agree that not all tradition is evil.

However the posts above deal with several errors.

#1. They show that the NT saints and leaders "refused the title of priest". Clearly many non-Catholics would view Christ as our one and only priest - just as the NT saints.

#2. It shows that their role was primarily as Bible teachers - but changed over time in to more of the "magical sacrament" administrator where salvation could be had by magic-ceremony rather than acceptance of the Gospel by hearing the Word of God. Clearly - many non-Catholics would view this as "gross error".

#3. The posts show that pagan "forms of worship" came in - using pagan statues, candles, prayers to the dead etc. In fact Catholic Digest makes a big point about this "introduction" into the church from paganism in the following quote.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Well first of all, I was hoping 3AM could respond to her sources and their dubious credibility, but it appears she has checked out after seeing that her source is debunked.

Bob - while you sources seem to be better, you have come into this fray, seeking to use a much better source, and seem to be using it to infer what 3AM's sources, The Two Babylons were trying to pass off as history. Since they both deal with paganism to some degree, they seem to back each other up, except they are not remotely infering the same things about paganism or worship, so I am not even remotely buying into that potential smoke screen.

The Two Babylons make big errors in their history, and the worst part, they seek to say that most Catholic 'practice and worship' is taken from pagan rites including the core of the theologies behind those practices. Not just certain parts, but they infer that the Real Presence somehow is part of pagansim, making the very core of Christian worship associated to Satan worship. Now this is where I have the major problem with that type of recounting.

This other gentleman(Korosoro?) came along with the same style of historical recounting from sources in the mid nineteenth century, which I showed to have obvious internal consitiencies right off the bat. That was also at the hight of extreeme anti-catholicsism in England by the way, sounds just like that time prerios frankly.

Now you are giving me a better source Bob, with this Cathoic author. While I have not read his book to be honest, I read your quotes of him every time you posted them, even a second time when you posted them again, thinking I had ignored them. I did not ignore them. This author, while I am not accusing him, I still do not understand where he is getting some of his information, or what he drawing his inferences from. So I will deal with those quotes if you wish.

You mean the Catholic authors statement says this. And thats fine, but I am curious by what basis he draws this conclusion. I know for a fact that way before the Constantine period, priests in the Church or Bishops if you will, most definately adminstered Sacraments to the people. On this matter, there is no question. As to what names they wanted to be called, I would have be interested enough to research this as I have other things.

What shows this? This authors statement? Like I said above, if you really want to get into pre Nicean patristic texts, we can look at many cases of liturgical style worship, and adminstration of sacraments by the clergy. You make it sound like the early Christian Bishops were like Baptist ministers, mostly just teaching from the Bible, and not really making sacramental worship the main focus of corporate worship. If this is the case, your view, I think, is not dealing with all the facts and is tending to nievity a tad.

I'll be honest, I know and even you know pagan forms are still a part of all of our worship and lives. Birthdays, marriages (rings), candles for a million occations, etc. Even my service in my Baptist church we used candles. This is not pagan any longer. But regarding this guys statements. I still don't really know what he means with these statements. The Catholic digest you mentions talk more about Rosary beads than what this Catholic author was discussing. Then you mix them together.

The prayer beads. Well, that is not a pagan thing. I know Buddists and others use beads for prayers. The beads are memory points. That is nothing and of no consequece. They also use candles, and sing. So what?

Objectively all worship is influenced by the peoples that practice worship. The Baptist church has an altar call, and a choir behind the pastor. Did the early Christians have these things? No they did not. That is an influence from non-Christian cultures. Is it evil? Of course not. Why is it not evil? Because of the THING BEING DONE.

Look, you know it, and I know it, and we all on this board here know what your real contention is. That anything that was added and was part of a pagan culture, is actually the theologial reality of what the Catholics practice.

Lets take a candle as one example. Lets say that pagans used them before any Christians used them. If Christians adopted thier use in worship, are the Christians doing satanic things with these candles? When we worship Jesus on Easter, are we worshiping the sun god Ishtar, or are we worshiping Jesus the saviour? I think this argument is only brought about for the reason I mentioned.

Do you Bob Ryan, think that because of pagans or Constantine, the teaching of the 'Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist' came from pagan influences? You know, I keep asking you this question, but you never ever will answer me directly on this point. I have dealt with your questions, why don't you answer just this one thing. I really want to know what you think.

 

Charles -

For me the main significance of the Catholic Digest quote was where it contrasted pagan dieties with the Catholic system of praying to saints that have died and how one replaces the other. I found that very 'instructive'.

You said

If you asked about that before then I missed the post.

I have to admit I have no idea where the Catholic view came from in terms of history and introduction.

I know that the pagan Roman used to "Accuse" the early Christians of believing what the Catholics now claim to be fact - but I have no idea how "else" they came up with that view of John 6.

Clearly it is the faithLess disciples in John 6 that make the assumption that this is "literal flesh" and they leave.

The FaithFull disciples draw the correct lesson about the true source of life - NOt being literal flesh. As Christ said "literal flesh is worthless but My WORDS are Spirit and are Life" and so Peter responds "You HAVE the Words of life".

The entire John 6 discussion on flesh was directed at the goal of obtaining "life".

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob said:

Lets skip the games then. You seem to derive pleasure watching others imply and even state that such doctrines came FROM paganism. Yet, I notice, you never say it outright, but throw in cheers their way. Just say what you mean.

If you really have no idea from history where they got this teaching, then I cannot believe you argue so much against it.

We can say without question, they did NOT get it from pagans after Constantine. Do you at least have the honestly to agree with this?

Look here is just a start. It is clear that Ignatius in his letter to the Smyrnaeans, describes the Eucharist in 'real presence' terms. This is 110AD. His associates were Polycarp, the Smyrnaean Bishop who is likely the 'angel at Smyrna' in Revelations, who was the Apostle John's disciple. Where do you think Ignatius gained this understanding? He was so against heresies, that he told others not to even talk about heretics in public.

Right or wrong in your eyes, this shows that Constantine did not in any way bring this doctrine into the Church. There are a LOT of other patristic texts to reference, but this is out of scope for this thread perhaps.

What are your thoughts on Ignatius' words here?

Then you will objectively realize, that the earliest Christians, namely, the one's actually dying and being burned and tortured for thier faith, are the ones that were professing the Real Presence. This Also places doubt that Constantine created or added this to the Church.

This is all about your exegesis on John 6. Another topic to be sure, and one you and I have debated before. I felt your position had real problems, and we should open that back up on another thread.

You are also implying indirectly that the 'bad unbelieving' disciples overtook the Church? This is where you seem to be heading with this statement, "Clearly it is the faithLess disciples in John 6 that make the assumption that this is "literal flesh" and they leave." Do you realize what a silly argument you are about to embark upon if that is your contention?

We know what the 'litaralists' like John must have taught Polycarp, who taught Ignatius. I don't think Ignatius swapped sides.

 

:

You must be kidding - right?

Why in the world would I refrain from speaking against a Catholic error just because I am not aware of HOW they came up with their errors??!

I don't do that with the Jews of Christ day - and I don't do that with Catholics on the subject of the Eucharest. I "see them be wrong" and I point out the error. But in the case of the Eucharist I have no idea of how they "wandered off the path" set in the NT to get to where they are today.

I don't know that this is true - but I have no argument against it. IF it turns out that they did not get it from the pagans then - I am glad for them. The problem is - as can be seen when it is tested by the Word of God - and that does not "change" just because we can not "blame Constantine" for it.

The "problem" is that just as in the case of the Didache - (which is one of the more "reliable" annonymous sources the RCC likes to use) the DATE claimed is "all over the map" in terms of "Actual supportable history".

Because of that - I tend to "Stick" with the "Apostolic Teaching of the Christian Church" as revealed in the writings of "the Apostles of the Christian Church" - the NT.



[/QUOTE]Right or wrong in your eyes, this shows that Constantine did not in any way bring this doctrine into the Church. There are a LOT of other patristic texts to reference, but this is out of scope for this thread perhaps.

What are your thoughts on Ignatius' words here?
[/quote]

#1. I need to review the "Actual" history of the document and the characters represented not a "maybe,possibly, could-be" rendition.

#2. I never said that of all the errors taken out of paganism and introduced into the RCC - the Eucharist was one that came from THAT source. What I did say - was that I did not know what was the source of the error regarding the eucharist taught by the RCC.

No. I see this as a "false charge" of the Pagans against the Christians. The pagan spies sent to the Christian groups did not understand that this was merely a symbol - they were as confused as the faithLess disciples in John 6 who took issue with the symbol about flesh being food.

But notice that in John 6 - "nobody" is found "Taking a bit out of Christ" AND Christ does not say in John 6 "Someday in the future My flesh WILL BECOME food" that leads to eternal life.

I am happy to do that.

The point remains however - that the precident of unbelievers "getting the wrong idea" started with John 6.

On Acts 20 Paul predicts that Church leaders will arise teaching error.

In 2Thess 2 Paul predicts a massive historic apostacy within the church prior to the 2nd coming.

In Mark 7:7-12 Christ "shows" that this SAME thing already happened in the ONE TRUE CHURCH started by God at Sinai EVEN though they had the "Forever promises" of Isaiah 59 regarding God's "Holy Spirit" and "Teaching Word".

One point in your favor. You are right to expect more support in documents that orginate in the centuries FOLLOWING the NT text than IN the NT text.

In Christ,

Bob

 

During the Middle Ages a more elaborate doctrine of the Eucharist was developed by Scholastic philosophers under the influence of Aristotle (see Scholasticism). Aristotle taught that earthly things possessed accidents (size, shape, color, texture) perceptible to the senses, and substance, their essential reality, known by the mind. According to Scholastic speculation, the substance of the Eucharistic bread is, by the power of God, wholly transformed into the body of Christ. This view of the presence of Christ, called transubstantiation, was most elaborately formulated by the 13th-century Italian theologian St. Thomas Aquinas. It has been the official teaching of the Roman Catholic church since the Middle Ages, although the Council of Trent, which reasserted the doctrine against the Protestant reformers in the 16th century, did not include any philosophical speculation in its statement, asserting simply that an actual change occurred in the bread and wine.( Encarta97 Enc. )

Bye for now. Y. b. in C. Keith

 

John 6:53-58 53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.

The next spiritual truth that we will examine is the Eucharist. The church of Rome contends that Christ was speaking of changing the bread and wine of the above verses, into the literal body, and blood of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. She also contends that true believers must partake of this literal body and blood. Of course, the only ones that can perform this transubstantiation, are the priests of the church of Rome. In this way again, the church of Rome has sought to set herself up in a position of power and authority over all.

If indeed, bread and wine must be transformed into the literal body and blood of Christ, and only the priest's of Rome can perform this miracle, then all are dependent upon Rome for salvation. So now, Peter was handed special authority over the church of Christ, whom the Popes now represent. In this manner, a mere man has been put in between humanity and God. Now also, the priests in subjection to this man, have been given by him, the power to perform this miracle by which the true believer may partake of Christ unto salvation. Both of these claims to authority come to the church of Rome by the literalization of spiritual truths in the holy scriptures. They also both put mere men between humanity and God, a thing which our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ came specifically to abolish. We will discuss this issue in more depth in following chapters.

Let us examine the spiritual truth of the above verses which is ignored by the church of Rome. After saying in verse fifty six, "He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him", Christ goes on in the very next verse to explain what he had just said. " 57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me " Are we to suppose from the above verses, that Christ was continually changing bread and wine into the literal body and blood of his Father, and eating him, so as to live by his Father? Of course not. We know that the Father lived within the Son through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit which he gave to his son ( Jn. 1:32 ). This is why Christ came to earth, and became one of us. So that He could dwell within the believer through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit of God. This does not happen by ingesting the literal body and blood of Christ, but by faith in the son of God, and submission to his will. Observe the following scriptures.

John 17:17-23 17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
18 As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world.
19 And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth.
20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

The Father was in Christ, and Christ was in him. This was not accomplished by Christ eating the literal flesh and blood of the Father. Likewise, Christ does not live in the believer by the ingestion of his literal flesh and blood. Christ was our example in all things, as the Father was in Christ, and Christ in Him, so are we to be in Christ, that the Father and Son might be in us. Verse seventeen points out how this takes place. True believers are sanctified through God's truth, His word is truth. It is by the ingestion, or taking in of God's word, that believers receive the Holy Spirit of God. This is a spiritual experience, not a literal one. However, it will have literal effects in your life, by conforming the believer into the likeness of the Father and Son, which is salvation.

Matt 4:4 4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

We all eat food to live, but those who take in the word of God, and live by it, will live forever. This is how God dwells within the believer, not by eating and drinking some wine and bread that some claim to have changed into the body and blood of Christ. It requires no change of heart, or mind, to eat some bread, and drink some wine. On the other hand, it requires submission to God, to believe, and act upon his word. This can be accomplished only by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit of God, and it unquestionably changes the heart, and actions of the believer into the likeness of their Lord's. This spiritual truth is lost sight of, in the literal interpretation of Christ's words regarding the subject at hand.

John 14:15-21 15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.
16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.
19 Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.
20 At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.
21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

Those who love God will endeavor to keep his commandments. Only those who have made this choice, that is to allow Christ to rule in their lives, will receive the Spirit of truth. Without this Holy Spirit, it is impossible to serve God, or keep his commandments. The world cannot receive the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit comes by way of acceptance of, and submission to the word of God. This is why only true believers can enter into the experience that Christ is referring to when he speaks of eating his flesh and drinking his blood. By literalizing this truth, and making the act the mere ingestion of bread and wine, the church of Rome has set up a system, and a people who have only a form of godliness, denying the power thereof.

1 Cor 11:24-27 24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.
27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

As Paul points out in the above verses, partaking of the bread and wine, is a reminder of the Lord's death on our behalf, till he comes again. This is exactly where all true believers begin, and maintain their walk with God, at the foot of the cross. It is by entering into Christ's death, the full submission and surrender of self, that Christ is enabled to live within us. Accepting Christ's death for us, not only in our place, but as our own death, that we make walk in newness of life, by the power of the Holy Spirit of God. This is what it means to eat the flesh, and drink the blood of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To be in him at his death, that he might be in us in newness of life, his life, not our own. For Christ was obedient to the Father, even to the point of death, that we might die with him, in order to receive power to be obedient to the Father also. You in Christ, and Christ in you, the hope of glory. We will end this chapter with the following verses.

Rom 6:3-7 3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.

Gal 3:27 27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

Col 1:26-27 26 Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints:
27 To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:

Bye for now. Y. b in C. Keith

 

Miss Debbie;
We keep the passover in the Jewish tradition, but I think the question you are asking is how do we observe the resurrection? We believe Yeshua rose on the feast of firstfruits, Yom HaBikkurim (Lev. 23:9-21). This is reflected in 1 Cor 15:20-23. This day begins the countdown to Shavuot (Pentecost). Apparently, some conflict existed between authorities as to when this countdown started; Pharisaic tradition holds that the sabbath mentioned in Lev 23 is the first day of unleavened bread, so firstfruits would been on Nisan the 16th; however Sadducaic tradition went with the weekly sabbath so the day would always be on the first day of the week. Interestingly enough, when Yeshua died and was resurrected, we can see by the Gospel's account that in that year the interpretations would have been on the same day!! Coincidence? I think not! Baruch HaBa BeShem Adonai!!
Kevin

 

Bob said

I have no idea what you were meaning to say here. Your sentence got all jumbled up with a side thought. What was the problem again?

 

Bob said

No kidding Bob. You can speak against error all day. I am against the WAY you seem to substantiate it by giving credence to this junk called ‘history’ by some of these people around here. That is the subject, not whether you think the Church is in error. You have shifted the subject on me here.

This is what I wanted to hear. Thank you. I still don’t see how you can say that you have NO IDEA how they picked this up. Fine, I don’t believe that, but I’ll take it. 3AM and Koromisimo posted all kinds of supposed history on how we picked it up. Do you belive that? Does their links to history not give you some idea? Would you defend their sources as reliable?
Do you agree that we can know within 50 years WHEN we find the Real Presence in the Churches ancient writtings?
quote:

Charles said --

We can say without question, they did NOT get it from pagans after Constantine. Do you at least have the honestly to agree with this?

Bob responded…

Well, ok.
Charles said --

Look here is just a start. It is clear that Ignatius in his letter to the Smyrnaeans, describes the Eucharist in 'real presence' terms. This is 110AD. His associates were Polycarp, the Smyrnaean Bishop who is likely the 'angel at Smyrna' in Revelations, who was the Apostle John's disciple.
Bob replied –

Oh boy here we go…the date sir, is not all over the map. Even if, in your mind, it is all over the map, it is still far, far before Constantine. What is the problem you are refering to? Whether it is a big or small problem, it can be contained pretty easily as we know Ignatius and Polycarp were alive at the same times. Pretty close either way. We know Ignatius did not live 300 years.

Bob said

Because of what, the date being purpotedly all over the place? So you trust the NT because all the dates of letter in perfect scholarly agreement? Hardly. Your argument and statement are invalid as the NT letter dates are not agreed upon either by scholars. What is your real point here? It is not about dates.

I said:

You responded

Have you been on this board arguing with Catholics about the Real Presence so long that you have not been curious about the very early history of the Church and at least... slogged through a 'few pages' of Ignatius? That tells me you are more interested in arguing than doing research. People will only do real research when it is important to them personally, or to grind an axe. You certainly have an axe to grind but it is dull. Go check this stuff out, it is great reading and will encourage your faith on any account.

Charles said --

Then you will objectively realize, that the earliest Christians, namely, the one's actually dying and being burned and tortured for thier faith, are the ones that were professing the Real Presence. This Also places doubt that Constantine created or added this to the Church.

Bob responded

How so Bob? The Christians were very open about what they taught even in the face of death. According to history, both secular and Christian, both agree and have documented that the Christians taught the Real Presence. You are just creating this scenario in your mind based on YOUR present perception of the doctrines. Your argument here is very weak based on the facts.

Speaking of doing a thread on John 6, you said “I am happy to do that.”

Cool. We will soon I hope. I am pressed a bit lately for time, but I want to do that justice. Last time I had to bail in mid stream.

 

Acts 20:29-30 29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

The following are some excerpts from the writings of Ignatius. They show the fulfillment of the Apostle Pauls warning that after his departure wolves would come into the flock, seeking followers of themselves. The exaltaion of the Bishops, was a first step in this direction. It eventually lead to the establishment of the Church of Rome, in which, one man is exalted above all others. The beginning of these things may be seen in the following from Ignatius.

The more, therefore, you see the bishop silent, the more do you reverence him. For we ought to receive every one whom the Master of the house sends to be over His household, as we would do Him that sent him. It is manifest, therefore, that we should look upon the bishop even as we would look upon the Lord Himself, standing, as he does, before the Lord. For "it behooves the man who looks carefully about him, and is active in his business, to stand before kings, and not to stand before slothful men." And indeed Onesimus himself greatly commends your good order in God, that ye all live according to the truth, and that no sect has any dwelling-place among you. Nor indeed do ye hearken to any one rather than to Jesus Christ, the true Shepherd and Teacher. And ye are, as Paul wrote to you, "one body and one spirit, because ye have also been called in one hope of the faith. Since also "there is one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all, and through all, and in all." Such, then, are ye,having been taught by such instructors, Paul the Christ-bearer, and Timothy the most faithful. ( the Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians Chap. 6 )

As therefore the Lord does nothing without the Father, for says He, "I can of mine own self do nothing," so do ye, neither presbyter, nor deacon, nor layman, do anything without the bishop. Nor let anything appear commendable to you which is destitute of his approval. For every such thing is sinful, and opposed [to the will of] God. Do ye all come together into the same place for prayer. Let there be one common supplication, one mind, one hope, with faith unblameable in Christ Jesus, than which nothing is more excellent. Do ye all, as one man, run together into the temple of God, as unto one altar, to one Jesus Christ, the High Priest of the unbegotten God.( The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians Chap. 7 )

Be ye subject to the bishop as to the Lord, for "he watches for your souls, as one that shall give account to God." Wherefore also, ye appear to me to live not after the manner of men, but according to Jesus Christ, who died for us, in order that, by believing in His death, ye may by baptism be made partakers of His resurrection. It is therefore necessary, whatsoever things ye do, to do nothing without the bishop. And be ye subject also to the presbytery, as to the apostles of Jesus Christ, who is our hope, in whom, if we live, we shall be found in Him. It behooves you also, in every way, to please the deacons, who are [ministers] of the mysteries of Christ Jesus; for they are not ministers of meat and drink, but servants of the Church of God. They are bound, therefore, to avoid all grounds of accusation [against them], as they would a burning fire. Let them, then, prove themselves to be such. ( The Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians Chap, 2 )


Matt 23:8-12 8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.
9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.
11 But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.
12 And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.

Bye for now. Y. b. in C. Keith

 

Koromoso,

Bolding Ignatius' statements that are not part of your faith only shows the newness of your faith. That proves nothing, except that Ignatius, disciple of Polycarp, disciple of the great Apostle John, Apostle of the one Jesus, did not recieve the same teaching that you have from your pastor or whomever you have recieved your teaching in Christ from.

This merely shows that Bishops were important, and not ONE CHURCH that we know of in this early history disagreed with his statement, but rather, embraced his teachings as Apostolic in nature.

Did you forget to bold these?:

Ignatius implores Godliness within the confounds of the NT and teaching of the Apostles.

Koro said:

No, according to documneted history, Irenaus in his Against Heresies showed in over 350 pages all the heresies of the day. He did not mention one word about Irenaus' teaching on Bishops as a heresy, but rather solidified these teachings as teachings derived from the Apostles.

 

Ignatius' words have a farmiliar ring to them...

 

Smyrnaeans 2:16 "...the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ...". I have no concordance or lexicon for that book to examine what the actual Greek says, but still, are you sure they understood such a statement as the later RCC did with its "transubstantiation"? I think it has been pointed out that "to be" could be understood back then figuratively. In other words, that it represented the flesh, not actually turned into it.

As for the bishop, even being taught by an apostle, or a disciple of an apostle does not guarantee a person has perfectly preserved the original truth. No NT scripture places such a high priority on the bishop. But Ignatius came and took scriptural principles, and put his own spin on it. The NT spoke of obeying authority, and Ignatius followed this, but put a bit too much focus on this one office. Then, people after him would do the same thing, taking it a bit further. Until finally, by the time of Constantine, the church had become "an efficient organization that was a microcosm of the empire" (as Karen Armstrong put it), and impressed Constantine. The same with "the Eucharist IS the flesh". Whatever it originally meant, still, Ignatius put it in this new way, and from there, people eventually began taking it literally. This is how all of the changes in Church doctrine and practice occurred. Just because some of them started that early, even as close as one or two people away from an apostle, does not mean they were Biblical NT apostolic doctrine or practice.
I like the way Dodd and Dugger's History of the True Religion put it: "No sooner had the apostles and disciples, who had been with Jesus fallen asleep, than a new order arose, and a different class of writers began to pen religious epistles...perhaps in sincerity, but not under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, as did the apostles" (p.57, 62). They then quote Hurlbut, who points out this was an obscure period, and by the first quarter of the new century, "we find a church in many aspects very different from that in the days of Peter and Paul".

And of course, someone like Irenaeus wouldn't count many of these things as heresies, because by the time you get to thim, they were established. As I sahowed, they crept in as new spins on or ways of putting NT teachings, then gradually became established practices, so that no one even noticed. Sort of like the frog in the heating up pot of water analogy.

 

Charles said

I pointed out that the case for error coming into the early NT church was made in Acts 20 and in 2Thess 2 - I said that one of the examples of this is can be seen in the RC quotes - of RC historians themselves - admitting to the paganism adopted by the RCC near the start of the dark ages.

I also responded to the John 6 claims here - that in fact the RCC was also in error on that chapter as well.

It was you that stated that I could not possibly know that the RCC was in error JUST by comparing what they say to what the Bible actually says. YOU said I would ALSO have to know the SOURCE of the RCC error.

My statement above was just to point out that the logic behind that assertion - is lacking.

\


Charles said

What is it about me that would make you insist that I do know exactly how the RCC left the path of the NT church on the subject of John 6 - and began teaching the error that they do today on that subject.

I have not looked into those sources as of this point. I have no idea what they are.

Are they well known Catholic sources?

I would agree that IF we find the language used today - that insists that the bread is turned into the actual literal physical flesh of God when the priest says a certain phrase - and we find it in some document that has been reliably dated - that we can then know - the author of that document taught the same thing that the current RCC teaches.

If that document is the "Bible" the "Word of God" then we also know that the NT first century church taught it - and that God endorses it.

No question. If you can find a document - reliably dated pre-constantine that insists that the bread is turned into the actual literal physical flesh of God when the priest says a certain phrase - then you DO clearly have the current RCC teaching - shown pre-Constantine.

Big "if". I often find that RC claims to such findings don't seem to measure up to the facts when you look at the details in the source.

But I am always open to one that works.

This is an attack upon some "other group" by Ignatius where he takes "extreme" positions like "They have no regard for love". Thisuis ambiguous in the quote as to what they are saying or what Ignatius is claiming about love "by contrast".

It is therefore somewhat ambiguous as to what the charge is against them in the Eucharist. Are they denying that Christ died for our sins OR is this simply a sign that the entire church had not accepted the views that Ignatius had about the Eucharist (as if we knew what that is).

In any case - if you could show that Ignatius taught - explicitly that the bread is turned into the actual literal physical flesh of God when the priest says a certain phrase then I would agree that you have a pre-Constantine source endorsing the current RCC teaching.

Surprisingly - I view the NT text as the "prime document" of the "very early NT church" and I view those writings as the prime source of "First order Apostolic teachings" - so "shockingly" I go to that source to "see what the very early NT church taught and what the Apostolic teaching was" of our very first "Church fathers".

Again - I am sure this is kind of unnusual - but that is my practice.

Shockingly - I consider God's Word to be "authoritative" and the "primal" source for "research".

I like "knowing" what it says.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob responded

Charles said

I am simply pointing out that one of the primary false claims against Christians to the Emperor of Rome was that they were cannibals.

My point is that the pagans that were spying on them - came to the same false conclusions as did the faithLess disciples of John 6.

When you start the John 6 thread - I will be happy to join in ...

In Christ,

Bob

 

"Since" it is claimed that I have "no interest" in the historic statements of early church fathers AFTER the NT first century church -- I would point out the following.

"Although" our Catholic bretheren sometimes claim to follow the scripture interpretations of the church fathers, they fail to focus on the key disconfirming fact that early church fathers such as Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian viewed John 6 as figurative in harmony with the faithFul disciples of John 6.

(Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, Book 1, Chapter 6)

(Tertullian, On the Ressurection of the Flesh, 37)

(Tertullian, On the Ressurection of the Flesh, 37)

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob, where do you find all these catholic sources?