My church defined your church's bible

Paul did see the risen Christ. As for Mark and Luke, they were contemporaries, and I did include contemporaries earlier. The contrast was between them and later generations, as far as "reliability" was concerned.

Oh, so you take the intererpretation of "whatever you bind on earth has been bound in Heaven". I always thought that was the non-Catholic response to the claim of the apostles being the one causing the binding in Heaven through their decision on earth. Perhaps it was Rome who took it that way, and most of our answers are geared to Rome, as you have seen.
Fine. All that means is that they would relay Christ's teachings or principles, just like deciding that marriage is to be between man and woman for instance. It has nothing to do with whatever later leaders teach automaticlly being true just because of their title, for that would assume the latter [mis]interpretation of the "binding" statement.

Yes, the existence of the ordinances of baptism and communion were dogmatic, and basically the only dogmatic "religious practices" we see. It's all of the other concepts or teachings your church adds to these, which you criticize us for not following, (such as what age) that are the types of issues that were not dogmatic, as they were not even expounded upon. You expect us to follow later leaders on them.

Because it's not about "them", it's about Christ, and they could have been mostly correct in selecting the books without being correct in everything else. Historians can look at all the other books (NT Apocrypha, Pseudopipigrapha, etc) and tell they were not genuine Judeo-Christian books, and for the 66 books, while not always completely agreed upon, there is no reason to question them. You yourself said the criterion for the NT books was apostolicity. The Gospel of Peter and others are known to obviously be gnostic works, for instance, so there is no question there. So it's not of matter of "if I trust the later Church leaders so much on the canon, I should trust everything else they say".

Just his mention of bishops, which you take as pointing to the Five, or whatever; they take as pointing to one, or at least supporting the principle that led to that.

I don't seem to remember reading of much "opposition" to it from the East prior to the time of the split. The papacy as it is known today generally is said to have begun somewhere in the 5th or 6th century.

 

Roman Catholic makes idols for Mary, and therefore they are not Christians according to your definition.

I do respect Jesus and Disciples.
I don't believe Jesus or Disciples made the statue of Mary.

Cherubim were located inside the Holy of Holies.
Cherubim looked down upon the Mercy Seat ( Place of Atonement) on top of Ark of Covenant.

High Priest entered the Holy of Holies only once a year on the day of Atonement ( Yom Kipur), but not without the blood.

At that time, what the High Priest did was to lay the blood on the Mercy Seat, sprinkling the blood inside.
I never read the verse that High Priest bowed down to the Cherubim.
The Cherubim were the visible witness, symbolizing the angels.
Angels were not to be worshipped or bowed down to, but the servants of God, withnessing the events.

True Christians will never find any clue in the Bible, to make and justify any statues for Mary.

 

Actually Paul didn't see Him, he was blinded. And he wasn't taught by Him which was your other criteria. Luke was a contemporary of Paul, who didn't even witness 90% of the events Luke recorded. According to Tradition, which you don't trust, Mark was a contemporary of Peter.

Does all this add up to "relatively good" reliability, or infallibility? I didn't catch your answer.

Firstly, why do you keep coming back to focusing on leaders, when I've told you it is not just about leaders?

Secondly, you're still obfuscating the answer. Do you or do you not believe that whatever Christ's disciples bind on earth is bound in heaven? Yes or No?

Ok, so you agree at least that baptism is important. Can Christ's disciples bind on earth what is bound in heaven concerning baptism?

Well, you might not question them, but you must know there is no shortage of people questioning them, whether it be denying that Peter wrote 2 Peter or that Paul wrote the Pastorals, or that John wrote Revelation, etc etc.

I put it to you that the reason you don't question them is pragmatism - once you start questioning them, you have no religion. But you don't have any defendable reason not to question them, because you have no mechanism for deciding canon.

And you say that that the NT Apocrypha are not genuine Judeo-Christian books. Fine. But the OT Apocrypha ARE genuine Judeo-Christian books, which historians are agreed that the apostles read AND influenced the NT.

Come on, there's nothing there for Rome in Ignatius. If you seriously think there is, I suggest you become Roman Catholic, but I don't think you believe it.

It may have begun in the 5th C, but is certainly had a ton of opposition from the beginning, especially in the East. And while the papal claims may have started early as a trickle, the full blown, uninterrupted claims came somewhat later. This meant the East could ignore the West for long periods, because the claims were sporadic. I'll give some examples of Eastern opposition:

1) At the council of Chalcedon, the 28th canon gave Constantinople equal privileges to Rome. The Pope attempted to annul the canon, but this was ignored and it is contained in the copies you are likely to come across.

2) Around 530AD, through political manouvres the Eastern bishops are forced to sign "The Libellus of Hormisdas", which essentially claims supremacy for the Roman See. But before the East signs, John the Patriarch of Constantinople adds a paragraph to the end defining the Constantinople see to be the exact same thing as the Roman see. Clearly it was a transparent attempt to cut the guts out of the Roman claims.

Then in between 600AD and 1000AD there was minimal interaction between Rome and the East, partly due to political, language and cultural differences. In 1054 when the official schism happens, it is just continuing the argument that had first arisen with Cyprian in 250AD when he said "no one sets himself up as bishop of bishops".

So I think it's fair to say it is untrue there hasn't been opposition from the East. There has been opposition every time it arose.

 

Mary is neither a god nor a false god, therefore portrayals of her are no more idols than your family photo album.

Ok, so you venerate the disciples. Good. And do you picture them when you read of their adventures in scripture? I didn't catch the answer.

I agree, more likely they had icons. It was the culture of the time, like you would photograph your mother.

The Scriptures do command the Israelites to bow before the Ark, which had two prominent images of cherubim on it. In Psalms 99:5, it commands: "bow before the footstool of His feet...." We should note first of all that the word for "bow" here, is the same word used in Exodus 20:5, when we are told to not bow to idols.

And what is the "footstool of His feet"? In 1st Chronicles 28:2, David uses this phrase in reference to the Ark of the Covenant. In Psalm 99, it begins by speaking of the Lord who "dwells between the Cherubim" (99:1), and it ends with a call to "bow to His holy hill"—which makes it even clearer that in context, this is speaking of the Ark of the Covenant. This phrase occurs again in Psalm 132:7, where it is preceded by the statement "We will go into His tabernacles..." and is followed by the statement "Arise, O Lord, into Thy rest; Thou and the Ark of Thy strength."

 

My bad.
I apologize.
Rarely will I read umteen pages of round robin. In this case it came back and bit me.
I will read the first page or two to get the gist of things then maybe the last page to see where it had gone, consequently in this case I should have been more diligent.

I apologize :eek: and repent in sackcloth.

 

or
barbie dolls
G.I.Joe dolls
baby dolls
stuffed animals
garden statues
figurines
Aunt Jemina (Mammie) cookie jars:laugh:
Action figures(Evil Knievel, Darth Vader, etc, etc, etc)

If it is constructed by man and has the appearance something God created then it is an Idol by Eliyahu's definition. By this definition the Bible is an Idol. It is the likeness of the written "Word of God".

I have a statue of Jesus. I don't worship(Prostrating myself before it) it.

STATUE OF LIBERTY? That is an idol of our freedom!

Your countries flag. That is a false God!

Americans face the flag.

Americans place the hand over the heart in homage. This parallels the sign of crossing one's self.

Americans place music to it like we play music to God.

Americans pledge an allegiance to the Flag. How often do you pledge your allegiance to God verbally?

Americans fight for their flag more than they fight for God.

how about tellivision or internet, try going without both for a whole week.

 

ahem, you forgot the ashes.:laugh:

 

The issue is not literal "sight" (Paul still did have a direct encounter with Christ), and they were all contemporaries of one another (meaning they lived at the same time). If Peter and Paul knew each other, then Mark and Luke were contemporaries as well.

Not obfuscating; just making sure I'm understanding your position. The answer is there. Yes, if we understand that this does not justify later leaders adding new truths, or proving that everything they taught about baptism and other issues was true just because they taught it. The reason the focus keeps coming back to the leaders is because you keep asking questions like this about their authority, I would guess, to try to prove your point.

People can question whatever they want. Agnostics question the whole canon and belief in God altogether. Others "reimagine" Christ. I cannot follow all of those different groups, so why do they supposedly have so much bearing? I weigh the evidences I have (which includes "conensus of the Body"), and the 66 books have the most support, regardless of what someone or another once said.

That's not what I believe, but is the RCC's argument, based on the notion of tradition proven from ECF comments.

The Psalms are not instructing literal worship in the Tabernacle, but rather focused on Heaven (ch97), where God truly dwells, and which the Tabernacle (and the ark and all other things therein) was a shadow of.

 

I still didn't catch the answer. Does all that result in an infallible bible or just some somewhat more reliable Church leaders? Because none of the above proves infallibility.

You say "yes", but then you end up saying "no". This is like my kids coming up to me and asking "may I go to the shops", and my answering: "The answer is Yes, if we understand that you may not leave the house."

Make up your mind, either the Church which is the disciples of Christ can bind on earth rulings about baptism or it can't. Stop obfuscating with this "yes, but not if I disagree with it" nonsense.

Why can't you follow all the different groups? Your approach seems to be to follow the lowest common denominator. Look at what all the groups are doing, look at what the Jews and other unbelievers are doing, look at what Luther did following unbelieving Jews, and find something that everybody agrees on. Why stop there? Why not continue with the scissors until everybody agrees?

No, the books that have the absolute most support are those which nobody disputes, and that is less than the 66 books.

But that "tradition" isn't proven from Ignatius, and you and I know it. The same can't be said for the notion of having a bishop over the presbyters, because that IS in Ignatius, and you and I know it. Why you pretend not to know these things, I don't know.

A shadow of, or an icon of in Orthodox terminology.

 

At this point, we're starting with more reliable. You're trying to argue that if one generation of leaders is infallible, then all generations are, OR if all generations aren't infallible, then none are. But you can't really prove "infallibility", even with the Bible itself, against agnostics. Our faith is in Christ, and we have the basic record of His life and the first generation of the church. You're trying to tack on all of Church history after that as well as an infallible object of faith, and basically say "you can't have faith in Christ without faith in us" but while the Church has an important role in God's plan, clearly, the object of faith is Christ.

You're the one who acknowledged that the meaning was "already bound in heaven", which I accept, rather than them being the ones binding it in heaven; and that's all I'm safeguarding against. So to accuse me of saying "no", you must be advocating that latter meaning, ultimately. Once again; I'm not the one obfuscating, but it seems here that you may be, as you have gone back and forth several times already on this issue of the role and relevance of the leaders.

Actually; I'm not the one looking at all these other groups and simply following them; you're the one who keeps throwing them up to try to prove your point. So I shouldn't follow anyone just because you say that would be most consistent or logical of me so you can have your straw man.

And I'm sure that's what Rome bases their "prrof" of that tradition upon.

Yes, but Psalms and other such passages are clearly directing the worship to God, not to the shadows, which were reminders to carnal Israel.

 

So the bible is not infallible, that is your position? It is merely "more reliable"?

Whether the Church binds and then heaven reflects it, or whether heaven binds something and the Church reflects it, is merely a matter for theological naval gazers to ponder.

The point for YOU is that whatever is bound on earth *IS* bound in heaven.

Do you believe it or not?

You are following break away groups. You're following a group that broke away from a group following Luther who followed the unbelieving Jew's canon. But for some reason these break away groups are ok to follow, but others aren't.

I guess it's just a matter of following whatever you feel like following - reason and authority need not apply.

And the point is what? You've agreed there is nothing there, so you're just waffling.

Yep. Just like icons. Good eh?

 

So now you have completely ambiguated it. First you said "already bound in heaven", (meaning that God binds, the apostles follow), but now that is some deep theological debate that really does not pertain to us; it could be that the apostles bind; God follows after all; but who knows what it means; just accept the statement.
I said "starting with" more reliable, regarding the leaders, because again, you have gone back and forth between admitting the leaders could make mistakes, to tying the Bible's infallibility to them. (As if the Bible is infallible, then so must everything later leaders said). The Bible is infallible, and the leaders are inasmuch as they wrote or followed it. This does not give them (particularly later ones) the licence to make up new teachings, and it becomes truth bound in Heaven just because they say so. It seems you are trying so hard to prove that without directly saying it.

Again, I didn't follow what I felt like following, as the 66 books are basically all anyone agrees on in this environment. I stumbled across extra books that happened to be included in an old New English Bible my parents had, and the Catholics did not even seem to use them that much, so why should I have considered that canon? Why should I have considered some other canon that I had never heard of, which uses less than the 66 books? A big part of your argument is trying to prove that everyone who does not submit to your church is just doing whatever they feel like and disregarding "authority" (which is what Church of Christ, JW's sabbathkeepers, IFB's, RCC etc all say as well), but we see you cannot pigeonhole the issue like that.

The point there is that the same "historical" arguments you use to try to prove your church is the true apoastolic authority can be used by the RCC to prove that it is the true apostolic authority you have broken away from because your church didn't like it. You don't see it that way, but then nether do the rest of us see it your way.

We're not carnal Israel. If it was wrong to follow their canon, why follow them on this?

 

Roman Catholics do more than what the heathens worship their gods, calling Mary, Mother of God! Praying to the dead woman Mary.

Do you know how to distinguish between respect and venerate? I said I do respect Jesus and Disciples, didn't say venerate Disciples. I venerate Jesus only.

We do respect our parents but don't venerate them.
Veneration means to pay honor and respect the objects believing them as Supernatural Deity, above human beings, which is the case with Mary Worshippers.

1. Footstool of His feet means the footstool of Jehovah, did they make any statue of the footstool of Jehovah ? Nope! They worshipped Him in their hearts.

2. I find a lot of misunderstanding about the scripture in your interpretation.

Will you bow down to the enemy of God ?

Psalm 110:1
1 The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.

Acts 7:
47 But Solomon built him an house. 48 Howbeit the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands; as saith the prophet,
49 Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool: what house will ye build me?

Are you still bowing down to the Ark of Covenant?


3. Do you know what is His Holy Hill ?

The living person Jesus Christ Himself and His Cross is the Holy Hill, don't you know this ? Have you ever experienced the Being Born Again in Jesus Christ, by Holy Spirit? If yes, you should have understood this!

4. King David said the Ark is the footstool of Jehovah in 1 Chron 28:2 because it represented the visible form of the contacting point between men and God, made according to the instruction by God. Did God instruct the people to make statues of Mary? Nope! Did God instruct the people to make statue of Venus or Aphrodite ? No!

 

If I said "whatever I command is authorized by the President", you may or may not know if that means the President feeds me commands to pass onto you, or whether the President has delegated authority for me to exercise his power.

But what you DO know, is that you have to obey it. Why you have to obey is an amusing discussion that is subservient to the fact you must obey.

In the same way, the fact that what the disciples of Christ, aka the Church binds on earth, is bound in heaven, the fact is, it IS BOUND. The exact mechanism is something that can be discussed AFTER you admit the FACT.

Why, oh why.... AGAIN with the leaders #@$#@%

It's about the CHURCH. The CHURCH can and does reject the leaders if and when they make up new teachings. The Church does not accept new teachings from leaders or anybody else. But it does safeguard and bind on earth the Holy Traditions. The Church is infallible in doctrine because it is the sum wisdom of the people of God, led by the Holy Spirit, passing on the traditions it received from Christ. The fact that individual leaders are fallible is just white noise that is drowned out by the consensus of the CHURCH.

It sounds like you didn't consider the canon at all, which is understandable because your theological framework has no mechanism for discovering the canon. So you stuck with the canon of the first mob you came across. It's understandable sure, but it doesn't make for a rigorous defendable position.

Can't I. Except you cannot tell anybody why they should follow your canon. The next time you come across somebody who challenges you on the canon, all you can do is say that this is what your sect uses, take it or leave it.

I wouldn't want to be in a defenceless position like that.

You have three options. Either Rome continued with with the teachings of the early Church, or Orthodoxy continues with the teachings of the early Church, or nobody continued with the teachings of the early Church for 1500 years until John Smyth or whoever founded the Baptist church and discovered what 1500 years of the Church's best minds hadn't even thought about. Things like sola scriptura, and denying the sacraments to Children, denying the communion as being the body of Christ.

As for me, I want to know what the historic church taught and continue with it, even if it means sorting out who is telling the truth between Rome and Constantinople. Whichever way I decide on that one, I'll still be closer to the historic Church than following teachings that nobody even heard of until the 16th century.

What is carnal Israel? Never heard of it. I never said it was wrong to follow the canon of believing Israel, which is what we follow. It is the canon of unbelieving Israel that is the problem.

 

Mother of God is the English translation of theotokos, meaning "God bearer" or "the one who bears God". The term was invented to distinguish those who believed Christ wasn't born God, but became God later on. These folks wanted to say Mary was the Christokos - Christ bearer. But the Church said no, Christ was always God, thus Mary bore God.

Which part of this do you disagree with?

Wow, the arrogance is astonishing. Firstly you want to tell us what WE believe. Do we go around telling you what you believe?

Secondly, you deny that veneration and respect are the same thing, yet the dictionary tells otherwise:

venerate: "To regard with respect" - American Heritage Dictionary.
venerate: "regard with feelings of respect" - Princeton University Wordnet

Your problem is you are too busy misrepresenting us to keep still long enough to be quiet and listen.

Contrary to the scripture I showed you. Oh well, you can lead a horse to water....

<sigh> A completely different context that has nothing to do with what we're talking about. What I showed you was a context that talked about God dwelling between the Cherabim, which is an extremely obvious reference to the ark, followed in the same Psalm with the command to bow down.

Hello? There was no cross in the old testament. If you think the holy hill is the cross, then you'd better bow down and venerate the cross.

Exactly! It was an icon for God.

Did God instruct you to make photos of your family??

I noticed BTW that you weaseled your way out of answering my question. When you read the gospels do you picture in your mind's eye Jesus and the apostles doing whatever the Book says they did??? Are you an iconographer of the heart?

 

Dox

You missed the obvious . . . real answer (not an option). Elements of New Testament Christianity were to be found during the first 1500 years of the Church in the Catholic Churches (dont' you love latin monikers just a little).

The True Church continued through the ministry of individual believers that continued to practice what the God taught through Jesus and the Apostles.

Until whoever founded the modern Baptist Church.

Later bro'!

 

The True Church continued through the ministry of individual believers that continued to practice what the God taught through Jesus and the Apostles.

Mere assumptions without any historical basis what so ever.

Wishful thinking.

 

We were discussing (at your request) apostles (first generation or later), and those are leaders. Now you have changed back to "the Church". But again, as you acknowledge that there was error and dissension in the church (including issues like Easter), then you have to better clarify the infallible doctrine. You seem to say "anything they were all in consensus on", but that in itself does not prove truth, and lack of extant record is no proof there was no dissension on it. Most historians see the Church of the second to fourth centuries as then shaping its doctrine and practice. You try to project everything back to the apostles, or then perhaps grant the later Church the authority to bind new truth; though you reject Rome's equal claim to that.

Once again, you are generalizing claims to me I have never made. I am not arguing that the Baptists restored the early Church. That is not the point. The faith is in Christ, not "the historic Church", or "coming closer to the early Church" which is the real "white noise" to bolster yet another claim of "we're the true Church; you're not".

"the First Mob"? That's what you call the consensus of the Church; unless you are the one arguing that the truth was largely lost to most of the Christian world (like you charge the Baptists with claiming), unless you happened to be born in an EOC region.
I did consider whether the extra books (both OT and NT) may have been valid, or whether some of the 66 (like Hebrews) may not have been, but there was no reason to question the canon I had.
You think that is defenseless; well just try telling an atheist or some cult who questions the canon that you believe in your canon because "the historic Church" says so, and see what that means to them. As far as they're concerned, you believe in your church because "it makes sense to you", so you using this relative hypothesis on us does not prove anything.

What is "believing Israel"? A few Israelites who acepted Christ? Carnal Israel was all of physical Israel before Christ, and those who continued to reject Him (trusting in their physical lineage as saving them) afterwards. The Law was clearly for carnal Israel, not for the Church.

 

This is how I am seeing this debate:

Orthodox: The orange is clearly a fruit. It is round. And it is orange.

Eric B: No. It is not green at all.

Orthodox: Okay. Right. But. Can we agree, based on the evidence, that it is round and orange, hence its name?

Eric B: No. You've got it all wrong. It's clearly not purple.

 

Yeah, well maybe he is trying to build an argument that being round and orange makes it the only fruit, and I can show green or purple fruits, and since the orange is not green or purple, it is not the only fruit.
Then we have a person who starts another thread where he says he doesn't believe in fruits at all come and argue for the guy trying to prove the orange is the only fruit. Hmmm...

You wouldn't be some sort of sock puppet, would you?