First Period A.D. 30-500

1) The gradual change from a democracy to a preacher church government.

(2) The change from salvation by grace to Baptismal Salvation.

(3) The change from "believers' baptism" to "infant baptism."

(4) The Hierarchy organized. Marriage of church and state.

(5) Seat of empire changed to Constantinople.

(6) Infant baptism established by law and made compulsory.

(7) Christians begin to persecute Christians.

(8) The "Dark Ages" begin A.D. 426.

(9) The sword and torch rather than the gospel become the power of God (?) unto salvation.

(10) All semblance of "Religious Liberty" dies and is buried and remains buried for many centuries.

(11) Loyal New Testament churches, by whatever name called, are hunted and hounded to the utmost limit of the new Catholic temporal power. Remnants scattered over the world are finding uncertain hiding places in forests and mountains, valleys, dens and caves of the earth.

You can read this book online
Historic Baptist Doctrine - The Trail of Blood by J. M. Carroll (http://www.geocities.com/hbdoctrine/carrolltrailofbloodcontents.html)

It goes down through the history of the church and shows each time a new doctrine or implented change in belief took place to justify something as far as into the American church.
I bought a copy this was a great book!

First Period A.D. 30-500

1) The gradual change from a democracy to a preacher church government.


:howdy: Hi Marie,

so you mean the true Church is to be a democracy!

Well then I say we quench the fires and forgive everyone and we all get saved, amen.

My vote is in. :larry:

I looked up his wiki page and noticed this;

"His lasting legacy among Baptists, for which he is both honored and vilified, is his booklet on Baptist history entitled The Trail of Blood, published in 1931.".

Any ideas why he was vilified?

First Period A.D. 30-500

1) The gradual change from a democracy to a preacher church government.

(2) The change from salvation by grace to Baptismal Salvation.

(3) The change from "believers' baptism" to "infant baptism."

(4) The Hierarchy organized. Marriage of church and state.

(5) Seat of empire changed to Constantinople.

(6) Infant baptism established by law and made compulsory.

(7) Christians begin to persecute Christians.

(8) The "Dark Ages" begin A.D. 426.

(9) The sword and torch rather than the gospel become the power of God (?) unto salvation.

(10) All semblance of "Religious Liberty" dies and is buried and remains buried for many centuries.

(11) Loyal New Testament churches, by whatever name called, are hunted and hounded to the utmost limit of the new Catholic temporal power. Remnants scattered over the world are finding uncertain hiding places in forests and mountains, valleys, dens and caves of the earth.

You can read this book online
Historic Baptist Doctrine - The Trail of Blood by J. M. Carroll (http://www.geocities.com/hbdoctrine/carrolltrailofbloodcontents.html)

It goes down through the history of the church and shows each time a new doctrine or implented change in belief took place to justify something as far as into the American church.
I bought a copy this was a great book!


I see a list of stuff and the fact the you read and enjoyed a book...What I'm looking for is a point or a point of view?

I looked up his wiki page and noticed this;

"His lasting legacy among Baptists, for which he is both honored and vilified, is his booklet on Baptist history entitled The Trail of Blood, published in 1931.".

Any ideas why he was vilified?

If you had done your homework in Wiki, you would have come up with this page:

Landmarkism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landmarkism)

If you had done your homework in Wiki, you would have come up with this page:

Landmarkism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landmarkism)

Constructive criticism is always welcomed, however the wiki article doesn't address specifically why Carroll was maligned for publishing "one of the most enduring Landmark Baptist publications". Perhaps you could answer the question.

:howdy: Hi Marie,

so you mean the true Church is to be a democracy!

Well then I say we quench the fires and forgive everyone and we all get saved, amen.

My vote is in. :larry:

:cds: HE'S BACK :cds:

If you had done your homework in Wiki, you would have come up with this page:

Landmarkism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landmarkism)

:offtopic:
But curious what you thought of the files that I emailed you...

Constructive criticism is always welcomed, however the wiki article doesn't address specifically why Carroll was maligned for publishing "one of the most enduring Landmark Baptist publications". Perhaps you could answer the question.



I just blew a whole mouthful of pepsi out my nose.


33% for the presentation of a rational, coherent and seemingly original post.
33% for the lack of the :killingme smiley
34% for the audacity of the final sentence.

You're fulla surprises dude.

Constructive criticism is always welcomed, however the wiki article doesn't address specifically why Carroll was maligned for publishing "one of the most enduring Landmark Baptist publications". Perhaps you could answer the question.


I'm sorry, I didn't know you couldn't add two and two together. They have tutors for that though.

Nevermind, let me tutor you. Quote from the wiki articles, to be more specific:

His lasting legacy among Baptists, for which he is both honored and vilified, is his booklet on Baptist history entitled The Trail of Blood, published in 1931. This booklet promotes the Landmarkist view of Baptist origins.[4] [Emphasis mine]




The exclusive validity of Baptist churches

Although different champions of the Landmark Baptist cause have identified different required characteristics, or "marks," that validate a legitimate Baptist church, all varieties of Landmarkism stipulate that legitimate Baptist churches are the only legitimate churches. According to Landmarkism, congregations of other denominational varieties are merely religious gatherings, or "societies," with no claim to the title "church."

The invalidity of non-Baptist churchly acts

"Landmark Baptists have refused to recognize as valid any baptisms or ordinations performed in circumstances other than under the auspices of a Baptist church. Thus, Landmark Baptists have declined to allow non-Baptists to preach in Landmark Baptist churches and have required prospective members who have received "pedobaptism" or "alien immersion" to be baptized by a Baptist church before receiving them into membership. Expressed as a syllogism, the Landmark Baptist argument is:

Major premise: To be valid, Christian ordinations and baptisms must be performed by a valid New Testament church.

Minor premise: Only valid Baptist churches are valid New Testament churches.

Conclusion: Therefore, only ordinations and baptisms performed by valid Baptist churches are valid Christian ordinations and baptisms." [Emphasis mine]

It is an exclusion position in some Baptist churches, much to the chagrin of other denominations. I, myself, do not agree with the policy.

I'm sorry, I didn't know you couldn't add two and two together. They have tutors for that though. Nevermind, let me tutor you.

Quote from the wiki articles, to be more specific: [Emphasis mine]It is an exclusion position in some Baptist churches, much to the chagrin of other denominations. I, myself, do not agree with the policy.



As before, constructive criticism is always welcome, however your Wiki reference mentions five other influential Landmark Baptists, some of whom have Wiki pages. None of these gentlemen appear to have been vilified neither for their views or their publications. Perhaps you could explain why Mr. Carroll was vilified and they were not.

As before, constructive criticism is always welcome, however your Wiki reference mentions five other influential Landmark Baptists, some of whom have Wiki pages. None of these gentlemen appear to have been vilified neither for their views or their publications. Perhaps you could explain why Mr. Carroll was vilified and they were not.

Not only can you not add, but you can't even spell it out.

The other five gentlemen didn't publish a booklet with the popularity and circulation of The Trail of Blood, so they didn't have the exposure like Carroll had in this regard. It is this booklet, which espouses Landmarkism, in which Carroll is both honored and vilified. BTW, the booklet is only some 70 pages long and cheap, about $2.00, which means it's easily accessable for the common Baptist layman. I have a copy of it somewhere myself.

Now go get ejamacated.

Not only can you not add, but you can't even spell it out.

The other five gentlemen didn't publish a booklet with the popularity and circulation of The Trail of Blood, so they didn't have the exposure like Carroll had in this regard. It is this booklet, which espouses Landmarkism, in which Carroll is both honored and vilified. BTW, the booklet is only some 70 pages long and cheap, about $2.00, which means it's easily accessable ]for the common Baptist layman. I have a copy of it somewhere myself.

Now go get ejamacated.


Thank you for your patience. As I understand you, Mr. Carroll wrote a booklet which was both popular and widely circulated and in the booklet he was both honored and vilified. This seems to be a bit nonsensical. How is it possible that this anomaly occurs in his own publication? I read the online version provided by the OP and could find no reference to it. It could be that the reference is in incomplete or otherwise in error.

Other interesting questions occurred to me. Who were the people that vilified him, Landmark members or members of another denomination and was he ever vilified before he published his booklet?

This is off topic. Not being familiar with the term"ejamacated" I googled it and the first instance offered this; "It's a satirical way of spelling "educated" used to lampoon people who pooh-pooh higher education, or who boast about their own credentials while clearly not making use of them."
Tell me about this new doctrine - The Fighting Fundamental Forums (http://www.fundamentalforums.com/the-fighting-forum/21571-tell-me-about-this-new-doctrine.html) I would hope that you are not "lampooning" me.

Thank you for your patience. As I understand you, Mr. Carroll wrote a booklet which was both popular and widely circulated and in the booklet he was both honored and vilified. This seems to be a bit nonsensical. How is it possible that this anomaly occurs in his own publication? I read the online version provided by the OP and could find no reference to it. It could be that the reference is in incomplete or otherwise in error.

Other interesting questions occurred to me. Who were the people that vilified him, Landmark members or members of another denomination and was he ever vilified before he published his booklet?

This is off topic. Not being familiar with the term"ejamacated" I googled it and the first instance offered this; "It's a satirical way of spelling "educated" used to lampoon people who pooh-pooh higher education, or who boast about their own credentials while clearly not making use of them."
Tell me about this new doctrine - The Fighting Fundamental Forums (http://www.fundamentalforums.com/the-fighting-forum/21571-tell-me-about-this-new-doctrine.html) I would hope that you are not "lampooning" me.

Oh, many years ago, I was a poster at the FFF, well, more on the original Fighting Fundamental"ist" Forums. It later became the Fighting Fundamental Forums.

I'm also pretty familiar with the poster you got your definition from. "Ransom", I believe his real name is Scott McClare from Canada. You can find him here (http://forums.somd.com/dogs/173654-my-neighbor.html). I'm sure he's familiar with my old username over there. Supersrfr or WTF. :yay:

Oh, many years ago, I was a poster at the FFF, well, more on the original Fighting Fundamental"ist" Forums. It later became the Fighting Fundamental Forums.

I'm also pretty familiar with the poster you got your definition from. "Ransom", I believe his real name is Scott McClare from Canada. You can find him here (http://forums.somd.com/dogs/173654-my-neighbor.html). I'm sure he's familiar with my old username over there. Supersrfr or WTF. :yay:


Interesting, but is your link relevant? It takes me to an SOMD page.

Interesting, but is your link relevant? It takes me to an SOMD page.
Weird.... He had a blog called the Crusty Curmudgeon. Google search leads to a blogspot from him... I just thought it was a small word.

Thank you for your patience. As I understand you, Mr. Carroll wrote a booklet which was both popular and widely circulated and in the booklet he was both honored and vilified. This seems to be a bit nonsensical. How is it possible that this anomaly occurs in his own publication? I read the online version provided by the OP and could find no reference to it. It could be that the reference is in incomplete or otherwise in error.

Other interesting questions occurred to me. Who were the people that vilified him, Landmark members or members of another denomination and was he ever vilified before he published his booklet?

Some people liked the book, some people hated it. Who, the article doesn't say. All we can do at this point is speculate. But I've tried to make it clear to you reasons why some might take offense to the booklet in my earlier post. Certainly there is a case for people of denominations other than Baptist could be perturbed by Landmarkism's exculsive view on churches.

This is off topic. Not being familiar with the term"ejamacated" I googled it and the first instance offered this; "It's a satirical way of spelling "educated" used to lampoon people who pooh-pooh higher education, or who boast about their own credentials while clearly not making use of them."
Tell me about this new doctrine - The Fighting Fundamental Forums (http://www.fundamentalforums.com/the-fighting-forum/21571-tell-me-about-this-new-doctrine.html) I would hope that you are not "lampooning" me.

Never heard of The Fighting Fundamental Forums. I heard this term watching a Popeye cartoon.

Some people liked the book, some people hated it. Who, the article doesn't say. All we can do at this point is speculate. But I've tried to make it clear to you reasons why some might take offense to the booklet in my earlier post. Certainly there is a case for people of denominations other than Baptist could be perturbed by Landmarkism's exculsive view on churches. Never heard of The Fighting Fundamental Forums. I heard this term watching a Popeye cartoon.


Thanks, you put forth a gallant effort but as a "tutor", you suck.

Thanks, you put forth a gallant effort but as a "tutor", you suck.

Even the best tutors can't help when the student is trying to be difficult. You asked a stupid question. Why was he villified? The guy wrote a widely circulated book telling most people that their religion is a farce because they go to "meeting places" and not actual "churches". Think about it.

Even the best tutors can't help when the student is trying to be difficult. You asked a stupid question. Why was he villified? The guy wrote a widely circulated book telling most people that their religion is a farce because they go to "meeting places" and not actual "churches". Think about it.


You're not much of a tutor either. Heaven forbid a student who is "difficult". There is no such thing as a stupid question. Have you a link to where it explains explicitly why and who vilified him?

Thanks, you put forth a gallant effort but as a "tutor", you suck.


Well, look who I have to work with.

You're looking for an answer that is simply not apparent enough for you, yet is demonstratably apparent to everyone else in this thread. I suggest a course in inductive reasoning, but I'm afraid you don't have the prerequisites, like 1st grade Math and Engish.

Well, look who I have to work with.

You're looking for an answer that is simply not apparent enough for you, yet is demonstratably apparent to everyone else in this thread. I suggest a course in inductive reasoning, but I'm afraid you don't have the prerequisites, like 1st grade Math and Engish.

Still.......unasked, you offered your services as a tutor and you gave up = you suck.

Still.......unasked, you offered your services as a tutor and you gave up = you suck.

You can't teach the unteachable.

You can't teach the unteachable.

apparently he wants proof, not common sense. If you told him 1 + 1 = 2, he'd want a link as proof. He'd further want to know WHO decided that 1+1 = 2 and where it came from and probably an entire history on how 1+1=2. Remember, he lives in the world of internet links. Nothing else matters to him.

Even the best tutors can't help when the student is trying to be difficult. You asked a stupid question. Why was he villified? The guy wrote a widely circulated book telling most people that their religion is a farce because they go to "meeting places" and not actual "churches". Think about it.

Doesn't the Roman Catholic church take the same view?

Doesn't the Roman Catholic church take the same view?

Nonno, you seem to been afflicted with a severe case of "insecurity complexion"; perhaps we should all say a prayer for him.

"Our Father, Who art in Heaven".....please, feel free to follow along....?

I see a list of stuff and the fact the you read and enjoyed a book...What I'm looking for is a point or a point of view?

You can debate whether the Baptist started durning the reformation or from John the Babtist. The book shows a progression that each time man tried to improve on the first century model it either corrupted or devided the church. I thought it did a good job of pointing out Romes errors as well as the protestant church. Looking at things historically you can see how, when, where, and why some of the bazzare perversion came into corrupt the first century model.

You can debate whether the Baptist started durning the reformation or from John the Babtist. The book shows a progression that each time man tried to improve on the first century model it either corrupted or devided the church. I thought it did a good job of pointing out Romes errors as well as the protestant church. Looking at things historically you can see how, when, where, and why some of the bazzare perversion came into corrupt the first century model.

Hi Marie. I'm glad to hear your point of view...It shows you are, like me, a bit of a Christian nerd (i.e. curious about the process of religious development as well as with growing in your Christian faith). I like that in a person!

I don't think any open minded Catholic would disagree that the Catholic Church had some dark days that contributed to the various schisms that caused the Christian churches to splinter....BUT truthfully except that we are still run by a Pope and a college of Bishops, most of that history has nothing to do with the way we worship as a christian community today.

Personally the more I learn about the real Catholic faith (I just came back from a lecture), the more amazed I become. Along with this rich and varied history that satisfies the nerd in me, there is a doctrine of acceptance that satisfies my view of a loving and forgiving God, (even though it totally contradicts my childish understanding of the Baltimore Catacism I was taught...)

Frankly, understanding a little of the basis of some critics like Starman and IT, the more they really knew (as opposed to what they think they know) the less they would like it.

I hope I have always respected the rights of others to a different set of religious beliefs, while I have staunchly defended (and tried to understand and clarify) the doctrines and dogma of the Catholic faith.

Pray on sister friend!

Hi Marie. I'm glad to hear your point of view...It shows you are, like me, a bit of a Christian nerd (i.e. curious about the process of religious development as well as with growing in your Christian faith). I like that in a person!

I don't think any open minded Catholic would disagree that the Catholic Church had some dark days that contributed to the various schisms that caused the Christian churches to splinter....BUT truthfully except that we are still run by a Pope and a college of Bishops, most of that history has nothing to do with the way we worship as a christian community today.

Personally the more I learn about the real Catholic faith (I just came back from a lecture), the more amazed I become. Along with this rich and varied history that satisfies the nerd in me, there is a doctrine of acceptance that satisfies my view of a loving and forgiving God, (even though it totally contradicts my childish understanding of the Baltimore Catacism I was taught...)

Frankly, understanding a little of the basis of some critics like Starman and IT, the more they really knew (as opposed to what they think they know) the less they would like it.

I hope I have always respected the rights of others to a different set of religious beliefs, while I have staunchly defended (and tried to understand and clarify) the doctrines and dogma of the Catholic faith.

Pray on sister friend!

You might be interested in another article

Newman Reader - Development of Christian Doctrine (http://www.newmanreader.org/works/development/index.html)

Newman became a Catholic after doing the research for this essay. I've not read it in it's entirety yet, but it is highly recommended and very compelling, IMO.

Doesn't the Roman Catholic church take the same view?

If that's their view, they certainly teach quite the opposite. :roflmao:

First Period A.D. 30-500

1) The gradual change from a democracy to a preacher church government.

(2) The change from salvation by grace to Baptismal Salvation.

(3) The change from "believers' baptism" to "infant baptism."

(4) The Hierarchy organized. Marriage of church and state.

(5) Seat of empire changed to Constantinople.

(6) Infant baptism established by law and made compulsory.

(7) Christians begin to persecute Christians.

(8) The "Dark Ages" begin A.D. 426.

(9) The sword and torch rather than the gospel become the power of God (?) unto salvation.

(10) All semblance of "Religious Liberty" dies and is buried and remains buried for many centuries.

(11) Loyal New Testament churches, by whatever name called, are hunted and hounded to the utmost limit of the new Catholic temporal power. Remnants scattered over the world are finding uncertain hiding places in forests and mountains, valleys, dens and caves of the earth.

You can read this book online
Historic Baptist Doctrine - The Trail of Blood by J. M. Carroll (http://www.geocities.com/hbdoctrine/carrolltrailofbloodcontents.html)

It goes down through the history of the church and shows each time a new doctrine or implented change in belief took place to justify something as far as into the American church.
I bought a copy this was a great book!

I haven't read the book, but off the top of my head could refute some of the points listed above Marie. I have a VERY strong feeling that this book is based on the typical misunderstandings that Protestants and/or "non-denominationals" have regarding the early church and Catholicism...and, unfortunately, continue to propagate. :ohwell:

Doesn't the Roman Catholic church take the same view?

If I've followed this thread correctly, the answer is a resounding...NO.

Catholicism teaches that Protestants are indeed part of the "body of believers" i.e. "church". Catholicism also teaches that baptism from other denominations is perfectly acceptable as long as it was done in the name of the Trinity (as opposed to Jesus Christ only). So, no, Catholicism does NOT take the same view.

In fact, it was a Baptist church that refused my mother membership because she would not be re-baptized in their manner. As far as they were concerned, she was not even a Christian. They also repeatedly told my father that he was not tithing enough (apparently, they knew exactly what his income was). Needless to say, we eventually stopped worshiping with the Baptists.

As a result, my mother now worships with the Methodists, my father gave up religion all together and is merely "Christian spiritual", my brother is a pseudo-Buddhist, and I am the token Catholic in the family with a special affinity for Jews and have pagan sympathies. :lol:

(11) Loyal New Testament churches, by whatever name called, are hunted and hounded to the utmost limit of the new Catholic temporal power. Remnants scattered over the world are finding uncertain hiding places in forests and mountains, valleys, dens and caves of the earth.

I get a real kick out of this accusation that seems to find its way into any discussion of the history of Christendom.

Was there no "loyal New Testament" church that had the courage to stand up against the supposed "power" of the pope? Where are the writings? Who were these Christians who were finding uncertain hiding places in forests and mountains, valleys, dens and caves of the earth.
Should they not have gone out into the world to use... the gospel become the power of God (?) unto salvation

The only paper records we have of Christians putting forth ideas are those most Christians of today would agree were heretics: Nestorians, Arians, etc. Yet it is Catholics who wrote against these heresies, and I've yet to come across anything written by the "loyal New Testament" churches to combat the heretics.
We have no historical evidence of anything other than what-is-now-called the Catholic Church until between the 11th and 15th centuries.

I get a real kick out of this accusation that seems to find its way into any discussion of the history of Christendom.

Was there no "loyal New Testament" church that had the courage to stand up against the supposed "power" of the pope? Where are the writings? Who were these Christians who were .
Should they not have gone out into the world

The only paper records we have of Christians putting forth ideas are those most Christians of today would agree were heretics: Nestorians, Arians, etc. Yet it is Catholics who wrote against these heresies, and I've yet to come across anything written by the "loyal New Testament" churches to combat the heretics.
We have no historical evidence of anything other than what-is-now-called the Catholic Church until between the 11th and 15th centuries.

I'm glad you're back!

We have no historical evidence of anything other than what-is-now-called the Catholic Church until between the 11th and 15th centuries.

Hi Libby,
Actually that statement is not true, you might not buy into the authors comment about the Baptist, and many Baptist dont either, but there are two other groups The one I am sure of Vaudios the other, I am not. In fact I learned of the The Vaudios from an ex priest Richard Bennett who preached a sermon about this group.


Richard Bennett Lecture on them can be heard here
https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=11707155970

The other group is contraversal the Waldenses, at least by one Catholic source that Persits their was no church that never fell under the influence of Rome.
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>

We have no historical evidence of anything other than what-is-now-called the Catholic Church until between the 11th and 15th centuries.

Hi Libby,
Actually that statement is not true, you might not buy into the authors comment about the Baptist, and many Baptist dont either, but there are two other groups The one I am sure of Vaudios the other, I am not. In fact I learned of the The Vaudios from an ex priest Richard Bennett who preached a sermon about this group.


Richard Bennett Lecture on them can be heard here
https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=11707155970

The other group is contraversal the Waldenses, at least by one Catholic source that Persits their was no church that never fell under the influence of Rome.
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you misunderstood Libby's statement because the document you posted gives absolutely no evidence whatsoever of the Vaudois, who by the way are the same as the Waldensians (different name same group), as having existed at the time of the apostles or even closely thereafter.

There is no evidence for any true Trinitarian group to exist from the time of the apostles aside from Catholicism, and that evidence begins in Scripture and continues through 1st century (Justin Martyr, Ireneus, etc), 2nd century (Theophilus, Clement of Alexandria, etc), and onward.

Marie, unless you want to align yourself with non-Trinitarian heretics then please stop the fantasy of wishful thinking and face the historical reality -- Catholicism IS the early church.


To be steeped in history is to cease being Protestant ~ Cardinal John Henry Newman, Catholic convert

Marie, unless you want to align yourself with non-Trinitarian heretics then please stop the fantasy of wishful thinking and face the historical reality -- Catholicism IS the early church.

:getdown: The non-Trinitarians were the original Church.



:drummer:

:getdown: The non-Trinitarians were the original Church.



:drummer:

You mean the Jews? We're talking about the early Christian church. Try to keep up.

You mean the Jews? We're talking about the early Christian church. Try to keep up.
:whistle: No, I said it correct.

The Jews had no trinity, and Jesus never taught any trinity, and the Apostle Paul had no trinity, and the early church had no trinity for a God.

The non-Trinitarians were the ones in the early Church.



:drummer:

:whistle: No, I said it correct.

The Jews had no trinity, and Jesus never taught any trinity, and the Apostle Paul had no trinity, and the early church had no trinity for a God.

The non-Trinitarians were the ones in the early Church.



:drummer:

WRONG!:popcorn::killingme:yahoo::whistle::evil::geek::jerry::buddies:

By any chance did you listen to Bennits talk?

Hi James,
Thats way wrong, Jesus did acknoweledge the Trinity and at his Baptism we see all three there.He said that when he left he would send the comforter the Holy Spirit to abide in us, and that he and his father are one.

By any chance did you listen to Bennits talk?

Uh, yeah. I'm going to bother listening to an ex-priest whose front page of his website says "abuse by papal AntiChrist". Think maybe he's got an ax to grind?

:whistle: No, I said it correct.

The Jews had no trinity, and Jesus never taught any trinity, and the Apostle Paul had no trinity, and the early church had no trinity for a God.

The non-Trinitarians were the ones in the early Church.



:drummer:

Matthew 3:16; 28:19 - Trinity
John 10:30 - Trinity

1Cor 12:14 - Trinity (written by Paul)
Romans 1:4 - Trinity (written by Paul)
2Cor 13:14 - Trinity (written by Paul)
Ephesians 4:4 - Trinity (written by Paul)
1Peter 1:2 - Trinity (written by Peter)
Jude 20,21 - Trinity (written by Jude aka Thaddeus)

It requires a man with 1/2 a brain to see it, and I'm guessing you're not that.

By any chance did you listen to Bennits talk?

I didn't, as it has absolutely nothing to do with the early church. I tell you what though, I'll listen to Bennett if you read the following articles:

The Protestant Ascendency in Ireland (http://www.angelfire.com/ok3/apologia/ireland.html)
Persecution of Catholics in England (http://www.angelfire.com/ok3/apologia/england.html)
The Protestant Inquisition (Reformation Intolerance & Persecution) (http://vanallens.com/exchristian/calvin.htm)
Catholic Persecution In The 13 Colonies and Forward (http://inpersonachristiadmajoremdeigloriam.blogspot.com/2009/04/catholic-persecution-in-13-colonies-and.html)
Anti-Catholicism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Catholicism)

You DO realize the Protestants are guilty of their own inquisitions and persecutions don't you, and that in an "enlightened" age even? :eyebrow:

Marie, please do cease and desist with your anti-Catholic crusade. You're leaving A Trail of [virtual] Blood behind you.

Hi James,
:howdy: I did not listen to Bennits either as the link was way to confusing with way to much anti-Catholic stuff and no way of finding the topic you were telling us to see.

I already know the Catholics do not represent the original Church, but I find the Catholics will be judged on Judgment Day by their own merits whether right or wrong.

The Catholics of today will not be condemned for the sins in its beginning.


Thats way wrong, Jesus did acknoweledge the Trinity and at his Baptism we see all three there.
:popcorn: At the baptism we see all three (3) as distinct and separate and not as any mystical trinity.

The Father which art in Heaven and the Son down here on Earth and the Holy Spirit is not then given. And if one says that Jesus was given the Spirit at that time then that means He did not have it before that time so again they are all 3 separate.


He said that when he left he would send the comforter the Holy Spirit to abide in us,
:bigwhoop: So clearly it was not already there, and Jesus leaving and the Spirit coming means two (2) separate entities traveling in 2 separate direction and 2 separate places. Not one trinity.


and that he and his father are one.
:whistle: They are one in agreement and one in harmony, and if He and the Father were literally one (1) then they forgot to add the Holy Spirit into that equation to make it 3 as in trinity.

The "Trinity" concept is a wrong interpretation being forced into scriptural text that do not say anything supporting the concept of a trinity.

A "trinity" is not in the Bible and it was never a message from the Bible.

In fact the "trinity" doctrine is a creation by the Catholic Church, as a way of explaining what they did not understand.


:drummer:

Matthew 3:16; 28:19 - Trinity
John 10:30 - Trinity

1Cor 12:14 - Trinity (written by Paul)
Romans 1:4 - Trinity (written by Paul)
2Cor 13:14 - Trinity (written by Paul)
Ephesians 4:4 - Trinity (written by Paul)
1Peter 1:2 - Trinity (written by Peter)
Jude 20,21 - Trinity (written by Jude aka Thaddeus)

It requires a man with 1/2 a brain to see it, and I'm guessing you're not that.
:whistle: The half-brain might see a Trinity in those text but with the full brain exposure then none of those say or show any "trinity" at all.

The claim of a "trinity" is simply not a Bible concept.


:drummer:

:whistle: The half-brain might see a Trinity in those text but with the full brain exposure then none of those say or show any "trinity" at all.

The claim of a "trinity" is simply not a Bible concept.


:drummer:

:lol:

Well if you think so, then I suggest you start wearing a yarmulke and phylactery or start praying toward Mecca and reciting the shahada. :yay:

:howdy: I did not listen to Bennits either as the link was way to confusing with way to much anti-Catholic stuff and no way of finding the topic you were telling us to see.

I already know the Catholics do not represent the original Church, but I find the Catholics will be judged on Judgment Day by their own merits whether right or wrong.

The Catholics of today will not be condemned for the sins in its beginning.


:popcorn: At the baptism we see all three (3) as distinct and separate and not as any mystical trinity.

The Father which art in Heaven and the Son down here on Earth and the Holy Spirit is not then given. And if one says that Jesus was given the Spirit at that time then that means He did not have it before that time so again they are all 3 separate.


:bigwhoop: So clearly it was not already there, and Jesus leaving and the Spirit coming means two (2) separate entities traveling in 2 separate direction and 2 separate places. Not one trinity.


:whistle: They are one in agreement and one in harmony, and if He and the Father were literally one (1) then they forgot to add the Holy Spirit into that equation to make it 3 as in trinity.

The "Trinity" concept is a wrong interpretation being forced into scriptural text that do not say anything supporting the concept of a trinity.

A "trinity" is not in the Bible and it was never a message from the Bible.

In fact the "trinity" doctrine is a creation by the Catholic Church, as a way of explaining what they did not understand.


:drummer:

Mormon theology I guess.

Uh, yeah. I'm going to bother listening to an ex-priest whose front page of his website says "abuse by papal AntiChrist". Think maybe he's got an ax to grind?

Hi Libby,<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
I never been to his website, and just the fact that’s he's an ex priest, there’s probably a reason, but does that mean he's wrong? Or wrong about every topic. I have to admit that if I were you I would be guarded and probably have some presuppositions in listening to it, but don’t you find it the least bit curious why someone who embraced a tradition so whole heartily to subscribe to celibacy and become a priest would then move away from it. Wouldn’t you be the least bit curious as to why? It’s been a long time since I heard the talk so I don’t know if he takes any cheap shots, but I do recall I was really surprised to learn about this group.<o:p></o:p>
If I dont listen to what you say or believe, how could I ever evaluate it? I see it as educational. I did by the way read this web page to see what the RC position was on the Waldenses who assume they are the same as the Vaudios. Who Were the Waldenses? (http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num3.htm)



Really it would be nice if there was a group that never went along with the Jones, but in reality it doesn’t matter. What matters is that there were those courageous enough to stand for what they believe and say enough and its time for the universal church to stand up and do it again as both sides of the isle are way to caught up in Man centered traditions and church growth strategies. It's time to get back to the sovereignty of God and his way of doing things and stand up against the culture overthrow of the church and reform it but one more time!
Its' time for the church to be a leader of the culture rather than being lead by it, and poisoned from it!

:whistle: The half-brain might see a Trinity in those text but with the full brain exposure then none of those say or show any "trinity" at all.

The claim of a "trinity" is simply not a Bible concept.


:drummer:

Hey whats with the insult? You can express yourself without resorting to that.
Think of the trinity as a demension a demension is something in and of itself but is comprised of three independant things that make it up Lenght, width and height. Just because the word isnt in scripture the concept clearly is.
Attached are some guildlines that may help you interact with others!

Guide to Quality Discussion
Forum postings are notoriously difficult to do. The temptation to pose questions that are
answered with a simple "yes" or "no" is very difficult to overcome. Moreover, it is all too easy to
fall into the trap of posting a simplistic reply along the lines of "I agree" or "That’s a good
point." At the same time, reading the tone of someone else’s post—particularly when they
disagree with your perspective—can and often does lead to finger pointing and sometimes anger
and name calling. In order to have a quality online education experience, my desire is for you to
avoid those pitfalls. Instead, you might be able to use some of these model questions to build off
someone else's posting or subsequent contribution.
General principles
1. Any question must be open ended. (It must not call for a binary (yes/no) answer.)
2. It must evidence additional thought and/or additional research on your part.
3. It must to invite continuing thought and/or research by the others unless it is a summary
statement posted to conclude a long discussion.
4. Point out apparent flaws in others thinking indirectly by asking them to explain
themselves, or by pointing out some possible contradiction.
5. All contributions must gracious and not hostile, even if you strongly disagree.
Call for a display of thinking or feeling:
1. To what extent would you agree that …?
2. What are some ways …?
3. What evidence do you have for …?
4. What are your reasons for …?
5. How would you answer the objection that …?
6. What examples would you cite to support your statement that …?
7. What sources would you cite to support your statement that …?
8. How do you see your idea about … working out in … situation?
9. How do you feel about …? [Name something in the readings, current events, or the class
postings.]
10. What reasons do you have for saying …?
11. Why do you agree (or disagree) on that point?
12. How are you defining the term "…" as you just used it?
13. What do you mean by that expression "…"?
14. How is what you are saying here consistent with what you said before?
15. Please clarify what you mean by "…".
16. What are you implying when you say "…"?
17. It appears that you and … are contradicting each other. Please expand your remarks to
show how you do agree, or explain the basis of you disagreement.
18. It seems to me like you are contradicting yourself on the issue of …. Please explain how
you are able to resolve the tension between … and ….
Extending or summarizing statements:
1. I think I would summarize our discussion here by saying ….
2. Another issue that we should probably discuss here is …. [Now make an opening
statement on that issue.]
3. Another resource I found helpful on this topic is …. [Now explain why and how it is
helpful.]
4. What we are discussing here seem to me to apply to [name some current event in your
church/area/country/world]. [Now state how you see it applying.]
5. I am wondering if the converse of this is also true/valid. It seems to me that ….
6. Another position that might be valid could be ….
Calls for clarification:
1. Will someone please help me understand the distinction between … and …?
2. I don't understand what you mean by …. Will you please explain?

Hi Libby,<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
I never been to his website, and just the fact that’s he's an ex priest, there’s probably a reason, but does that mean he's wrong? Or wrong about every topic. I have to admit that if I were you I would be guarded and probably have some presuppositions in listening to it, but don’t you find it the least bit curious why someone who embraced a tradition so whole heartily to subscribe to celibacy and become a priest would then move away from it. Wouldn’t you be the least bit curious as to why? It’s been a long time since I heard the talk so I don’t know if he takes any cheap shots, but I do recall I was really surprised to learn about this group.<o:p></o:p>
If I dont listen to what you say or believe, how could I ever evaluate it? I see it as educational. I did by the way read this web page to see what the RC position was on the Waldenses who assume they are the same as the Vaudios. Who Were the Waldenses? (http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num3.htm)



Really it would be nice if there was a group that never went along with the Jones, but in reality it doesn’t matter. What matters is that there were those courageous enough to stand for what they believe and say enough and its time for the universal church to stand up and do it again as both sides of the isle are way to caught up in Man centered traditions and church growth strategies. It's time to get back to the sovereignty of God and his way of doing things and stand up against the culture overthrow of the church and reform it but one more time!
Its' time for the church to be a leader of the culture rather than being lead by it, and poisoned from it!

Not a priest who enters into a discussion by calling the Church, the AntiChrist. No, he shows no respect so he gets none, end of story. There are plenty of ex-Catholics who had fundamental, and honest, disagreements with Church doctrine, disciplines, what-have-you. With them a dialogue can be had, as well as understanding.

but don’t you find it the least bit curious why someone who embraced a tradition so whole heartily to subscribe to celibacy and become a priest would then move away from it. Wouldn’t you be the least bit curious as to why?

No, because he was clearly to immature, selfish and mindless to enter into his vows with full understanding. We are each responsible for our own relationship with Jesus Christ, and he clearly did not fulfill his obligation before making his promises.
He was an adult and should have been more thoughtful in his discernment process.

Hey whats with the insult? You can express yourself without resorting to that.
:whistle: It was "Radiant" that said "half brain" and I just followed that lead.

But I did explain the point much deeper in my reply to you.


Think of the trinity as a demension a demension is something in and of itself but is comprised of three independant things that make it up Lenght, width and height. Just because the word isnt in scripture the concept clearly is.


:popcorn: We call that the "mystery religion" concepts, from Revelation 17:5 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2017:5&version=KJV).


:drummer:

Quite simply, an all good, all loving Father does not send His Son to die. If a father here on earth would not do such a thing, our Heavenly Father would not. We would all do the dying for our beloved children, its as simple as that. A god who would send his son (rather than Himself made Man, which in our finite language we call "the Son") to be crucified is not a god I would want to serve, and it proves categorically that such a god is not who we believe the True God to be.

Quite simply, an all good, all loving Father does not send His Son to die. If a father here on earth would not do such a thing, our Heavenly Father would not. We would all do the dying for our beloved children, its as simple as that. A god who would send his son (rather than Himself made Man, which in our finite language we call "the Son") to be crucified is not a god I would want to serve, and it proves categorically that such a god is not who we believe the True God to be.
:whistle: That above is an example of creating "God" and the "Son" in "Libby's" own image, because that reasoning is made up out of Libby's own perception and it is hugely different from what the scriptures say;

that "God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son,..."

God did not give Himself as He gave His only Son.

This also contradicts the trinity in that if God was all 3 then God never gave His Son which shows the "Trinity" claim is not scriptural.



:drummer:

This tread has been ruined. :mad:

This tread has been ruined. :mad:

Opine then. Get it back on track.

This tread has been ruined. :mad:
:whistle: No, if we go back to posting #2 of this thread then you will see that the early Church was a democracy and I am casting my votes as are others here.

I figure the problem is that you might like having the Church as a Theocracy where the big-shot leaders tell the people of the congregation what they must believe and no person is allowed to have any separate beliefs away from the master Orthodoxy.

It is that Orthodoxy that keeps people down and makes religion boring and ruined.



:drummer:

Quite simply, an all good, all loving Father does not send His Son to die. If a father here on earth would not do such a thing, our Heavenly Father would not. We would all do the dying for our beloved children, its as simple as that. A god who would send his son (rather than Himself made Man, which in our finite language we call "the Son") to be crucified is not a god I would want to serve, and it proves categorically that such a god is not who we believe the True God to be.

The sacrifice would not be sufficient either if it wasn’t God him self in human flesh. Both Elements needed to be included (God and Man) in order for the sacrifice to fulfill the debt. In Gen 15 God made a covenant with Abraham, if either party broke the covenant it would mean death but since Abraham was a sleep and only God past between the two halves (The smoking Pot) God was required to fulfill the penalty for Abraham breaking it. Also even though scripture doesn’t tell us this, I believe that God informed Adam and Eve of their sins and the cost of them when he provided skins to cover them, and that’s Why Cain and Abel were doing a sacrifice for the coving of there sins and why Cain's was not acceptable.

:whistle: No, if we go back to posting #2 of this thread then you will see that the early Church was a democracy and I am casting my votes as are others here.

I figure the problem is that you might like having the Church as a Theocracy where the big-shot leaders tell the people of the congregation what they must believe and no person is allowed to have any separate beliefs away from the master Orthodoxy.

It is that Orthodoxy that keeps people down and makes religion boring and ruined.



:drummer:

James,<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
Were not talking religion (Man made Idea's and concepts for reaching God) Were talking Christianity Were God tells us how we can know him, have a relationship with him, and be found acceptable through the work of his son.<o:p></o:p>
God makes the rules and gives us the book explaining them. If we know him we desire to serve him, and the Holy Spirit directs us providing it hasn’t been squelched or quieted to the point we can’t hear it.<o:p></o:p>
God has an authority structure laid out for us. Doing it your own way or interpreting scripture to suit yourself and not using any of the guidelines for doing so, cause you to come up with SELF serving ideas and interpretations.<o:p></o:p>
When you die to self and surrender yourself to Christ Lordship. The pride and the rebellion, die as well. Your idea of works based righteousness is a slap in the face to God as if the cross wasn’t enough, and Christ proclaimed it was finished. You seem to persist though embracing Universalism and Mans concepts on reaching the divine rather than bending the knee. You’re a smart guy, but just insist on being the God of your own life.<o:p></o:p>
Mar 8:36for what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? <o:p></o:p>
Your unorthodox beliefs haven’t profited you anything but there costing you your soul!<o:p></o:p>
Your getting older my friend your days are numbered, and I know you don’t have a heart of stone, put your more stubborn and hard head than I am.<o:p></o:p>
I know you don’t like to pray but you ought to that if God would show you truth you would submit to it.<o:p></o:p>
Tick...tick...tick.. Michael Jackson assumed he was going to wake up the next morning to and he was younger than you!<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> This isnt a game you can win. </o:p>
<o:p>You can ignore authority but you cant escape the penalities.</o:p>

The sacrifice would not be sufficient either if it wasn’t God him self in human flesh. Both Elements needed to be included (God and Man) in order for the sacrifice to fulfill the debt. In Gen 15 God made a covenant with Abraham, if either party broke the covenant it would mean death but since Abraham was a sleep and only God past between the two halves (The smoking Pot) God was required to fulfill the penalty for Abraham breaking it. Also even though scripture doesn’t tell us this, I believe that God informed Adam and Eve of their sins and the cost of them when he provided skins to cover them, and that’s Why Cain and Abel were doing a sacrifice for the coving of there sins and why Cain's was not acceptable.

Agreed. My feeling is that JPC seems to have a Mormon view of God, though, so I was addressing the absurdity of a loving god sending a literal (according to LDS theology) son to die, as opposed to offering Himself, which we know to be true.

James,<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
Were not talking religion (Man made Idea's and concepts for reaching God) Were talking Christianity Were God tells us how we can know him, have a relationship with him, and be found acceptable through the work of his son.<o:p></o:p>
God makes the rules and gives us the book explaining them. If we know him we desire to serve him, and the Holy Spirit directs us providing it hasn’t been squelched or quieted to the point we can’t hear it.<o:p></o:p>
God has an authority structure laid out for us. Doing it your own way or interpreting scripture to suit yourself and not using any of the guidelines for doing so, cause you to come up with SELF serving ideas and interpretations.<o:p></o:p>

:popcorn: Marie, you and Libby and all of Orthodox Christianity are just following a religious doctrine and you are not following the Spirit at all.

There is no "Trinity" in the Bible and you all are just following a religious tradition like blind sheep with no shepherd.

When I read the Bible then I let the Spirit lead me and I see no "Trinity" and so I follow the truth that is in front of my eyes and not traditions of men that have no real basis in truth.

Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. Mark 7:7-9 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%207:7-9&version=KJV)

Orthodoxy does not even allow you to "seek the truth" because Orthodoxy tells you what to believe and that is all that you preach.


:drummer:

In the first few verses of Genesis, the Bible mentions God, The Father, then speaks of the (Holy) Spirit "hovering over the Earth".

Then, in the beginning of the Gospel of John, he speaks of The Word, (Jesus, God's son), "In the Beginning, was the Word; He was with God, and He was God".

True enough, the Bible does not address the Trinity as such, however, how hard is it to see what was being said here?

Three Entities, all Heavenly and Devine. Seems plain enough to me..

:popcorn: Marie, you and Libby and all of Orthodox Christianity are just following a religious doctrine and you are not following the Spirit at all.

There is no "Trinity" in the Bible and you all are just following a religious tradition like blind sheep with no shepherd.

When I read the Bible then I let the Spirit lead me and I see no "Trinity" and so I follow the truth that is in front of my eyes and not traditions of men that have no real basis in truth.

Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. Mark 7:7-9 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%207:7-9&version=KJV)

Orthodoxy does not even allow you to "seek the truth" because Orthodoxy tells you what to believe and that is all that you preach.


:drummer:

Since you make claim of the Spirit, I would assume that if you don't think it part of the Triune Godhead, it is at least of God, yes?

Obviously, there are those that read Scripture and claim to be led by the Spirit as you do but yet clearly see Trinity in what they are reading. Now, that poses a bit of condundrum as to whether the Spirit, which if not God comes from God, is a spirit of confusion. What do you say about this condundrum?

I know what I say about it and that's where authority and "orthodoxy" come in, but since you reject authority and orthodoxy, how do you answer it? Is God a God of confusion?

Truly, it's your line of thinking that allows such a conundrum to exist. It's no wonder the Atheists laugh. :ohwell:

Since you make claim of the Spirit, I would assume that if you don't think it part of the Triune Godhead, it is at least of God, yes?
:howdy: Of God - yes.


Obviously, there are those that read Scripture and claim to be led by the Spirit as you do but yet clearly see Trinity in what they are reading. Now, that poses a bit of condundrum as to whether the Spirit, which if not God comes from God, is a spirit of confusion. What do you say about this condundrum?
:popcorn: I do not really object to others being wrong in their beliefs so long as it is harmless like believing the "Trinity" is a meaningless doctrine.

It is when the wrong doctrine turns into hostilities or wrongful actions then I object.

And that is what you did in your posting and I responded to it accordingly, link HERE (http://forums.somd.com/4005291-post36.html).

So I say that was the trying of the Spirit, 1 John 4:1 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%204&version=KJV)



I know what I say about it and that's where authority and "orthodoxy" come in, but since you reject authority and orthodoxy, how do you answer it? Is God a God of confusion?
:popcorn: Certainly God is not the author of confusion, but confusion is still widespread.

The Catholic Church is correct in some regards and I understand that everyone will be saved on Judgment Day.

So it does not change the plan of God just because so many people are so very confused.



Truly, it's your line of thinking that allows such a conundrum to exist. It's no wonder the Atheists laugh. :ohwell:
:howdy: I like to make Atheist laugh.

There is not much of anything else that I can do with them.


:drummer:

:whistle: No, if we go back to posting #2 of this thread then you will see that the early Church was a democracy and I am casting my votes as are others here.

I figure the problem is that you might like having the Church as a Theocracy where the big-shot leaders tell the people of the congregation what they must believe and no person is allowed to have any separate beliefs away from the master Orthodoxy.

It is that Orthodoxy that keeps people down and makes religion boring and ruined.



:drummer:

See?















Ruined!

:popcorn: I do not really object to others being wrong in their beliefs so long as it is harmless like believing the "Trinity" is a meaningless doctrine.

So, if you read scripture with the Spirit and I and others read scripture with the Spirit and come to differing conclusions, then how do you know that we're wrong and not you?


:popcorn: Certainly God is not the author of confusion, but confusion is still widespread.

If those who read scripture with the Spirit (which you deem is of God) and come to differing views, then the logical conclusion of your take on things is that yes God is the author of confusion.

The Catholic Church is correct in some regards and I understand that everyone will be saved on Judgment Day.

So it does not change the plan of God just because so many people are so very confused.

You mean like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and the like?

:howdy: I like to make Atheist laugh.

There is not much of anything else that I can do with them.

Rationale is a good start, not only with Atheists but with me too.

So, if you read scripture with the Spirit and I and others read scripture with the Spirit and come to differing conclusions, then how do you know that we're wrong and not you?

If those who read scripture with the Spirit (which you deem is of God) and come to differing views, then the logical conclusion of your take on things is that yes God is the author of confusion.

:howdy: That is not quite what I said.

What I said was that the Spirit comes from God - yes, but that does not mean that anyone reading the Bible is moved by that Spirit.

And I posted this link to 1 John 4:1 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%204&version=KJV) about not all spirits are from God.

So I find that doctrine like the "Trinity" is wrong because the Bible does not tell of any trinity and in fact the Bible explicitly tells otherwise that Jesus was the Son and not the Father and the Holy Spirit is totally different from both of them.

Orthodoxy claims an unseen spirit while I claim the seen words of the Bible.



You mean like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and the like?
:popcorn: Yes, Jesus paid the price in full for all of humanity to be saved and no one will be left out.

On the Judgment Day then Hitler and Pol Pot and we ourselves we all then see and learn the truth and we will all be saved at that time.

Now is the tribulations, and then comes the salvation for all.

God's plan of salvation is really a perfect plan so not even one sheep gets lost.


Rationale is a good start, not only with Atheists but with me too.
:bigwhoop: I agree, and being rational with Atheist is sensible.



:drummer:

:howdy: That is not quite what I said.

What I said was that the Spirit comes from God - yes, but that does not mean that anyone reading the Bible is moved by that Spirit.

And I posted this link to 1 John 4:1 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%204&version=KJV) about not all spirits are from God.

So, how do you know you are moved by that Spirit and one not from God?

So I find that doctrine like the "Trinity" is wrong because the Bible does not tell of any trinity and in fact the Bible explicitly tells otherwise that Jesus was the Son and not the Father and the Holy Spirit is totally different from both of them.

:heavysigh: If it were explicit as you see it, then we wouldn't have passages like this:

John 10:30 - The Father and I are One.

Orthodoxy claims an unseen spirit while I claim the seen words of the Bible.

See above and the other passages that have been given to you already. When reading scripture we not only read what it says, but we also read what is done. We also see what logical conclusions can be made from what we read. And by we, apparently I don't mean you. :ohwell:

:popcorn: Yes, Jesus paid the price in full for all of humanity to be saved and no one will be left out.

On the Judgment Day then Hitler and Pol Pot and we ourselves we all then see and learn the truth and we will all be saved at that time.

Now is the tribulations, and then comes the salvation for all.

God's plan of salvation is really a perfect plan so not even one sheep gets lost.

Matthew 7:21 - Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven.

Or heck, the whole of Matthew 25!

For someone who "claims the seen words of the bible", you sure do a good job of rejecting it.

:bigwhoop: I agree, and being rational with Atheist is sensible.

So is being rational with a Christian. :ahem:

I'll let you have the last word. I've made my point clear enough and although I don't trust in your intelligence, I do trust in the intelligence of others to see it.

So, how do you know you are moved by that Spirit and one not from God?
:howdy: We judge the Spirit in accordance with the truth.

In example; "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son ... "

It does not say Trinity and God did not give Himself and if God gave the Son then the Son was able to say of the Father - "Why hast thou forsaken me" Mark 15:34 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2015:34&version=KJV).

The truth is how we recognize the spirit of truth which is the spirit of God.


:heavysigh: If it were explicit as you see it, then we wouldn't have passages like this:

John 10:30 - The Father and I are One.
:popcorn: That text is only confusing because the Orthodox try to make it mean some literal Trinity when Jesus was speaking spiritually as in both Jesus and the Father are in harmony and in agreement.

Otherwise that text would be saying that Jesus and the Father were a "Duality" as in two (2) persons in one and not a trinity (3 in 1) because that text left out the Holy Spirit.

Jesus might have said that He and the Father and the Spirit are all one but no.

If that text is literally correct then God is 2-in-1 and that is not what is being said there.



See above and the other passages that have been given to you already. When reading scripture we not only read what it says, but we also read what is done. We also see what logical conclusions can be made from what we read. And by we, apparently I don't mean you.
:whistle: Sad but true, that most people are just plain wrong.


Matthew 7:21 - Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven.
:popcorn: I particularly like this text because it does not much matter if one believes in a Trinity or Allah or the Mother Earth, when they treat other people in hateful ways.

But on Judgment Day even the most horrible of people will finally see the truth and then everyone will repent and everyone gets the free gift of salvation.


Or heck, the whole of Matthew 25!
:howdy: The whole point of Jesus messages is that we either learn the truth now in this world or else we face the truth later in the next life, but everyone gets the truth whether anyone likes it or not.



For someone who "claims the seen words of the bible", you sure do a good job of rejecting it.
:popcorn: Well big parts of the Bible is not true or just not inspired scripture.



So is being rational with a Christian. :ahem:
:whistle: I like being rational, but some times we just have to lighten up.

The book of Jeremiah is a pitiful story but it is also very funny when it is viewed as antics like slap-stick comedy. God sends a Profit to His own people and the High Priest leads the people in beating the tar out of Jeremiah - :killingme



I'll let you have the last word. I've made my point clear enough and although I don't trust in your intelligence, I do trust in the intelligence of others to see it.
:dye: Well I thank you for that, as I like having the last word and having the best word.



:drummer:

:popcorn: Marie, you and Libby and all of Orthodox Christianity are just following a religious doctrine and you are not following the Spirit at all.

There is no "Trinity" in the Bible and you all are just following a religious tradition like blind sheep with no shepherd.

When I read the Bible then I let the Spirit lead me and I see no "Trinity" and so I follow the truth that is in front of my eyes and not traditions of men that have no real basis in truth.

Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. Mark 7:7-9 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%207:7-9&version=KJV)

Orthodoxy does not even allow you to "seek the truth" because Orthodoxy tells you what to believe and that is all that you preach.


:drummer:

James, the question is what spirit are you allowing to lead your reading the third person of the trinity? The Holy Spirit? I am having my doubts
.It sounds as if your saying all three are seperate and not one, thats modalismor the Sabellianism Heresy by the Council of Chalcedon in 451 CE! Theres nothing new under the sun. Your trying to bust libbys chops Jesus clearly said he was God many times that he and the father are one.
Have you read Col 1:15
<DIR><DIR>Col 1:13 He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son,
</DIR>Col 1:14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
Col 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
Col 1:16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things were created through him and for him.
Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
Col 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent.
Col 1:19 For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell,
Col 1:20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.
As I stated earlier we see all 3 at Jesus baptism.
Lastly your father mimicks what God does and we see Satan's trinity in revelation with (Satan the AntiChrist & the false prophet).
Satan wants to be God, he tries to mimick him with the power God allows him. Why would he try to mimick something that dosent exsist? If Christ is not your Lord than your of your father the devil you flaunt this with your false teachings and Anti christ message trying to rob Christ of his deity!

<DIR>Joh 8:42 Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and I am here. I came not of my own accord, but he sent me.
Joh 8:43 Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word.
Joh 8:44 You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
Joh 8:45 But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me.
Joh 8:46 Which one of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me?
Joh 8:47 Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God."
</DIR></DIR>Honeslty, reading that dosent cause you to pause for even a monent? That should strike fear in your heart. You know its true to because of the statements you make always wanting to do it your way rather than Gods way. Tick tick tick
You may have a tommorow but every breath is a gift from God and the clock ticks.
Do you know what the sin unto death is in scripture that John talks about? It's not a specific sin, its just the last sin when Gods had enough and he's done and so are you.
Your kicking againgst the goads my friend and the hell you dont beleve in is only a few breaths away. Tick tick tick How much time for this foolishness to you really have left?
I think its time you start praying for God to reveal his truth to you.Even your not wanting to pray is a huge sign that your not in a right relationship with the God of the Bible. New or Old Testament same God, same wrath.

:howdy: Of God - yes.


:popcorn: I do not really object to others being wrong in their beliefs so long as it is harmless like believing the "Trinity" is a meaningless doctrine.

It is when the wrong doctrine turns into hostilities or wrongful actions then I object.

And that is what you did in your posting and I responded to it accordingly, link HERE (http://forums.somd.com/4005291-post36.html).

So I say that was the trying of the Spirit, 1 John 4:1 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%204&version=KJV)


:popcorn: Certainly God is not the author of confusion, but confusion is still widespread.

The Catholic Church is correct in some regards and I understand that everyone will be saved on Judgment Day.

So it does not change the plan of God just because so many people are so very confused.


:howdy: I like to make Atheist laugh.

There is not much of anything else that I can do with them.


:drummer:


James thats not true, thats universalism again just another Hersey. Everyone does not get saved in the end there is wheat and chaff, Read the Gospels, all the parables are about salvation and all end the same, there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Scripture talks about those that the father has given Christ and the potter and the clay. You dont have to like it, buts it's as plain as the nose on your face. Scripture says many on that day will say Lord Lord and profess there works and he will say depart from me I never knew you.

If your nonsense was true, than there was no need for the cross and it was Cosmic child abuse, Not!
In fact if what you believe was true, there would be no need for a Bible because what difference would it make.
If what you believe is true than why were we given the great commission?
If what you beleive is true than why build the church?
Why would the Bride be important to the groom?

Lets go back to Genesis and Adams sin. Satan was miffed that God esteemed man higher than all his creation and Him, he was cast out of heaven and indwelled the serpent to lie to EVE, why because he wanted to destroy Gods beloved man and he still does to this day theres no hope for him, and he wants the world to be destroyed with him. So he blinds it with foolish temperal things or with rebelion his very spirit.
You can spread his lies, but that dosent make them true!

James, the question is what spirit are you allowing to lead your reading the third person of the trinity? The Holy Spirit? I am having my doubts
.It sounds as if your saying all three are seperate and not one, thats modalismor the Sabellianism Heresy by the Council of Chalcedon in 451 CE! Theres nothing new under the sun. Your trying to bust libbys chops Jesus clearly said he was God many times that he and the father are one.
Have you read Col 1:15
<DIR><DIR>Col 1:13 He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son,
</DIR>Col 1:14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
Col 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
Col 1:16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things were created through him and for him.
Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
Col 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent.
Col 1:19 For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell,
Col 1:20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.
As I stated earlier we see all 3 at Jesus baptism.
Lastly your father mimicks what God does and we see Satan's trinity in revelation with (Satan the AntiChrist & the false prophet).
Satan wants to be God, he tries to mimick him with the power God allows him. Why would he try to mimick something that dosent exsist? If Christ is not your Lord than your of your father the devil you flaunt this with your false teachings and Anti christ message trying to rob Christ of his deity!

<DIR>Joh 8:42 Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and I am here. I came not of my own accord, but he sent me.
Joh 8:43 Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word.
Joh 8:44 You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
Joh 8:45 But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me.
Joh 8:46 Which one of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me?
Joh 8:47 Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God."
</DIR></DIR>Honeslty, reading that dosent cause you to pause for even a monent? That should strike fear in your heart. You know its true to because of the statements you make always wanting to do it your way rather than Gods way. Tick tick tick
You may have a tommorow but every breath is a gift from God and the clock ticks.
Do you know what the sin unto death is in scripture that John talks about? It's not a specific sin, its just the last sin when Gods had enough and he's done and so are you.
Your kicking againgst the goads my friend and the hell you dont beleve in is only a few breaths away. Tick tick tick How much time for this foolishness to you really have left?
I think its time you start praying for God to reveal his truth to you.Even your not wanting to pray is a huge sign that your not in a right relationship with the God of the Bible. New or Old Testament same God, same wrath.
:popcorn: I can accept that you believe all of that, and if you chose to so embrace Orthodoxy then you get to live with it.

But lets say we go back to your original posting of this thread and the early Church was a "democracy" says your info, so my vote is that your Orthodox claims are very wrong indeed.

Your vote and my vote cancel out each other.



:duel:

See?



Ruined!

:getdown: Now is where this thread gets fun and interesting.





:drummer:

James thats not true, thats universalism again just another Heresy. Everyone does not get saved in the end there is wheat and chaff, Read the Gospels, all the parables are about salvation and all end the same, there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
:popcorn: On Judgment Day there will be weeping and gnashing teeth in their repentance, but there will not be God torturing people in some Hell.

Link here to Matthew 5:43-45 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:43-48&version=KJV)
43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
KJV.

God does not torture His enemies - no, God saves even the very worst of sinners and no one gets left out.



Scripture talks about those that the father has given Christ and the potter and the clay. You dont have to like it, buts it's as plain as the nose on your face. Scripture says many on that day will say Lord Lord and profess there works and he will say depart from me I never knew you.
:howdy: I agree that God gives a special calling in this world to bring some people to His purposes but most people are just too sin filled to be of any rightful use even if they were called. On Judgment Day the rest of humanity will be changed with a new heart says the Bible. So many people who call Jesus as LORD and call them selves as Christians now will be denied "on that day" because they were false Christians, but God the Father still loves His enemies and God does right to those that do Him wrong so even the worst of sinners will be saved at that time.

It really is a very simple yet perfect plan of salvation.



If your nonsense was true, than there was no need for the cross and it was Cosmic child abuse, Not!
:popcorn: The cross was still needed to pay the full price for humanity.

If even one person does not get saved then the cross sacrifice would have come up short, but not even one will be lost.



In fact if what you believe was true, there would be no need for a Bible because what difference would it make.
:whistle: The Bible is needed now to show the way, but after Judgment Day then the Bible will be worn out and of no more use.



If what you believe is true than why were we given the great commission?
:popcorn: The point now is to save people from the world and not after death. People need saved now as in saved from addictions and saved from ignorance, saved from violence, cruelties, lust, greed, and saved from the evils of this world.

After death is already taken care of in full for everyone.



If what you beleive is true than why build the church?
Why would the Bride be important to the groom?
:howdy: The plan is to prepare the world for the return of Christ and to bring the Kingdom come onto the earth as it is in Heaven.


Lets go back to Genesis and Adams sin. Satan was miffed that God esteemed man higher than all his creation and Him, he was cast out of heaven and indwelled the serpent to lie to EVE, why because he wanted to destroy Gods beloved man and he still does to this day theres no hope for him, and he wants the world to be destroyed with him. So he blinds it with foolish temperal things or with rebelion his very spirit.
You can spread his lies, but that dosent make them true!
:howdy: All of that is a twisted interpretation of scripture and it is not presenting the Bible accounts correctly.

Satan is used by the Apostle Paul to work a person's salvation in link 1 Corinthians 5:5 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%205:4-6&version=KJV)

To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. KJV.

Satan has no real power except what ever we give to him, and even Satan gets saved on Judgment Day because the salvation plan is completely perfect.




:duel:

If even one person does not get saved then the cross sacrifice would have come up short, but not even one will be lost.

Y'know JP, this is the first thing you've said that has any value. Although surely not because I agree with you. Quite simply, many BAC's (born again Christians) accuse Catholics (and I suppose others) of trying to "earn" Heaven with "works". The same argument is used to try to deny Purgatory, that it's existence somehow implies that Jesus' Sacrifice was not enough. This could not be further from the Truth. The fact is, without the Sacrifice of Christ, no works and no amount of purging could gain us Heaven. We are, however, participants with Christ in salvific work. Can't get to my Bible this second, but Paul says (paraphrase) that he makes up for what is lacking in the suffering of Christ for the sake of other.
We are called to spread the Gospel and to bring others to Christ with our joy and our love; we participate, yet all things are done only through Christ.
The heresy you espouse is precisely why God did leave stewards. He prophesied about the change in stewardship in the OT, and He said it in no uncertain terms in the NT.
In Jeremiah 23 1-6 we see that the Lord does condemn the "shepherds" who have driven people away from Him, have not cared for His people. God does not, however, prophesy that He will abolish the stewardship. In fact what He says is, "I myself will gather the remnant of my flock from all the lands..." and "I will appoint shepherds for them who will shepherd them so that they need no longer fear and tremble..."
In the Gospel of Luke, Chap 20, the parable of the tenant farmers, you know the story, in vs. 16 Jesus tells us that "He will come and put those tenant farmers to death and turn over the vineyard to others"
Nothing indicates that the structure of authority established by God in the OT will be done away with. As a matter of fact, we see God foretelling of the errors of the Pharisees, but quite interestingly, in Matthew 23, while Jesus is rebuking the Pharisees He says not only, " "do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example", but also in vs. 23 we see "you pay tithes of mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier things of the law: judgment and mercy and fidelity. These things you should have done, without neglecting the others"Jesus says to Peter three times in succession "feed my sheep". Who feeds sheep but a shepherd? Peter is also given the keys to Heaven in Matthew 16:18, which we also see in Isaiah. Jesus breathed on them! The breath of God gives life in Genesis, life which, by His Grace, continues on. When Jesus breathes on the Apostles that life giving breath continues to the successors of the Apostles.

:getdown: Now is where this thread gets fun and interesting.





:drummer:

:bigwhoop:

Y'know JP, this is the first thing you've said that has any value. Although surely not because I agree with you. Quite simply, many BAC's (born again Christians) accuse Catholics (and I suppose others) of trying to "earn" Heaven with "works". The same argument is used to try to deny Purgatory, that it's existence somehow implies that Jesus' Sacrifice was not enough. This could not be further from the Truth. The fact is, without the Sacrifice of Christ, no works and no amount of purging could gain us Heaven. We are, however, participants with Christ in salvific work. Can't get to my Bible this second, but Paul says (paraphrase) that he makes up for what is lacking in the suffering of Christ for the sake of other.
We are called to spread the Gospel and to bring others to Christ with our joy and our love; we participate, yet all things are done only through Christ.
The heresy you espouse is precisely why God did leave stewards. He prophesied about the change in stewardship in the OT, and He said it in no uncertain terms in the NT.
In Jeremiah 23 1-6 we see that the Lord does condemn the "shepherds" who have driven people away from Him, have not cared for His people. God does not, however, prophesy that He will abolish the stewardship. In fact what He says is, "I myself will gather the remnant of my flock from all the lands..." and "I will appoint shepherds for them who will shepherd them so that they need no longer fear and tremble..."
In the Gospel of Luke, Chap 20, the parable of the tenant farmers, you know the story, in vs. 16 Jesus tells us that "He will come and put those tenant farmers to death and turn over the vineyard to others"
Nothing indicates that the structure of authority established by God in the OT will be done away with. As a matter of fact, we see God foretelling of the errors of the Pharisees, but quite interestingly, in Matthew 23, while Jesus is rebuking the Pharisees He says not only, " "do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example", but also in vs. 23 we see "you pay tithes of mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier things of the law: judgment and mercy and fidelity. These things you should have done, without neglecting the others"Jesus says to Peter three times in succession "feed my sheep". Who feeds sheep but a shepherd? Peter is also given the keys to Heaven in Matthew 16:18, which we also see in Isaiah. Jesus breathed on them! The breath of God gives life in Genesis, life which, by His Grace, continues on. When Jesus breathes on the Apostles that life giving breath continues to the successors of the Apostles.
:getdown: I really like every thing you say there, and I see it as written brilliantly.

And I have no objection to me being seen as a heretic as I like heretics - so long as we do not go mad.

I really do like the BAC and the Catholics and I like Islam and Buddha and I like all religions as different parts of God.

The real challenge is to find THE FLOCK, or the true CHURCH, or a real spiritual Shepherd or Steward, because all those that claim to be the one(s) are not.



:drummer:

:getdown: I really like every thing you say there, and I see it as written brilliantly.

And I have no objection to me being seen as a heretic as I like heretics - so long as we do not go mad.

I really do like the BAC and the Catholics and I like Islam and Buddha and I like all religions as different parts of God.

The real challenge is to find THE FLOCK, or the true CHURCH, or a real spiritual Shepherd or Steward, because all those that claim to be the one(s) are not.



:drummer:

The paper trail of history leads us right to what-is-now-called the Catholic Church. Read early church fathers in their entirety, and you will find the same doctrines the Catholic Church now teaches.

The paper trail of history leads us right to what-is-now-called the Catholic Church. Read early church fathers in their entirety, and you will find the same doctrines the Catholic Church now teaches.
:howdy: The earliest Catholic fathers do teach the same Catholic doctrine as today, but the recorded history of the New Testament Church itself does not show the same Church.

What history does show is a missing 100 years between the Bible New Testament and the rise of Catholicism.

The New Testament historical accounts are dated between 50-70 A.D., excluding the book of Revelations estimated as around 90 A.D. as Revelations has no historical accounting written within it or otherwise. Then the only verifiable Catholic historical records begin around 140-160 A.D., and that leaves approximately 100 years of Church history as missing and obscure.

I tried to find a link to support this but I could not, however if you use any Encyclopedia under "Papacy" and it will show that the Catholic claimed Popes after Peter and before 150 A.D. to be unverifiable, unreliable and no reason to believe the claims to be true. So too the Catholic claim to Peter is extremely exaggerated and far from true.

According to one old Roman document - a Roman authority wrote that the Romans soldiers had killed "all the Christians" and that appears to be the true history that "all" the first century Christians had been killed off and around 100 years later another new Church arose calling itself as "Christian" and as Catholic, but its doctrines were greatly different than what Jesus teaches in the Bible.



:drummer:

:howdy: The earliest Catholic fathers do teach the same Catholic doctrine as today, but the recorded history of the New Testament Church itself does not show the same Church.

What history does show is a missing 100 years between the Bible New Testament and the rise of Catholicism.

The New Testament historical accounts are dated between 50-70 A.D., excluding the book of Revelations estimated as around 90 A.D. as Revelations has no historical accounting written within it or otherwise. Then the only verifiable Catholic historical records begin around 140-160 A.D., and that leaves approximately 100 years of Church history as missing and obscure.

I tried to find a link to support this but I could not, however if you use any Encyclopedia under "Papacy" and it will show that the Catholic claimed Popes after Peter and before 150 A.D. to be unverifiable, unreliable and no reason to believe the claims to be true. So too the Catholic claim to Peter is extremely exaggerated and far from true.

According to one old Roman document - a Roman authority wrote that the Romans soldiers had killed "all the Christians" and that appears to be the true history that "all" the first century Christians had been killed off and around 100 years later another new Church arose calling itself as "Christian" and as Catholic, but its doctrines were greatly different than what Jesus teaches in the Bible.



:drummer:

As to the bolded, this is why Catholics recognize that Jesus Christ established a Church, not a book. The continuity of Christendom is not dependent upon the Bible. There may be sources that claim that the papacy cannot be traced, but there are plenty of sources that show that it can.
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Apostolic Succession (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01641a.htm)

Guess that's why there are two sides to every story.

Catholic doctrines can be proven from the Bible, but also using reason and logic. If 'x' is true, then 'y' logically follows.

Who do you consider an early church father?

As to the bolded, this is why Catholics recognize that Jesus Christ established a Church, not a book. The continuity of Christendom is not dependent upon the Bible.
:whistle: There are few people that would support that claim and that certainly is not a position of the Catholic Church and not of any Protestant Church either.

But I would agree that Chistendom surely is not dependent upon the Bible, since Orthodox Christianity is rather far from the Bible.


There may be sources that claim that the papacy cannot be traced, but there are plenty of sources that show that it can.
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Apostolic Succession (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01641a.htm)
:popcorn: We all already know about the Catholic claims and no one denies their claim, the problem arises when we look for evidence or proof and it always says otherwise.



Who do you consider an early church father?
:howdy: That puts me in remembrance of Jesus telling that we are to call no person as "father" because the Bible is not about fathers.

So there are Catholic Church fathers like "Augustine" but that adds nothing to the truth.


:duel:

:whistle: There are few people that would support that claim and that certainly is not a position of the Catholic Church and not of any Protestant Church either.

But I would agree that Chistendom surely is not dependent upon the Bible, since Orthodox Christianity is rather far from the Bible.


:popcorn: We all already know about the Catholic claims and no one denies their claim, the problem arises when we look for evidence or proof and it always says otherwise.


:howdy: That puts me in remembrance of Jesus telling that we are to call no person as "father" because the Bible is not about fathers.

So there are Catholic Church fathers like "Augustine" but that adds nothing to the truth.


:duel:

Okay, I see why so many people have you on ignore. You ignored what I said, and provided no support for your own position.
I'll save my breath for someone else.

Okay, I see why so many people have you on ignore. You ignored what I said, and provided no support for your own position.
I'll save my breath for someone else.
:howdy: That is fine with me even though I never ever ignore anyone myself.

But I do see this as one of the ever irritating things about Catholicism in that people are to either accept any thing the Church says or else they are not welcome by the Church.

Step in line or stay away and that is it.

If I were to ever create my ideal "Christian" or Godly Church then I would want anybody and everyone of any kind to feel invited and welcome inside, and I would never want any person to be ignored because of their different beliefs.

I might ignore a baby playing or ignore a person on their cell phone or ignore persons talking to each other but that kind of ignoring is part of being a loving person that welcomes all.


:duel:

How well do you really know the Catholic church (I'm just throwing this out there to make this a more informed disagreement)

As Catholics we are only REQUIRED to believe the following (as quoted from the Nicene Creed):

We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
and of all that is, seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God, begotten,
not made, one in Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation,
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit he was born
of the Virgin Mary, and became man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered, died, and was buried.

On the third day he rose again in
fulfillment of the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven and is seated
at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge
the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord,
the giver of life, who proceeds from the
Father and the Son. With the Father
and the Son he is worshipped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.

We believe in one holy catholic and
apostolic Church. We acknowledge
one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come."

(Keep in mind that the word catholic here is lower case meaning one universal church of believers.)

the rest of the positions of the Church are DOCTRINE, not faith.

What part of that do you have a problem with? Even at a meeting of Catholics, you'll find differences of opinion on whether a particular doctrine is right (i.e contraception, fertility treatments, even abortion). Yet they are all similarly "good" Catholics.

Further from what I'm told (though I haven't fully gotten my mind around it yet) we firmly believe that one must NOT practice what one does not believe. In short, the Catholic faith believes we will meet the true and honest athiest in Heaven, while a Sunday Christian who does not live his purported faith may not be in the chosen.


Sounds to me a lot like what you are saying JP...So what's your beef?:howdy:

But I do see this as one of the ever irritating things about Catholicism in that people are to either accept any thing the Church says or else they are not welcome by the Church.

Step in line or stay away and that is it.


Why is that irritating. It's just simple common sense.

You have a group of people that identify themselves by their belief system. This belief system is no secret, it's all laid out: "We believe A, B and C"

Then you have some dipwad that comes along and says, I believe in A and C, but not B - but I still want to identify myself as a part of your group.



If I don't believe in Allah - I'm not a Muslim PERIOD.. If I don't believe in Buddha, I'm not a Buddhist PERIOD. - why should someone who doesn't beleive as Catholics be considered a Catholic.

It's idiotic.


Almost as idiotic as me expecting you to read this, and see the sense herein.





If I were to ever create my ideal "Christian" or Godly Church then I would want anybody and everyone of any kind to feel invited and welcome inside, and I would never want any person to be ignored because of their different beliefs.

You should totally do that.

Why is that irritating. It's just simple common sense.

You have a group of people that identify themselves by their belief system. This belief system is no secret, it's all laid out: "We believe A, B and C"

Then you have some dipwad that comes along and says, I believe in A and C, but not B - but I still want to identify myself as a part of your group.

If I don't believe in Allah - I'm not a Muslim PERIOD.. If I don't believe in Buddha, I'm not a Buddhist PERIOD. - why should someone who doesn't beleive as Catholics be considered a Catholic.

It's idiotic.

Almost as idiotic as me expecting you to read this, and see the sense herein.

:howdy: I do see the sense in that and I agree with it completely.

And it is the same scenario in Protestant Churches and virtually any group of every kind is like that too.

So I was wrong to stick it at the Catholics as if it were only them and no one else.

But my own irritation over the self-identity-belief-systems is about the lack of toleration and respect for others outside of the groups as I myself am always an outsider, and as such I can not join in any group or Church because I decide for myself what I believe and what I do not accept.

And my own belief from the Bible and from Jesus is to "love thy enemies" and that means inviting thy enemies into thy group even when thy group does not like it.

Thats another one of my crazy ideals.

And I am NOT honestly against the Catholics or the Catholic Church as I believe they are all included in the salvation plan, and I really do have active friendships with real dedicated Catholics and I respect them, but as to this particular thread then when we start talking about Church history and Bible doctrine then I am open and willing to debate the truth of it with anyone.



:duel:

James have you ever read the book of Revelations that even after the rapture that people will know what happened and still reject God. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
Just like your doing, you once jokingly called yourself and antichristand you are, as what you espouse is against Christ and the truth of Gods word. <o:p></o:p>
Do you recall the punishments for false teachers? Besides being a Universalist are you now professing to be a modelalist as well?<o:p></o:p>
Have you ever considered that someone might actually read your words and be led astray to spend an eternity in hell, for you having great fun by trying to provoke folks into sinning?<o:p></o:p>
Do you get it, that God poured out his wrath on Christ on the cross and that you’re storing up wrath upon yourself?<o:p></o:p>
I'll ask again have you ever read Revelation, Christ is no longer coming to us as a lamb but as a lion, the lion of Judah as a warrior.The martyrs cry out how much longertill you avenge us. Do you see a problem with his vengeance on those doing the persecution and him saving those same folks?<o:p></o:p>
There is no way you can really believe what you say.<o:p></o:p>
I know your confused reading the quran and other nonsense and heretics like Herbert W Armstrong that all that junk is confused in your head and being the pacifist you are, you would like to believe everyone lives happily ever after, but there is no way you can readGods word and believe that. At best its scriptural origami a whole lot of twisting and contorting to try to make things work for you. Have you ever submitted to any authority? Really?<o:p></o:p>
Dude I seriously worry about you, to die and know your going to hell is really scary, but to know that your eternal punishment God has in store for you is the some of the worst possible for your false teaching, it can only get worse if you cause a child to stumble.<o:p></o:p>
The sin unto death is yours my friend and right around the corner whenGod finally says enough of this foolishness.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Ourorthodoxy and orthapraxy aren’t hurtingus a bit as it gives me a correct view of who I am and who Gods is. There is no commendation in scripture to submitting to God or the word of God,as imperfect as that submission is. Every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus is Lord but that wont keep them from their eternal destination. <o:p></o:p>
Today is the day of salvation your days are coming to an end, even the Antichrist will be destroyed which your not. I'd seriously suggest you get on your face before God while you still have breath in you and beg for mercy that he will show you the truth. Tick Tick Tick <o:p></o:p>
What do you do with? <o:p></o:p>
Mat 7:21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. <o:p></o:p>
Mat 7:22On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' <o:p></o:p>
Mat 7:23And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.' <o:p></o:p>
Were do you thing they are departing to? If there not going into the Kingdom of heaven there is only one other option.<o:p></o:p>
Php 2:11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. <o:p></o:p>
Php 2:12 Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, <o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Why bother to work it out, why do it with fear and trembling? Because<o:p></o:p>
Heb 10:31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>

JP[quote=VoteJP;4014736]:howdy: The earliest Catholic fathers do teach the same Catholic doctrine as today, but the recorded history of the New Testament Church itself does not show the same Church."

Thats a lie its been changed many times, with things being added such as the deity of Mary. That came latter. This gets back to the orignal post and the changes that took the church off in wild directions getting away from the apostolic church.

What history does show is a missing 100 years between the Bible New Testament and the rise of Catholicism.

My guess is 200 hundred years since revelation was the last book written in 95 AD and the church didnt go off into its power authority kick until after 300AD.

JP"The New Testament historical accounts are dated between 50-70 A.D., excluding the book of Revelations estimated as around 90 A.D. as Revelations has no historical accounting written within it or otherwise. Then the only verifiable Catholic historical records begin around 140-160 A.D., and that leaves approximately 100 years of Church history as missing and obscure."

JP"I tried to find a link to support this but I could not, however if you use any Encyclopedia under "Papacy" and it will show that the Catholic claimed Popes after Peter and before 150 A.D. to be unverifiable, unreliable and no reason to believe the claims to be true. So too the Catholic claim to Peter is extremely exaggerated and far from true."

How about using the book we were discussing?
The Baptist Page - Distictives - The Trail of Blood by J.H. Carroll (http://www.siteone.com/religion/baptist/baptistpage/Distinctives/Trail_of_Blood.html)

JP'According to one old Roman document - a Roman authority wrote that the Romans soldiers had killed "all the Christians" and that appears to be the true history that "all" the first century Christians had been killed off and around 100 years later another new Church arose calling itself as "Christian" and as Catholic, but its doctrines were greatly different than what Jesus teaches in the Bible."

History dosent teach that, it teaches that man kept indroducing new measures to support its corrupt thinking and papal abuses.

James your not alone look up universalism and wider mercy view. Theres a new breed of the same old Heresy Start with Brain Mclearn or his counter part Steve Chalke of the UK
Chalke said that the cross was cosmic child abuse and NT wright agrees with him.
Funny they call themsevles Christian and Evangelical that is if it wasnt so sad!

Just another heretic that dosent understand Penial substitution and limited atonement.

Stand to Reason: Cosmic Child Abuse? (http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7059)

JP[quote=VoteJP;4014736]:howdy: The earliest Catholic fathers do teach the same Catholic doctrine as today, but the recorded history of the New Testament Church itself does not show the same Church."

Thats a lie its been changed many times, with things being added such as the deity of Mary. That came latter. This gets back to the orignal post and the changes that took the church off in wild directions getting away from the apostolic church.

What history does show is a missing 100 years between the Bible New Testament and the rise of Catholicism.

My guess is 200 hundred years since revelation was the last book written in 95 AD and the church didnt go off into its power authority kick until after 300AD.

JP"The New Testament historical accounts are dated between 50-70 A.D., excluding the book of Revelations estimated as around 90 A.D. as Revelations has no historical accounting written within it or otherwise. Then the only verifiable Catholic historical records begin around 140-160 A.D., and that leaves approximately 100 years of Church history as missing and obscure."

JP"I tried to find a link to support this but I could not, however if you use any Encyclopedia under "Papacy" and it will show that the Catholic claimed Popes after Peter and before 150 A.D. to be unverifiable, unreliable and no reason to believe the claims to be true. So too the Catholic claim to Peter is extremely exaggerated and far from true."

How about using the book we were discussing?
The Baptist Page - Distictives - The Trail of Blood by J.H. Carroll (http://www.siteone.com/religion/baptist/baptistpage/Distinctives/Trail_of_Blood.html)

JP'According to one old Roman document - a Roman authority wrote that the Romans soldiers had killed "all the Christians" and that appears to be the true history that "all" the first century Christians had been killed off and around 100 years later another new Church arose calling itself as "Christian" and as Catholic, but its doctrines were greatly different than what Jesus teaches in the Bible."

History dosent teach that, it teaches that man kept indroducing new measures to support its corrupt thinking and papal abuses.

Get a clue, Marie! Sorry to be so rude, but this is one of those idiotic statements that is borne out of anti-Catholic bias and not the facts. Catholics do NOT believe Mary was divine, END OF STORY! It is in no way part of the doctrine.

"Power kick"? Let's pick a doctrine, ONE AT A TIME, and go over it, using Scripture, history and reason.

[QUOTE=Marie;4017675]JP

Get a clue, Marie! Sorry to be so rude, but this is one of those idiotic statements that is borne out of anti-Catholic bias and not the facts. Catholics do NOT believe Mary was divine, END OF STORY! It is in no way part of the doctrine.

"Power kick"? Let's pick a doctrine, ONE AT A TIME, and go over it, using Scripture, history and reason.

:yay:

But my own irritation over the self-identity-belief-systems is about the lack of toleration and respect for others outside of the groups as I myself am always an outsider, and as such I can not join in any group or Church because I decide for myself what I believe and what I do not accept.


While there are individuals in any church who lack toleration and respect for others outside their group, this behavior should not be attributed to the group as a whole. There's a LOT more tolerant ones than intolerant ones.

And saying: "You don't believe as we do, therefore you are not one of us" does not qualify as intolerance or disrespect.

If anything, it's merely stating the obvious.

Creating your own belief system is all well and good - but you should not be surprised, nor take offense when a group considers you an outsider. If you place yourself on the outside a group, you are - by definition - an outsider.

That has nothing to do with tolerance or respect. It has everything to do with physics and the laws of nature.

How well do you really know the Catholic church (I'm just throwing this out there to make this a more informed disagreement)

As Catholics we are only REQUIRED to believe the following (as quoted from the Nicene Creed):

We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
and of all that is, seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God, begotten,
not made, one in Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation,
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit he was born
of the Virgin Mary, and became man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered, died, and was buried.

On the third day he rose again in
fulfillment of the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven and is seated
at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge
the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord,
the giver of life, who proceeds from the
Father and the Son. With the Father
and the Son he is worshipped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.

We believe in one holy catholic and
apostolic Church. We acknowledge
one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come."

(Keep in mind that the word catholic here is lower case meaning one universal church of believers.)

the rest of the positions of the Church are DOCTRINE, not faith.

What part of that do you have a problem with? Even at a meeting of Catholics, you'll find differences of opinion on whether a particular doctrine is right (i.e contraception, fertility treatments, even abortion). Yet they are all similarly "good" Catholics.

Further from what I'm told (though I haven't fully gotten my mind around it yet) we firmly believe that one must NOT practice what one does not believe. In short, the Catholic faith believes we will meet the true and honest athiest in Heaven, while a Sunday Christian who does not live his purported faith may not be in the chosen.


Sounds to me a lot like what you are saying JP...So what's your beef?:howdy:

Hey ImMe,
A slight correction here. We are required to believe the doctrines that the Church has declared, for instance, the Immaculate Conception of Mary and the True Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. Devotions like the Rosary, or praying for the intercession of saints and such is up to personal desire, but doctrine never is.
Does that mean we have intellectual assent to it? Does it mean we fully grasp the magnitude of what it means? No, but we do submit to the authority of the Church on the matter.

Hey ImMe,
A slight correction here. We are required to believe the doctrines that the Church has declared, for instance, the Immaculate Conception of Mary and the True Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. Devotions like the Rosary, or praying for the intercession of saints and such is up to personal desire, but doctrine never is.
Does that mean we have intellectual assent to it? Does it mean we fully grasp the magnitude of what it means? No, but we do submit to the authority of the Church on the matter.

I agree with your comments on Catholic doctrine. (with the addition of the Assumption of Mary).

What are your thoughts on meeting a conscientious atheist in Heaven?

I agree with your comments on Catholic doctrine. (with the addition of the Assumption of Mary).

What are your thoughts on meeting a conscientious atheist in Heaven?

Pretty much what you said, excepting only that the athiest was in an honest search for Truth, but just never got there.
:buddies:

JP
:howdy: The earliest Catholic fathers do teach the same Catholic doctrine as today, but the recorded history of the New Testament Church itself does not show the same Church.

According to one old Roman document - a Roman authority wrote that the Romans soldiers had killed "all the Christians" and that appears to be the true history that "all" the first century Christians had been killed off and around 100 years later another new Church arose calling itself as "Christian" and as Catholic, but its doctrines were greatly different than what Jesus teaches in the Bible."
:getdown:


History does not teach that, it teaches that man kept introducing new measures to support its corrupt thinking and papal abuses.
:howdy: What the Bible tells us is even better than what secular history shows.

In the Bible Jesus is shown to a type of second Adam 1 Corinthians 15:45 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2015:44-46&version=KJV), and Adam had two children of "Cain and Able" and so did the second Adam had two children Churches. And just as Cain killed Able the evil Church killed the true Church.

And God says concerning His prophecies that He God tells the end from the beginning Isaiah 46:10 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2046:9-10&version=KJV) as in telling in Genesis what would happen to Christ.

And the evidence of that is in the fact that the second-brother-Church of Christ was talked about as "Cain" in the New Testament by both Jude and John as follows;

Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, Jude 1:11 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jude%201:10-12&version=KJV)

and

11 For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another.

12 Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother's righteous.

13 Marvel not, my brethren, if the world hate you. 1 John 3:11-13 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%203:11-13&version=KJV)

So the early Church (as Abel) was killed by the other crooked Church (Cain) and so it went on...


:duel:

:getdown:

:howdy: What the Bible tells us is even better than what secular history shows.

In the Bible Jesus is shown to a type of second Adam 1 Corinthians 15:45 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2015:44-46&version=KJV), and Adam had two children of "Cain and Able" and so did the second Adam had two children Churches. And just as Cain killed Able the evil Church killed the true Church.

And God says concerning His prophecies that He God tells the end from the beginning Isaiah 46:10 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2046:9-10&version=KJV) as in telling in Genesis what would happen to Christ.

And the evidence of that is in the fact that the second-brother-Church of Christ was talked about as "Cain" in the New Testament by both Jude and John as follows;

Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, Jude 1:11 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jude%201:10-12&version=KJV)

and

11 For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another.

12 Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother's righteous.

13 Marvel not, my brethren, if the world hate you. 1 John 3:11-13 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%203:11-13&version=KJV)

So the early Church (as Abel) was killed by the other crooked Church (Cain) and so it went on...


:duel:

:killingme

:getdown:

:howdy: What the Bible tells us is even better than what secular history shows.

In the Bible Jesus is shown to a type of second Adam 1 Corinthians 15:45 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2015:44-46&version=KJV), and Adam had two children of "Cain and Able" and so did the second Adam had two children Churches. And just as Cain killed Able the evil Church killed the true Church.

And God says concerning His prophecies that He God tells the end from the beginning Isaiah 46:10 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2046:9-10&version=KJV) as in telling in Genesis what would happen to Christ.

And the evidence of that is in the fact that the second-brother-Church of Christ was talked about as "Cain" in the New Testament by both Jude and John as follows;

Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, Jude 1:11 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jude%201:10-12&version=KJV)

and

11 For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another.

12 Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother's righteous.

13 Marvel not, my brethren, if the world hate you. 1 John 3:11-13 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%203:11-13&version=KJV)

So the early Church (as Abel) was killed by the other crooked Church (Cain) and so it went on...


:duel:


Matthew 16:18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.


If there is an evil church (Cain) that killed the good church (Abel) as you claim, then "the gates of Hades" did indeed overcome, and ergo Jesus lied.

By all means JP, keep going. Not only are you giving Libby great amusement, but you are doing nothing but proving why there is need for an authority and exactly why Jesus left us with it. :yay:

Matthew 16:18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

If there is an evil church (Cain) that killed the good church (Abel) as you claim, then "the gates of Hades" did indeed overcome, and ergo Jesus lied.

:popcorn: It is true that I left the interpretation incomplete because even I have my own limitations.

And it is said that Jesus went to "Hades" (the place of the dead) and three days later Jesus is said to have rose from the dead (Hades) and that is the same expectation of the Church that was killed in that it rose again at a later date.



By all means JP, keep going. Not only are you giving Libby great amusement, but you are doing nothing but proving why there is need for an authority and exactly why Jesus left us with it. :yay:
:diva: I like authority and I am very much a supporter of rightful authority.

The thing is that authority must be based on truth and justice and accuracy and NOT on persons or peoples' positions in a hierarchy.

This is how the Church needs to be viewed as a Spiritual entity with spiritual rulers, instead of a physical Church with physical rulers.



:duel: