1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Christians - Bible Interpretation

Discussion in 'Same Faith Debates' started by drummrguy14, Nov 29, 2005.

  1. Baerly

    Baerly Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2006
    Messages:
    431
    Ratings:
    +13
     
  2. sojourner

    sojourner Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2006
    Messages:
    37,753
    Ratings:
    +5,898
    Religion:
    Christian/Shamanic
    There were still Pharisees and Essenes around after the Resurrection. There were still Jews of many different types. In fact, the early Christians still worshiped in Synagogue as Jews. None of those differences matter in Christ.

    Galatians 3:27 says nothing about baptism being the only way into Christ. That's not the thrust of the message there. Again, your proof-texting has become as irksome as a bad journalist who insists on putting words into others' mouths by taking statements out of context.

    That's what I've been trying to get across to you. It's all up to interpretation. You don't just get to say, "The way I read the Bible is the only way, so I'm right." There are differences in interpretation that just don't amount to a hill of beans in God's kingdom. Why are you making such a big deal out of it?

    Doesn't make any difference. Paul wrote after the death of Jesus, and he said that there is no longer Jew or Greek...all are one in Christ Jesus. Why do you insist upon saying that they are not???

    I thought Jesus said that we were to be known by our love for one another...but I guess it's really about how perfectly we "keep the Law"...just like the Pharisees that Jesus railed so hard against.

    Naieve, wishful thinking. There are many, many glosses and deletions; many cases of the writer putting words in Jesus' mouth that just quite simply weren't there. it's a pretty thought, but it just ain't true. I'm of the opinion that Paul deviated from Jesus' teachings, inserting his own understanding. Indeed, it's been said that Paul promoted, not the religion of Jesus, but created a religion about Jesus.
     
  3. Baerly

    Baerly Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2006
    Messages:
    431
    Ratings:
    +13
    Mike Riley's Articles » Bible Interpretation [SIZE=-1]Posted in Bible Interpretation on January 7th, 2006 ... Leave A Comment ». You are currently browsing the archives for the Bible Interpretation category. ...
    scholar714.preachersfiles.com/tag/bible-interpretation/ - 14k - Supplemental Result - Cached - Similar pages[/SIZE]
    [SIZE=-1][/SIZE]
    [SIZE=-1]This is very good. --in love Baerly[/SIZE]
     
  4. Baerly

    Baerly Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2006
    Messages:
    431
    Ratings:
    +13
     
  5. Baerly

    Baerly Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2006
    Messages:
    431
    Ratings:
    +13
    1. My friend, The Catholic church had its begining in 606 A.D. - It was Boniface III who assumed the title of "universal bishop". This happened in Rome.

    The church I attend goes back to the day of Pentecost.Jesus was the builder
    (Mt.16:18).He bought the church with his blood when he died upon the cross
    (Acts 20:28). How could we call it anything else after he bought the church with his blood (Rom.16:16). We can read about the begining of that church in (Acts 2). Peter told those who killed Jesus to REPENT AND BE BAPTIZED FOR THE RENISSION OF SINS (Acts 2:38). Those 3000 people who responded to that first gospel sermon were baptized INTO Christ and INTO the church at the same time (Gal.3:27)
    (1Cor.12:13).When they were baptized God washed their sins away according to (Col.2:12). (Titus 3:5) (Acts 22:16) (Eph.5:26).

    If I do what they did back then on the day of Pentecost,I can become what they were without a doubt. They were called Christians (Acts 11:26).There is no other name whereby we can be saved (Acts 4:12).

    2. When error was being taught it was addressed and it was corrected (Gal:6:1,2) (Phil.3:16,17) .Today that is not the case. People have adopted the notion that God condones many different doctrines, ways to worship,etc.--They did not get that idea from the bible,it came from man (Gal.1:10) (1Cor.1:10) (Phil.3:16) .

    The teaching on Justification by works and faith go together.We must have faith and we must have works according to (Heb.11:6) (Acts:10:34,35) (Heb.5:8,9) (Titus 2:14). They were not teaching one or the other saved us ALONE. They both were teaching each was necessary for salvation. Similar to how your battery works on your car. There are two cables going to your battery on the car. It takes both cables to start the car. If you take either of them off it will not start. If your positve cable was off or loose and you seen a mechanic he would tell you the positive cable needs to be tightened. If your negative cable was loose and you seen another mechanic he would tell you the negative cable needed to be tightened. Both mechanics told the truth,there was just different problems at different times. But it takes both cables to start your car. It also take faith and works to be saved and to please God (1Thess.4:1). The problem is not with the bible,but with the understanding of those reading the bible. in love Baerly
     
  6. sojourner

    sojourner Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2006
    Messages:
    37,753
    Ratings:
    +5,898
    Religion:
    Christian/Shamanic
     
  7. Baerly

    Baerly Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2006
    Messages:
    431
    Ratings:
    +13
    My friend sojourner, contrary to what you have said in the above post,the bible says when you read you will understand (Eph.3:3,4).

    Do not teach any other gospel that that which we have taught you (Gal.1:6-9).

    Teach no other doctrine (1Tim.1:3).

    I do not need your Holy Traditions according to the bible.Your Holy Traditions are an addition to the bible and at times contrary to the word of God (Rev.22:18,19) (1Cor.4:6) (Deut.4:2). in love Baerly
     
  8. Baerly

    Baerly Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2006
    Messages:
    431
    Ratings:
    +13
    Sojourner writes:-
    5) Can you prove that he didn't? He interpreted what he had been shown through his own lens -- just as you and I do. "Remembering," in the human psyche, does not include perfect memory. The human memory is faulty. That's why we lay Paul beside Jesus and learn from both perspectives. For anyone to say Paul wrote exactly what Jesus said is naieve. I would call it a lack of scholarship.

    The things I write to you ARE the commandments of the Lord (1Cor.14:37) (1Cor.2:13).

    Do you believe that verse of scripture?

    The Holy Spirit brought back to the memory of the apostle Paul all things Jesus said to him while on the earth (John 14:26).

    Do you believe that verse of scripture?

    The apostles were guided by the Holy Spirit to write down what the Lord wanted recorded according to (2Peter 1:20,21) (1Peter 4:11) (1Cor.2:13). Holy men of God were moved (or born along) by the Holy Spirit. This would include the apostle Paul. You insinuate that the apostle Paul did not do such a thing. Where is your proof?
     
  9. athanasius

    athanasius Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2006
    Messages:
    1,573
    Ratings:
    +123
    Baerly Said;

    “My friend, The Catholic church had its begining in 606 A.D. - It was Boniface III who assumed the title of "universal bishop". This happened in Rome.”


    My answer

    The Catholic church was the first church historically. Every other denomination has historically come from it since the mid 1500’s. It was the Catholic church that decided on the Canon of the New testament that you have in your bible. This was done in the council of Rome 382 A.D. under Pope Damasus and ratified again in the councils of Hippo(393) and Carthage(397)

    The Catholic church can trace its origin back to St Peter(Matt 16:13-19) who can trace his origin back to Jesus. Here is a list of Our historic Popes that show succession from Peter to Benedict the 16th:

    This list can be found in secular(Webster’s encyclopedia), Protestant(Oxford dictionary of Popes) and Catholic(Catholic encyclopedia of History) sources. No one really denied this. If your church started at pentecost, then indeed Mr bearly you would be Catholic, thats just historical fact.

    1. St. Peter (32-67)
    2. St. Linus (67-76)
    3. St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88)
    4. St. Clement I (88-97)
    5. St. Evaristus (97-105)
    6. St. Alexander I (105-115)
    7. St. Sixtus I (115-125) -- also called Xystus I
    8. St. Telesphorus (125-136)
    9. St. Hyginus (136-140)
    10. St. Pius I (140-155)
    11. St. Anicetus (155-166)
    12. St. Soter (166-175)
    13. St. Eleutherius (175-189)
    14. St. Victor I (189-199)
    15. St. Zephyrinus (199-217)
    16. St. Callistus I (217-22)
    17. St. Urban I (222-30)
    18. St. Pontain (230-35)
    19. St. Anterus (235-36)
    20. St. Fabian (236-50)
    21. St. Cornelius (251-53)
    22. St. Lucius I (253-54)
    23. St. Stephen I (254-257)
    24. St. Sixtus II (257-258)
    25. St. Dionysius (260-268)
    26. St. Felix I (269-274)
    27. St. Eutychian (275-283)
    28. St. Caius (283-296) -- also called Gaius
    29. St. Marcellinus (296-304)
    30. St. Marcellus I (308-309)
    31. St. Eusebius (309 or 310)
    32. St. Miltiades (311-14)
    33. St. Sylvester I (314-35)
    34. St. Marcus (336)
    35. St. Julius I (337-52)
    36. Liberius (352-66)
    37. St. Damasus I (366-83)
    38. St. Siricius (384-99)
    39. St. Anastasius I (399-401)
    40. St. Innocent I (401-17)
    41. St. Zosimus (417-18)
    42. St. Boniface I (418-22)
    43. St. Celestine I (422-32)
    44. St. Sixtus III (432-40)
    45. St. Leo I (the Great) (440-61)
    46. St. Hilarius (461-68)
    47. St. Simplicius (468-83)
    48. St. Felix III (II) (483-92)
    49. St. Gelasius I (492-96)
    50. Anastasius II (496-98)
    51. St. Symmachus (498-514)
    52. St. Hormisdas (514-23)
    53. St. John I (523-26)
    54. St. Felix IV (III) (526-30)
    55. Boniface II (530-32)
    56. John II (533-35)
    57. St. Agapetus I (535-36) -- also called Agapitus I
    58. St. Silverius (536-37)
    59. Vigilius (537-55)
    60. Pelagius I (556-61)
    61. John III (561-74)
    62. Benedict I (575-79)
    63. Pelagius II (579-90)
    64. St. Gregory I (the Great) (590-604)
    65. Sabinian (604-606)
    66. Boniface III (607)
    67. St. Boniface IV (608-15)
    68. St. Deusdedit (Adeodatus I) (615-18)
    69. Boniface V (619-25)
    70. Honorius I (625-38)
    71. Severinus (640)
    72. John IV (640-42)
    73. Theodore I (642-49)
    74. St. Martin I (649-55)
    75. St. Eugene I (655-57)
    76. St. Vitalian (657-72)
    77. Adeodatus (II) (672-76)
    78. Donus (676-78)
    79. St. Agatho (678-81)
    80. St. Leo II (682-83)
    81. St. Benedict II (684-85)
    82. John V (685-86)
    83. Conon (686-87)
    84. St. Sergius I (687-701)
    85. John VI (701-05)
    86. John VII (705-07)
    87. Sisinnius (708)
    88. Constantine (708-15)
    89. St. Gregory II (715-31)
    90. St. Gregory III (731-41)
    91. St. Zachary (741-52)
    92. Stephen II (752) -- Because he died before being consecrated, some lists (including the Vatican's official list) omit him.
    93. Stephen III (752-57)
    94. St. Paul I (757-67)
    95. Stephen IV (767-72)
    96. Adrian I (772-95)
    97. St. Leo III (795-816)
    98. Stephen V (816-17)
    99. St. Paschal I (817-24)
    100. Eugene II (824-27)
    101. Valentine (827)
    102. Gregory IV (827-44)
    103. Sergius II (844-47)
    104. St. Leo IV (847-55)
    105. Benedict III (855-58)
    106. St. Nicholas I (the Great) (858-67)
    107. Adrian II (867-72)
    108. John VIII (872-82)
    109. Marinus I (882-84)
    110. St. Adrian III (884-85)
    111. Stephen VI (885-91)
    112. Formosus (891-96)
    113. Boniface VI (896)
    114. Stephen VII (896-97)
    115. Romanus (897)
    116. Theodore II (897)
    117. John IX (898-900)
    118. Benedict IV (900-03)
    119. Leo V (903)
    120. Sergius III (904-11)
    121. Anastasius III (911-13)
    122. Lando (913-14)
    123. John X (914-28)
    124. Leo VI (928)
    125. Stephen VIII (929-31)
    126. John XI (931-35)
    127. Leo VII (936-39)
    128. Stephen IX (939-42)
    129. Marinus II (942-46)
    130. Agapetus II (946-55)
    131. John XII (955-63)
    132. Leo VIII (963-64)
    133. Benedict V (964)
    134. John XIII (965-72)
    135. Benedict VI (973-74)
    136. Benedict VII (974-83)
    137. John XIV (983-84)
    138. John XV (985-96)
    139. Gregory V (996-99)
    140. Sylvester II (999-1003)
    141. John XVII (1003)
    142. John XVIII (1003-09)
    143. Sergius IV (1009-12)
    144. Benedict VIII (1012-24)
    145. John XIX (1024-32)
    146. Benedict IX (1032-45)
    147. Sylvester III (1045) -- Considered by some to be an antipope
    148. Benedict IX (1045)
    149. Gregory VI (1045-46)
    150. Clement II (1046-47)
    151. Benedict IX (1047-48)
    152. Damasus II (1048)
    153. St. Leo IX (1049-54)
    154. Victor II (1055-57)
    155. Stephen X (1057-58)
    156. Nicholas II (1058-61)
    157. Alexander II (1061-73)
    158. St. Gregory VII (1073-85)
    159. Blessed Victor III (1086-87)
    160. Blessed Urban II (1088-99)
    161. Paschal II (1099-1118)
    162. Gelasius II (1118-19)
    163. Callistus II (1119-24)
    164. Honorius II (1124-30)
    165. Innocent II (1130-43)
    166. Celestine II (1143-44)
    167. Lucius II (1144-45)
    168. Blessed Eugene III (1145-53)
    169. Anastasius IV (1153-54)
    170. Adrian IV (1154-59)
    171. Alexander III (1159-81)
    172. Lucius III (1181-85)
    173. Urban III (1185-87)
    174. Gregory VIII (1187)
    175. Clement III (1187-91)
    176. Celestine III (1191-98)
    177. Innocent III (1198-1216)
    178. Honorius III (1216-27)
    179. Gregory IX (1227-41)
    180. Celestine IV (1241)
    181. Innocent IV (1243-54)
    182. Alexander IV (1254-61)
    183. Urban IV (1261-64)
    184. Clement IV (1265-68)
    185. Blessed Gregory X (1271-76)
    186. Blessed Innocent V (1276)
    187. Adrian V (1276)
    188. John XXI (1276-77)
    189. Nicholas III (1277-80)
    190. Martin IV (1281-85)
    191. Honorius IV (1285-87)
    192. Nicholas IV (1288-92)
    193. St. Celestine V (1294)
    194. Boniface VIII (1294-1303)
    195. Blessed Benedict XI (1303-04)
    196. Clement V (1305-14)
    197. John XXII (1316-34)
    198. Benedict XII (1334-42)
    199. Clement VI (1342-52)
    200. Innocent VI (1352-62)
    201. Blessed Urban V (1362-70)
    202. Gregory XI (1370-78)
    203. Urban VI (1378-89)
    204. Boniface IX (1389-1404)
    205. Innocent VII (1404-06)
    206. Gregory XII (1406-15)
    207. Martin V (1417-31)
    208. Eugene IV (1431-47)
    209. Nicholas V (1447-55)
    210. Callistus III (1455-58)
    211. Pius II (1458-64)
    212. Paul II (1464-71)
    213. Sixtus IV (1471-84)
    214. Innocent VIII (1484-92)
    215. Alexander VI (1492-1503)
    216. Pius III (1503)
    217. Julius II (1503-13)
    218. Leo X (1513-21)
    219. Adrian VI (1522-23)
    220. Clement VII (1523-34)
    221. Paul III (1534-49)
    222. Julius III (1550-55)
    223. Marcellus II (1555)
    224. Paul IV (1555-59)
    225. Pius IV (1559-65)
    226. St. Pius V (1566-72)
    227. Gregory XIII (1572-85)
    228. Sixtus V (1585-90)
    229. Urban VII (1590)
    230. Gregory XIV (1590-91)
    231. Innocent IX (1591)
    232. Clement VIII (1592-1605)
    233. Leo XI (1605)
    234. Paul V (1605-21)
    235. Gregory XV (1621-23)
    236. Urban VIII (1623-44)
    237. Innocent X (1644-55)
    238. Alexander VII (1655-67)
    239. Clement IX (1667-69)
    240. Clement X (1670-76)
    241. Blessed Innocent XI (1676-89)
    242. Alexander VIII (1689-91)
    243. Innocent XII (1691-1700)
    244. Clement XI (1700-21)
    245. Innocent XIII (1721-24)
    246. Benedict XIII (1724-30)
    247. Clement XII (1730-40)
    248. Benedict XIV (1740-58)
    249. Clement XIII (1758-69)
    250. Clement XIV (1769-74)
    251. Pius VI (1775-99)
    252. Pius VII (1800-23)
    253. Leo XII (1823-29)
    254. Pius VIII (1829-30)
    255. Gregory XVI (1831-46)
    256. Blessed Pius IX (1846-78)
    257. Leo XIII (1878-1903)
    258. St. Pius X (1903-14)
    259. Benedict XV (1914-22)
    260. Pius XI (1922-39)
    261. Pius XII (1939-58)
    262. Blessed John XXIII (1958-63)
    263. Paul VI (1963-78)
    264. John Paul I (1978)
    265. John Paul II (1978-2005)
    266. Benedict XVI (2005—)
    
    
     
  10. athanasius

    athanasius Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2006
    Messages:
    1,573
    Ratings:
    +123
    Dear in Christ Mr Bearly;

    Oh One more thing I forgot, Pope Boniface III didn't come on the scene in 606 A.D. As the historical list of Popes shows. In 606 A.D. The Pope was Sabinian. In 607 Pope Boniface was the Pope. Enjoy the historical list.

    Athanasius
     
  11. writer

    writer Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2006
    Messages:
    514
    Ratings:
    +16
    50 Enjoy the historical list.
    Several of whom were murderers like 200. I don't think there's much to enjoy

    1 In my discussions with my girlfriend, I have discovered just how literally she takes the Bible. She takes it to be 100% fact, not metaphorical, not interpretable...but that it is God's infallable word. I on the other hand, believe most of it to be metaphorical
    God's word, unlike Popes' infallible words,'s in fact infallible. Since it's God's word. Since God's infallible. And 100% fact. God's a fact.
    It's also straightforward and simply written. Befitting God.
    In any case, the many metaphors within it are literally metaphors. And the many direct accounts also serve primarily as metaphors. Which doesn't mean they're not real. As befitting the God whose creation also pictures Him

    2 the problem i find when reading the bible literally is that you start with adam and eve, you then get cain and abel, and you then get .... .... .... well, a very short humanity
    Uhh, to the contrary: humanity exists

    i see jesus as a teacher and a friend - he talks and uses parables, which many people can relate to, and these are metaphores for reality - so if jesus talked in metaphores, why can't the bible be metaphorical in places? mike
    I think that's not the question. Rather, the question seems to me: why can't literal be simultaneously metaphor? (cf Gal 4:21-31).
    Thanks
     
  12. athanasius

    athanasius Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2006
    Messages:
    1,573
    Ratings:
    +123
    Wow. Apparently Mr Writer is trying to have a debate with me over the historical Popes. After having several debates with him on the authority of sola scriptura and the blessed Virgin I have decided not to debate him do to lack of charity in his responses to Christ's Catholic church and faith which he founded.

    I have told Mr Writer this several times but now once again he wants to start a dialogue with me obviously or he wouldn't have quoted and answered a comment of mine I posted Not intended towards him but towards Mr Baerly.

    Sorry Mr Writer, you are my brother in Christ and I have love and respect for you, but I cannot debate you anymore because of your attitude towards my faith and my Church.

    Anyone who would like to read the dialogue I had with Mr Writer on Authority and Sola Scriptura can go here and see the clear strong Catholic historical and biblical points which I and many other have felt just blows away the protestant understanding of sola scriptura.

    check out my final post # 246
    http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=16456&page=25

    I am NOT directing this response to Mr writer but a I am simply answering his charge to help other non-catholics understand the papacy and the church better.

    To the separated Brethren in Christ whom I am directing this to:

    It was charged that some Catholic Popes have committed murder. And I suppose that this inflammatory statement was supposed to discredit the papacy. However it simply does not. Consider this;

    Point A: Just because a Pope may commit a horrible action or be a scoundrel himself does not discredit his Authoritative office which was given to him by Christ. Judas is great example of this. Judas was a handpicked apostle(Bishop) who betrayed our Lord and ultimately helped in getting Jesus Killed.

    Can you imagine how scandalous this would be for early converts who wanted to come into christianity. They may use parallel argument that Writer uses saying something like “How can the apostles teach the word of God, when one of them was a murderous traitor to his own Lord.”

    Our First historical Pope St Peter actually denied Christ 3 times. Again someone could say “How could Peter be the leader of the apostles when he actually denied Christ 3 times”? You see Christ never promised the church would be impeccable, he promised the church would teach infallible truth.

    It could teach the infallible truth because it is not merely a sinful Pope in office teaching doctrine with his own power rather it is really Christ and the Holy Spirit who teaches through the church(Luke 10:16), it is really Christ who really binds and looses through his church(Matt, 18:18) and his Popes(Matt 16:18), and its really Christ and Holy Spirit who guide the church into all Truth(Jn 16:13-14) and speaks through the church, her Popes and her councils(Acts 15:28).

    Councils like Rome(382) and Hippo(393) and Carthage(397) who decided the Canon for us. So the office of Pope is not dependent upon his sinfulness or actions.

    Point B: Imagine applying the same principle to the president of the united states. Many presidents have done scandalous things but that does not take away the Power or authority of that office of Presidency. Nor does it disprove that the presidency itself is a false office. so this argument simply doesn't work.

    Mr Baerly I hope you have enjoyed the Historical list of Popes and have realized that if you were a early christian you would have been a Catholic. Amen.

    God bless all who read this especially Mr Baerly.

    Speaking the truth of Christ Catholic faith,
    Athanasius
     
  13. writer

    writer Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2006
    Messages:
    514
    Ratings:
    +16
    dear Mr A. For quoting u. I'll try to avoid it in the future. Actually no, concerning you, i wasn't seeking dialogue either with, or about, u. Not even in the third person. Concering your 50 above that was just meant to be "food for thought" (to quote u again). Even if it's the thought of others beside yourself.
    Thanks
     
  14. Baerly

    Baerly Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2006
    Messages:
    431
    Ratings:
    +13
    Sojourner wrote:-

    ) Again, the passage including Galatians 3:27 has nothing to do with the act of baptism itself. It's a statement about doing away with division. It says that all who have been baptized are one. I've been baptized. You've been baptized (I assume, by the way your posts read.) 1.Catholics have been baptized. Orthodox have been baptized. Baptists have been baptized. We are all one. 2,The divisions don't matter to Christ.

    Baerly wrote:- 1.Would you please show me in the bible where it says Baptist,Catholics,etc. are all one in Christ,because I have studied the bible quite awhile and I have never found one denomination in it ever. It actually teaches to teach no other doctrine (1Tim.1:3).

    2. You say divisions do not matter to Jesus,but in fact Paul writting by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit said Speak the same thing that there be no divisions among you (1Cor.1:10). Paul also said the things that I write are the commandments of the Lord (1Cor.14:37). Seems to me, according to these verses Jesus does mind division. This is totally opposite of what you are preaching. Who or what am I to believe in this situation? --you or the bible?

    Also if Gal.3:27 has nothing to do with water baptism, please tell me what it is that puts all these people (denominations) into Christ at one time?

    in love Baerly


     
  15. Baerly

    Baerly Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2006
    Messages:
    431
    Ratings:
    +13

    I guess when we are talking about 1400 years ago,a few months of isn't that bad.LOL

    Let me say that I do not agree with Peter being a pope. I would be glad to talk with you about this.

    I will say again,the church I belong to fulfilled all O.T. prophecies to to TEE. I would be glad to get you the scriptures if your interested. The correct place,time,manner it was established,etc.

    I belong to the church of CHrist which began on the day of Pentecost in (Acts 2). I know many claim Alexander Campbell started the church of Christ, but that is not true.He was just telling everyone let's get back to the bible alone. Others were doing the same thing in other places. I would even contend that the church of Christ has always been around since the day of Pentecost. Our way of worship is still consistent with the bible (New Testament) today.

    If you would like go to bible.ca ,or thepreachersfiles.com ,or thegospelpreceptor.com and look around abit.

    I want to thank you for your kind spirit. It seems to be a dying breed. Baerly
     
  16. Baerly

    Baerly Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2006
    Messages:
    431
    Ratings:
    +13
    Baerly wrote :-

    athanaius, please check this information out if you will. Especially the lesson about the church in PROPHECY. Let me know what you think.

    Tom Wacaster: What Is The Church Of Christ?
    What Is The Church Of Christ? Tom Wacaster Paul wrote these interesting words in Romans 16:16-17, "Salute one another with a holy kiss. All the...
    URL: http://www.gospelpreceptor.com/Wacastr8.htm - 9k - 01 Oct 2004


    15. Preston Silcox: The Church Promised And Prophesied The Church Promised And Prophesied Preston Silcox As one traces the scheme of redemption from eternity to Calvary and examines the tremendous...
    URL: http://www.gospelpreceptor.com/SilcoxP5.htm - 12k - 02 Feb 2003 Tom
     
  17. sojourner

    sojourner Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2006
    Messages:
    37,753
    Ratings:
    +5,898
    Religion:
    Christian/Shamanic
    Holy Tradition is not "an addition to" the Bible. Holy Tradition produced the Bible. Therefore, the Bible is part of Holy Tradition. The two cannot be so easily distinguished or separated.
     
  18. sojourner

    sojourner Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2006
    Messages:
    37,753
    Ratings:
    +5,898
    Religion:
    Christian/Shamanic
    I believe that Paul wrote those verses, and I believe that Paul sincerely believed he was writing the commandments of the Lord.

    John 14 never mentions Paul. In any case, this passage is not concerned with scriptural infallibility, but is an assurance of the continuation of the Tradition.

    Not in the way you do.

    I did not insinuate that Paul was not moved by the Holy Spirit. I said that Paul wrote through the lens of his understanding. These are two different things (unless you're hoping to say that "movement of the Spirit" and "understanding" are the same thing. If that's the case, we have here a clear example of the fundamental point upon which you and I differ. To you, inspiration of the H.S. means infallible thought, writing, memory, understanding. To me, inspiration of the H.S. means that we are moved to think and write about such things, but that we do them through the lens of our own understanding.) Where is your proof that Paul wrote infallibly?
     
  19. GloriaPatri

    GloriaPatri Active Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2006
    Messages:
    410
    Ratings:
    +44
    The office of Pope evolved over time, so there is a big difference between Pope Benedict and St. Peter.

    The Pope is the leader of the Church founded by Jesus (the Roman Catholic Church). Jesus appointed St. Peter chief pastor of His Church and told him that it would be built upon Peter.

    I don't see how you can disagree with the fact St. Peter was the first Pope.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  20. sojourner

    sojourner Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2006
    Messages:
    37,753
    Ratings:
    +5,898
    Religion:
    Christian/Shamanic
    Are you refuting that all who have been baptized are one? Do you not understand that "denominations" are but different facets of the one Body?

    We're arguing semantics. Where you see division, I see only differences. I think division does matter to Jesus -- so much so that he made us all one. But differences of identity, name, practice, proclamation, variances in understanding and voicing that understanding, do not intrinsically cause division. The differences we perceive do not matter to Jesus. But the division (such as you appear to be creating within the different denominations) does matter to Jesus.

    I didn't say that the passage had nothing to do with baptism. I said that the thrust of the message wasn't with regard to baptism, but with regard to the unity of the Church. Your question negates your premise that I attempted to answer in the green field, above. That is, that baptism -regardless of our perceived differences -- makes us all one -- whether we choose to call ourselves Catholic, Presbyterian, or Moravian.
     
Loading...