|
|
Post by Cepha on Apr 11, 2008 16:14:50 GMT -5
Juan- It is still the Word of God... Only because The Church revealed it to the world as such. Without The Church that God chose to reveal it, no one would know it as The Word of God. Again, The Church decides the truth, not a book. A book is an inanimate object. It is a lifeless idol. It symbolized The Word of God. But it is nothing more than a book. Without God's Words in it, it could be a dictionary or a journal. The Word of God is not written down, but is in each person's heart. The written Word is recognized by those who have it in their heart, but the faith isn't to be placed in the book itself. Even the Bible teaches us that we are to not only adhere to the written teachings, but to the orally taught teachings as well (AKA traditions). If you go by Bible alone, then you have to accept everything thats in the Bible. Right? So if The Bible says that you have to accept teachings "not" in The Bible (like the doctrines of Salvation, Justification, The Holy Trinity, etc...), then you have to accept teachings outside of The Bible. |
|
|
|
Post by emily445455 on Apr 11, 2008 17:32:27 GMT -5
Right, the book part of the Bible isn't important...pages, binding, etc. But the Words written therein are sooo important, they are the Words of God and should be treasured as such. Again, not the physical book, but the Words themselves.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Apr 11, 2008 18:27:45 GMT -5
Right, the book part of the Bible isn't important...pages, binding, etc. But the Words written therein are sooo important, they are the Words of God and should be treasured as such. Again, not the physical book, but the Words themselves. So, how do you feel about the Protestant bible that had words added to it and had the text altered? |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Apr 11, 2008 18:30:44 GMT -5
Matter of fact, forget it...let's take that topic to the Holy Bible thread!
|
|
|
|
Post by emily445455 on Apr 11, 2008 19:15:14 GMT -5
Messing with the Bible is a great sin and those who do it will pay for their actions.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Apr 11, 2008 19:20:04 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by I.M.Apologetics on Apr 12, 2008 0:42:40 GMT -5
Juan- It is still the Word of God... amen! |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Apr 12, 2008 3:14:02 GMT -5
Cepha- not really...but I am allowed to study whatever I want, I just have to hold everything anyone says up to Scripture. I do that by choice too.... Considering that it was the CF's who gave you the scripture to hold things to, that should be easy. God wouldn't inspire them to decide what is to be considered scripture, then abandon them to teach wrong after that. |
|
|
|
Post by alfie on Apr 12, 2008 18:13:56 GMT -5
Yes, they should know what Martin Luther and Calvin believed! I agree! (I love dropping this on Protestants!) ______________________________________________________________ When Fundamentalists study the writings of the Reformers on Mary, the Mother of Jesus, they will find that the Reformers accepted almost every major Marian doctrine and considered these doctrines to be both scriptural and fundamental to the historic Christian Faith. Martin Luther:
Mary the Mother of GodThroughout his life Luther maintained without change the historic Christian affirmation that Mary was the Mother of God: "She is rightly called not only the mother of the man, but also the Mother of God ... It is certain that Mary is the Mother of the real and true God."1 Perpetual VirginityAgain throughout his life Luther held that Mary's perpetual virginity was an article of faith for all Christians - and interpreted Galatians 4:4 to mean that Christ was "born of a woman" alone. "It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a Virgin."2 The Immaculate ConceptionYet again the Immaculate Conception was a doctrine Luther defended to his death (as confirmed by Lutheran scholars like Arthur Piepkorn). Like Augustine, Luther saw an unbreakable link between Mary's divine maternity, perpetual virginity and Immaculate Conception. Although his formulation of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was not clear-cut, he held that her soul was devoid of sin from the beginning: "But the other conception, namely the infusion of the soul, it is piously and suitably believed, was without any sin, so that while the soul was being infused, she would at the same time be cleansed from original sin and adorned with the gifts of God to receive the holy soul thus infused. And thus, in the very moment in which she began to live, she was without all sin..."3 AssumptionAlthough he did not make it an article of faith, Luther said of the doctrine of the Assumption: "There can be no doubt that the Virgin Mary is in heaven. How it happened we do not know."4
Honor to MaryDespite his unremitting criticism of the traditional doctrines of Marian mediation and intercession, to the end Luther continued to proclaim that Mary should be honored. He made it a point to preach on her feast days. "The veneration of Mary is inscribed in the very depths of the human heart."5 "Is Christ only to be adored? Or is the holy Mother of God rather not to be honoured? This is the woman who crushed the Serpent's head. Hear us. For your Son denies you nothing."6 Luther made this statement in his last sermon at Wittenberg in January 1546. John Calvin: It has been said that John Calvin belonged to the second generation of the Reformers and certainly his theology of double predestination governed his views on Marian and all other Christian doctrine . Although Calvin was not as profuse in his praise of Mary as Martin Luther he did not deny her perpetual virginity. The term he used most commonly in referring to Mary was "Holy Virgin". "Elizabeth called Mary Mother of the Lord, because the unity of the person in the two natures of Christ was such that she could have said that the mortal man engendered in the womb of Mary was at the same time the eternal God."7 "Helvidius has shown himself too ignorant, in saying that Mary had several sons, because mention is made in some passages of the brothers of Christ."8 Calvin translated "brothers" in this context to mean cousins or relatives. "It cannot be denied that God in choosing and destining Mary to be the Mother of his Son, granted her the highest honor."9 "To this day we cannot enjoy the blessing brought to us in Christ without thinking at the same time of that which God gave as adornment and honour to Mary, in willing her to be the mother of his only-begotten Son."10 Ulrich Zwingli:"It was given to her what belongs to no creature, that in the flesh she should bring forth the Son of God."11 "I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin."12 Zwingli used Exodus 4:22 to defend the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity. "I esteem immensely the Mother of God, the ever chaste, immaculate Virgin Mary."13 "Christ ... was born of a most undefiled Virgin."14 "It was fitting that such a holy Son should have a holy Mother."15 "The more the honor and love of Christ increases among men, so much the esteem and honor given to Mary should grow."16 We might wonder why the Marian affirmations of the Reformers did not survive in the teaching of their heirs - particularly the Fundamentalists. This break with the past did not come through any new discovery or revelation. The Reformers themselves (see above) took a benign even positive view of Marian doctrine - although they did reject Marian mediation because of their rejection of all human mediation. Moreover, while there were some excesses in popular Marian piety, Marian doctrine as taught in the pre-Reformation era drew its inspiration from the witness of Scripture and was rooted in Christology. The real reason for the break with the past must be attributed to the iconoclastic passion of the followers of the Reformation and the consequences of some Reformation principles. Even more influential in the break with Mary was the influence of the Enlightenment Era which essentially questioned or denied the mysteries of faith. Unfortunately the Marian teachings and preachings of the Reformers have been "covered up" by their most zealous followers - with damaging theological and practical consequences. This "cover-up" can be detected even in Chosen by God: Mary in Evangelical Perspective, an Evangelical critique of Mariology. One of the contributors admits that "Most remarkable to modern Protestants is the Reformers' almost universal acceptance of Mary's continuing virginity, and their widespread reluctance to declare Mary a sinner". He then asks if it is "a favourable providence" that kept these Marian teachings of the Reformers from being "transmitted to the Protestant churches"!17 www.mariology.com/sections/reformers.htmlThis is kinda funny you guys using Protestants to support Catholicism. So why don't you also believe Luthers teaching on Justification by faith? Technically when the reformers wrote this stuff they were still Catholics and trying to reform the corruption in the Catholic Church. |
|
|
|
Post by alfie on Apr 12, 2008 18:21:47 GMT -5
Great point IMA...it is The Church that is that which upholds The Truth...not The Bible. The Bible is just a book that can be tampered with by men because it is mere printing on paper. But traditions are living. And we are to hold fast to the traditions of The Church (as The Bible teaches us). Considering there have been billions of Bibles printed it has done quite well from being tampered with. Thanks to Protestantism and the help of God. Primarily the Bible was tampered with when the Latin Vulgate was written and the Apocrypha added to it. The Aprocrypha was added to it to support Catholic doctrines like purgatory. Jerome opposed adding the Apocrypha. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Apr 12, 2008 19:27:28 GMT -5
Great point IMA...it is The Church that is that which upholds The Truth...not The Bible. The Bible is just a book that can be tampered with by men because it is mere printing on paper. But traditions are living. And we are to hold fast to the traditions of The Church (as The Bible teaches us). Thanks to it's preservation by The Church for over a thousand years. It was after that that it was tampered with (as our Protestant brethren with Doctorates in Theology have attested to). Well that's odd...especially since Protestantism wasn't an error in Luther's mind until 1,600+ years "after" Jesus died and "after" The Holy Bible was written. How is it that a religious sect in Europe could produce The Holy Bible when it didn't even have the original Bible to begin with?  And how could the books be added to The Bible "before" The Bible existed it only The Protestants created the Bible? Can you prove that those books were added to The Bible? Also, can you produce one Bible that existed "before" the protestant bible that "didn't" have a 73 book canon? Ok, let me make this simple: When did the first 66(6) book canon exist? Who published it? And, but who's authority? |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Apr 12, 2008 19:52:18 GMT -5
Oh, I see, so when you disagree with Luther, he's a Catholic.
Well, as a Denominationalist, at least I can say you're consistant with labeling things you disagree with as universal Christianity.
But hey, what else can one expect out of a Protestant?
They don't even agree with themselves, much less with universal Christianity.
Then they went on to form their own corrupt churches, their own inquisitions, the witch hunts, slavery, etc...
As Martin Luther said (rough quote):
"In trying to rid myself of one Pope, I now have to contend with a hundred popes."
How many Protestant Denominations agree 100% on everything religiously?
That's a really stupid question isn't it?
But the question answers itself and leads to other questions.
;D
|
|
|
|
Post by cradlecathlic27 on Apr 12, 2008 19:57:06 GMT -5
Hello? The septugiant had all the books correct?
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Apr 13, 2008 10:32:11 GMT -5
Hello? The septugiant had all the books correct? Some people believe that Jesus was wrong to use that book. Also, they choose to accept the canon of the killers of Christ, The Pharisees. Jesus and The Apostles didn't use the Pharisees Canon because it simply did'nt exist at the time of Christ. How can they use a canon that Jesus didn't even use? Jesus used The Septugaint. So, Christians have always used The Septugaint. But hey, if they want to follow the unrepentant Pharisees and get their canon from those who rejected Christ, so be it...they'll have to answer to Jesus one day. |
|
|
|
Post by cradlecathlic27 on Apr 13, 2008 12:23:04 GMT -5
thats wierd...you would think they would use the bible that Jesus used....
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Apr 13, 2008 19:26:24 GMT -5
thats wierd...you would think they would use the bible that Jesus used.... Nope. They reject The OT that Jesus used. They only recognize the OT that The Pharisees use. (which by the way didn't exist in Jesus time) |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Jun 11, 2008 21:49:25 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Ramon on Jul 3, 2008 0:16:29 GMT -5
As a Orthodox Christian, I do not see any support for your claims. First, while it is true the Early Church call herself "The Catholic Church", this noway implies that there were under the Bishop of Rome as there Church Leader and Pope . The word "catholic" simply means "universal" with no connection to the Church of Rome. And many Fathers, did use the word "Orthodox" to describe the True Faith. Even Saint John of Damascus wrote a book entitled "Concerning the Orthodox Faith" in the 8th Century. The West [Rome] broke away from us [East]. The Church of Rome corrupted the Faith by adding the Filioque [to the Original Creed of the Ecumenical Council] , the Pope's claim of infallibility and being the Church leader, etc. I respect the Roman Catholic Church and I hope in the near future we will be reunited. We may disagree with some things, but I believe is the Protestants who stray to much from the Faith of the Early Church. After studying the Church Fathers, it is clear that is Protestantism is not the "Early Church". There faith is only 500 years old. How sad......
Second, I do not understand your assertion that we have "9 Popes". We do not have anything close to Roman Papacy. I will like you know your theory that these "sub groups" are still fighting agaisnt themselves. Each Patriarchs and Bishops [and Churches] of the Eastern Orthodox Church are united under one faith and worship. We are not fighting agaisnt each other on what is the true faith or not. We do not follow the Bishop of Rome as Church Leader and subscribe him the power of infallible because that was not practice of the Early Church. We acknowledged however, that the Bishop of Rome [Church of Rome] did had a primacy of honor and power in the Early Church, but he was never seen the same way as Roman Catholics do today. But I will not discuss this now. I am probably the only Orthodox here, so I know I will be attack by you Catholics, with no Orthodox to defend me ;D
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.
I.C.X.C,
Ramon
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Jul 3, 2008 1:22:01 GMT -5
And that's why I invited you here. To clear the air up! I was just going by what I was told by two extremely anti-Catholic Orthodox Christians I met on another site. Universal, all, total. These are the words attributed to catholic as I understand it. Right, but he was referring to the orthodoxy of The Catholic Church. He wasn't using the word as a title, but as a description. Right? This confuses me because other Orthodox have told me that we excommunicated your pope(s). But I will consider your understanding of it for now without a doubt until we can go over some historical references.  Yeah, that was part of the argument I had with the other Orthodox Christians. They claim that The Church never changed, but when I scratched the surface of their beliefs, I found many changes. Then they reverted to that The Church "stopped" changing in the 4th Century. Which to me is acceptable if a person wants to believe that in their respective religion. Amen to that. I love The Orthodox Church. We're like two brothers who had a fight over a bike at Christmas that haven't spoken since we turned 18 and left home! The Friars genuflect when they pass The Orthodox Church at the corner of their Friary because they believe that you have The Real Presence and valid Sacraments with your being an Apostolic Church. Again, I'm just going by what I read. I discussed this with my Greek Orthodox Girlfriend and she didn't think she had popes either until she called a friend of hers who told her that there were approximately 9 popes in the Orthodox Churches. But we can clear this up together here. From what I understand, you are not united under one leader, you each have individual leaders and there are conflicts (even physical conflicts especially in The Holy Land Churches). Again, we can grow in our knowledge on this together here. I expect you'll be able to teach me. Never. You must have us confused with Anti-Catholics. That's their M.O.. Any Catholic that would attack you is not a Catholic. LOL! We're the only ones who get attacked here! ;D Amen "Indeed, our work toward unity is according to the will of Christ our Lord. In these early years of the third millennium, our efforts are all the more urgent because of the many challenges facing all Christians, to which we need to respond with a united voice and with conviction." Pope Benedict XVI |
|
|
|
Post by Ramon on Jul 5, 2008 22:42:06 GMT -5
And that's why I invited you here. To clear the air up! I was just going by what I was told by two extremely anti-Catholic Orthodox Christians I met on another site. There are Anti-Catholic Orthodox Christians I guess some are really negative towards other Faiths. Right, but he was referring to the orthodoxy of The Catholic Church. He wasn't using the word as a title, but as a description. Right? Agree, although I will also argue that the phrase "The Catholic Church" as used by the Church Fathers and the Seven Ecumenical Councils is a description of the Christ' Holy Church and not a reference to the Church of Rome alone [now refer as The Roman Catholic Church]. It was about the Whole Church [West and East]. The word "Catholic" simply means "universal". Only after 1054AD was this phrase change its meaning [to refer to the Church of Rome]. We Eastern Orthodox Christians use the word as well, but we simply mean that the Church is "universal" in its fullest sense.. On the same token, the Early Church never calls herself the "Roman Catholic Church" or the "Eastern Orthodox Church". These names was given to both Churches [West and East] after The Great Schism. This confuses me because other Orthodox have told me that we excommunicated your pope(s). But I will consider your understanding of it for now without a doubt until we can go over some historical references. From what I have study it seems both sides excommunicated and past Anathemas agaisnt each other. Pope Leo IX excommunicated the Patriarch of Constantinople, and a council of the Patriarch excommunicated the Papal delegates. At least this is my understanding of the situation. Amen to that. I love The Orthodox Church. We're like two brothers who had a fight over a bike at Christmas that haven't spoken since we turned 18 and left home! The Friars genuflect when they pass The Orthodox Church at the corner of their Friary because they believe that you have The Real Presence and valid Sacraments with your being an Apostolic Church. Yes, I am truly sadden about The Great Schism, but what is done is done. We can only change the future, and I just hope there will be more dialogue between Orthodox and Catholics. That is interesting about the Friars. Again, I'm just going by what I read. I discussed this with my Greek Orthodox Girlfriend and she didn't think she had popes either until she called a friend of hers who told her that there were approximately 9 popes in the Orthodox Churches. But we can clear this up together here. O.k. As I understand it a Patriarch calls himself "Pope" but this word simply means "Papa" or "Father". As I said before, we do not have anything close to the Roman Papacy. We believe each Bishop, even the Patriarchs, are equal. The Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople is the senior Bishop, and while he does have some rights, he cannot interfere with other "autocephalous", meaning "self-governing", Churches. We do, however, all share the same Faith. I am sure your girlfriend's friend didn't mean that we have "9 Popes" in the same way Catholics understand what a "Pope" is.
From what I understand, you are not united under one leader, you each have individual leaders and there are conflicts (even physical conflicts especially in The Holy Land Churches). Again, we can grow in our knowledge on this together here. I expect you'll be able to teach me.
Yes, we not united under one supreme leader, save Christ our Lord
The individual Patriarchs and major Bishops of "autocephalous" Churches [Archbishops and so on] are united under one Faith. However, there are many debates and conflict over territory lands [and authority]. But what we do not fight over is the Orthodox Faith. You are right, "physical" conflicts, but not conflicts over the faith. Obviously, if a Bishop, Priest, or anybody start teaching a doctrine contrary to the Orthodox Faith, he may be excommunicated.
Never. You must have us confused with Anti-Catholics. That's their M.O.. Any Catholic that would attack you is not a Catholic. LOL! We're the only ones who get attacked here! ;D
Thank-you. I have my share of attacks from Protestants. I agree with you, Roman Catholics are the only one who gets attacked the worst! I have see this! LOL.
Amen "Indeed, our work toward unity is according to the will of Christ our Lord. In these early years of the third millennium, our efforts are all the more urgent because of the many challenges facing all Christians, to which we need to respond with a united voice and with conviction." Pope Benedict XVI
Amen. Sorry for the long wait!
Blessings,
Ramon
|
|
