|
|
Post by Ramon on Aug 29, 2008 21:14:55 GMT -5
Cepha, excellent Job!
Apparently, Whathell does not have a dictionary. Its not that Scriptures does not teach Apostolic Succession, but it is that Whathell has a problem with the Scriptures that DOES teach it. He has problems with those Scriptures that states there other Apostles besides "The Twelve". He has problems with Acts 1:20, which quotes Psalm 69:25 and 109:8 which specifically states "his office" [in regard to Judas] !. He has problems with Acts 1:26 which states Saint Matthias was numbered with the "Eleven". After that, they were called "The Twelve" (Acts 2:14; 6:2; Rev 21:14). He has problems with the many Scriptures I and other have posted. He have yet to answer all my questions, and prove his points using Scriptures. I hear a all lot of "theories" coming from him, but no Scriptures.
This is what bugs me. I have dealt with many Protestants who have demanded me to use only Scriptures to back up my points. I have, But when I decided to play by there rules, they could not give Scriptures to back up there silly inventions. This is how Whathell works.
It is clear though that Whathell does not believe every Scripture is true. That is clear from his posts.
This is what Scriptures teaches, but Whathell "pick and choose" which parts of Scriptures he wants to believe. He thinks Scriptures is "all you Eat Buffet"!
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Aug 29, 2008 21:15:48 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Aug 29, 2008 21:21:18 GMT -5
Cepha, excellent Job! Apparently, Whathell does not have a dictionary. Its not that Scriptures does not teach Apostolic Succession, but it is that Whathell has a problem with the Scriptures that DOES teach it. He has problems with those Scriptures that states there other Apostles besides "The Twelve". He has problems with Acts 1:20, which quotes Psalm 69:25 and 109:8 which specifically states "his office" [in regard to Judas] !. He has problems with Acts 1:26 which states Saint Matthias was numbered with the "Eleven". After that, they were called "The Twelve" (Acts 2:14; 6:2; Rev 21:14). He has problems with the many Scriptures I and other have posted. He have yet to answer all my questions, and prove his points using Scriptures. I hear a all lot of "theories" coming from him, but no Scriptures. This is what bugs me. I have dealt with many Protestants who have demanded me to use only Scriptures to back up my points. I have, but when I decide to play by there rules, they could not give Scriptures to back up there silly inventions. This is what Scriptures teaches, but Whathell "pick and choose" which parts of Scriptures he wants to believe. Thank you Ramon. ;D They combine fragments of scriptures to create new beliefs. When you do that (which is what Satan tried on Jesus), you can create any new belief. But, if you use complete scriptures and clarify them "in context" as Jesus did, then you can't get played. The thing is that Anti-Catholics are more adept at their Anti-Catholicism than they are Christianity. They are more expert at why one shouldn't be a Catholic than they are at why one should be a Christian.  |
|
|
|
Post by Ramon on Aug 29, 2008 21:27:48 GMT -5
Thank you Ramon. ;D They combine fragments of scriptures to create new beliefs. When you do that (which is what Satan tried on Jesus), you can create any new belief. But, if you use complete scriptures and clarify them "in context" as Jesus did, then you can't get played. The thing is that Anti-Catholics are more adept at their Anti-Catholicism than they are Christianity. They are more expert at why one shouldn't be a Catholic than they are at why one should be a Christian. Yup! He thought he got us by saying "Well he replaced Judas, but he didn't succeed him!" ;D ;D ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Aug 29, 2008 21:28:04 GMT -5
Excellent question:
What is "apostleship"?
Acts 1:24-25
"And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, show of these two the one whom thou hast chosen,to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas fell away, that he might go to his own place."
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Aug 29, 2008 21:30:51 GMT -5
Yup! He thought he got us by saying "Well he replaced Judas, but he didn't succeed him!" ;D ;D ;D I get a kick out of that. It's like they are doing this on purpose. No reasonable person can really believe some of the stuff they say. It sometimes boggles me, but then I look at the characters on Tom Brown's website and then it all makes sense to me.  |
|
|
|
Post by yarddog on Aug 29, 2008 21:31:15 GMT -5
I stated this in my second post in this this thread, when Whathell used a Scripture to somehow prove the man-made invention of "Sola-Scriputura" ("Bible Alone"). This is a great question to start of with any discussion in this area. Hey Ramon, Does it seems to you that "Sola Scripura" is evolving with the newer churches. It wasn't meant to ignore Church history but that scripture was the final authority. Today many of the Churches use it differently and totally ignore all history not in the Bible. They lose out on so much. Yarddog |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Aug 29, 2008 21:38:29 GMT -5
YD, Many of them reject the inventor of SS, but hold on to the basis of SS (which is actually admirable to want to believe in The Word of God). The problem is that we are not to place our faith in material objects. SS is literally idolatry. Literally. The book doesn't talk. It doesn't heal. It doesn't move. It doesn't praise. It is just a book. Reminds me of an ancient story of Abraham... When he was younger, his father was an idol maker. He was left alone to watch the store while his father went out. He took a staff and smashed all of the idols except for a big one. When his father came back he asked him what did he do. Abraham pointed to the big idol and said "He did it!" His father said "That's ridiculous! Their clay and wood! They can't do anything!" Abraham said to him "Aha!" I love that story. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Aug 29, 2008 21:47:33 GMT -5
LOL, he is out with a force. Whathell remind of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. They both are out with a force [they sometimes knock on my door and I always see them roaming my block; sometimes lurking behind the trees] ;D I feel sad for these Anti-Catholics. Whathell can't convince us that Scriptures are false, so he ran to another site. Anti-Catholics [and Anti-Orthodox] are more concern in spreading there venom. By the way, I lovvvvve JW's! They have a picture of me in their bibles with the quotation "Avoid this man at all costs!" LOL They have seminars on me! They're too easy to drop. Who was it? Emily I think that's very JWish. She came at me with The Whore of Babylon and the scarlet robes being Roman blah, blah, blab being proof that The Catholic Church is The Whore, yada, yada, yada... Until I whipped out I think Leviticus where God told Abraham or Moses how he wanted his Priests to wear scarlet Priestly vestments. That's when she made a polite exit from this forum (to her great credit; while she didn't concede the obvious proof I gave her that she was wrong, she left with a great deal of dignity and with what I believed to have been a humble examination that she really needed to know "what" she was criticizing). I hope she's doing well. |
|
|
|
Post by Ramon on Aug 29, 2008 21:51:02 GMT -5
I stated this in my second post in this this thread, when Whathell used a Scripture to somehow prove the man-made invention of "Sola-Scriputura" ("Bible Alone"). This is a great question to start of with any discussion in this area. Hey Ramon, Does it seems to you that "Sola Scripura" is evolving with the newer churches. It wasn't meant to ignore Church history but that scripture was the final authority. Today many of the Churches use it differently and totally ignore all history not in the Bible. They lose out on so much. Yarddog In a sense, yes. For most Protestants today "looking outside the Bible" is a big no-no. I have meant many who have and will never read The Early Church Fathers simply because they "were not in the Bible". They will ignore Church History at all cost. Other churches will realize that reading History/Commentaries are useful, even though they are not part of the Holy Bible. The problem is that Protestants will always contend, one way or the another, that the Holy Bible its the final authority. Sacred Scriptures does not teach this doctrine. Christ set up a Church, to guide and teach people not a "book". The Church was the final authority in determining what should be included in the Holy Bible, not a book. For many, the Bible has become a worship tool, a sacred medal. Any form of SS is not in agreement with what the Holy Bible teaches [2 These 2:15; 1 Timothy 3:15] and what the Early Church [1st-8th Century] believed and proclaim. The Bible has its place in the Church, in fact it holds a very important part in the Orthodox Church, but it is not the final authority. Never claim so, and was never treated at such by the Early Christians. Blessings, Ramon |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Aug 29, 2008 22:00:16 GMT -5
Hey Ramon, Does it seems to you that "Sola Scripura" is evolving with the newer churches. It wasn't meant to ignore Church history but that scripture was the final authority. Today many of the Churches use it differently and totally ignore all history not in the Bible. They lose out on so much. Yarddog In a sense, yes. For most Protestants today "looking outside the Bible" is a big no-no. I have meant many who have and will never read The Early Church Fathers simply because they "were not in the Bible". Other churches will realize that reading History/Commentaries are useful, even though they are not part of the Holy Bible. The problem is that Protestants will always contend, one way or the another, that the Holy Bible its the final authority. Sacred Scriptures does not teach this doctrine. Christ set up a Church, to guide and teach people not a "book". The Church was the final authority in determining what should be included in the "Holy Bible. For many, the Bible has become a worship tool, a scared medal. Any form of SS is not in agreement with what the Holy Bible teaches and what the Early Church [1st-8th Century] believed and proclaim. The Bible has its place in the Church, in fact it holds a very important part in the Orthodox Church, but it is not the final authority. Never claim so, and was never treated at such by the Early Christians. SS isn't "in" The Bible, so it cannot be adhered to by them. It contradicts itself. Not only that, does that mean that no Christians existed before The Catholic Church canonized The Bible in the 4th Century?  This question really gets them heated: " How did we get The Bible; Did it just fall out of the sky as a completed book complimentary of God?" They say God used inspired men. I ask how they know this. BOOOOM! Trap! They can't answer it because they'd have to refer to a historical point "outside" of scripture to support this belief. They then begin the going in circles syndrome with everything from it was written throughout the ages to it always existed as separate works, etc...but refuse to answer when the first collection of books (bible) existed. They'd have to go back to The Catholic Church. Some have tried to go back to before The Church's canonization, but all those books contain The Deuterocanonical Books. It just gets worse and worse. By the time I'm done with them, their like this... |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Aug 29, 2008 22:11:55 GMT -5
One note, I think we have to learn how to say "Anti-Catholics" as opposed to just "Protestants". Most Protestants today are not Anti-Catholic. |
|
|
|
Post by Ramon on Aug 29, 2008 22:16:55 GMT -5
SS isn't "in" The Bible, so it cannot be adhered to by them. It contradicts itself. Not only that, does that mean that no Christians existed before The Catholic Church canonized The Bible in the 4th Century? This question really gets them heated: " How did we get The Bible; Did it just fall out of the sky as a completed book complimentary of God?" They say God used inspired men. I ask how they know this. BOOOOM! Trap! They can't answer it because they'd have to refer to a historical point "outside" of scripture to support this belief. They then begin the going in circles syndrome with everything from it was written throughout the ages to it always existed as separate works, etc...but refuse to answer when the first collection of books (bible) existed. They'd have to go back to The Catholic Church. Some have tried to go back to before The Church's canonization, but all those books contain The Deuterocanonical Books. It just gets worse and worse. By the time I'm done with them, their like this... I totally agree with you Cepha. I have meant a Protestant who actually told me "Well what make you so sure the Church did not use the OT [Scriptures] as verification to what should be included in the NT!". I told him: First prove to us the Church use the OT as verification. Second, do you know that verification to the Old Testament will prove other books, such as the Didache, as Scriptures? And then he went back to giving me the Silence Treatment! He couldn't answer. Blessings, Ramon |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Aug 29, 2008 22:29:55 GMT -5
SS isn't "in" The Bible, so it cannot be adhered to by them. It contradicts itself. Not only that, does that mean that no Christians existed before The Catholic Church canonized The Bible in the 4th Century? This question really gets them heated: " How did we get The Bible; Did it just fall out of the sky as a completed book complimentary of God?" They say God used inspired men. I ask how they know this. BOOOOM! Trap! They can't answer it because they'd have to refer to a historical point "outside" of scripture to support this belief. They then begin the going in circles syndrome with everything from it was written throughout the ages to it always existed as separate works, etc...but refuse to answer when the first collection of books (bible) existed. They'd have to go back to The Catholic Church. Some have tried to go back to before The Church's canonization, but all those books contain The Deuterocanonical Books. It just gets worse and worse. By the time I'm done with them, their like this... I totally agree with you Cepha. I have meant a Protestant who actually told me "Well what make you so sure the Church did not use the OT [Scriptures] as verification to what should be included in the NT!". I told him: First prove to us the Church use the OT as verification. Second, do you know that verification to the Old Testament will prove other books, such as the Didache, as Scriptures? And then he went back to giving me the Silence Treatment! He couldn't answer. Blessings, Ramon The simplest response to that one is that The Christian Old Testament didn't exist until The Catholic Church officially revealed it to the world in The 4th Century. Before that, the only OT Canon that existed was that of The Pharisees and how could we trust them with our faith? They were the ones who rejected Christ. |
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on Sept 15, 2008 11:46:21 GMT -5
"""""One note, I think we have to learn how to say "Anti-Catholics" as opposed to just "Protestants".
Most Protestants today are not Anti-Catholic. """""
Yes, but anyone who calls himself a protestant is anti-Catholic. The very word "Protestant" is anti-Catholic. But there are different degrees of being anti-Catholic.
teresa
|
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan on Sept 26, 2008 19:48:26 GMT -5
Then I believe the word you are looking for is biggoted. Biggots are much worse than anti-catholics. Unless you are dealing with anti-catholic biggots. Biggots are the biggest problem. Then anti-catholics because of error of thier position. Then us. Yep all one big happy family.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Sept 27, 2008 9:39:54 GMT -5
"""""One note, I think we have to learn how to say "Anti-Catholics" as opposed to just "Protestants". Most Protestants today are not Anti-Catholic. """"" Yes, but anyone who calls himself a protestant is anti-Catholic. The very word "Protestant" is anti-Catholic. But there are different degrees of being anti-Catholic. teresa Yes and no. Culpability has to be taken into consideration. A person who is born and indoctrinated into Protestantism and hasn't been taught the truth about Catholicism is "not" guilty of being anti-Catholic. |
|
|
|
Post by Ramon on Sept 30, 2008 18:26:38 GMT -5
"""""One note, I think we have to learn how to say "Anti-Catholics" as opposed to just "Protestants". Most Protestants today are not Anti-Catholic. """"" Yes, but anyone who calls himself a protestant is anti-Catholic. The very word "Protestant" is anti-Catholic. But there are different degrees of being anti-Catholic. teresa Yes and no. Culpability has to be taken into consideration. A person who is born and indoctrinated into Protestantism and hasn't been taught the truth about Catholicism is "not" guilty of being anti-Catholic. Personally, I don't blame some Anti-Catholics. Some were "brought" up thinking that Catholics are unsaved, Mary-Worshipers, ignorant of Scriptures, etc. They parents taught them this, which were passed on from generation. The many misconception of Catholicism and even Orthodoxy goes back from generation to generation from Anti-Catholic preachers, etc; nonsense that has been passed down from generation to generation that has been purposely distorted. In Orthodoxy, we do not have too many Anti-Orthodox because many don't even know we exist ;D "Orthodoxy is the best kept Secret"  Some of the remarks that non-Orthodox Christians make when first entering a Orthodox parish are: "Why do you worship icons? Why do you pray to Mary? Why do you do confessions in front of a priest?" Some even ask "Are you Catholics or Christians?" These people have "Rome-phobia". I heard a story about this from a man. When he told his wife, a Pentecostal, he was going to convert to Orthodoxy, she ask him these questions. He said "The best way to answer questions about Orthodoxy is just to come and see". Once she did, she found the ancient faith of the Apostles and Holy Fathers and she converted to Orthodoxy. Most Protestants are very open. They may have some preconceived ideas that are false, but once they go to the "source", they can't ignore the truth. I can't blame some Anti-Catholics because that was just the way they were brought up. Some are just bigots who choose to ignore the truth and pass falsehood agaisnt others. Not every Protestant is Anti-Catholic or even Anti-Orthodox. Look at Billy Graham. He studied the Catholic Church, went to their services and found friendships in Christ with Catholics. He never compromised his beliefs nor did he fully agree with some teachings of Catholicism, but he understood theirs and came to know them as brothers and sisters in Christ. Many Protestants are the same. In IC.XC, Ramon |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Oct 1, 2008 9:39:38 GMT -5
Yes and no. Culpability has to be taken into consideration. A person who is born and indoctrinated into Protestantism and hasn't been taught the truth about Catholicism is "not" guilty of being anti-Catholic. Personally, I don't blame some Anti-Catholics. Some were "brought" up thinking that Catholics are unsaved, Mary-Worshipers, ignorant of Scriptures, etc. They parents taught them this, which were passed on from generation. The many misconception of Catholicism and even Orthodoxy goes back from generation to generation from Anti-Catholic preachers, etc; nonsense that has been passed down from generation to generation that has been purposely distorted. In Orthodoxy, we do not have too many Anti-Orthodox because many don't even know we exist ;D "Orthodoxy is the best kept Secret" Some of the remarks that non-Orthodox Christians make when first entering a Orthodox parish are: "Why do you worship icons? Why do you pray to Mary? Why do you do confessions in front of a priest?" Some even ask "Are you Catholics or Christians?" These people have "Rome-phobia". I heard a story about this from a man. When he told his wife, a Pentecostal, he was going to convert to Orthodoxy, she ask him these questions. He said "The best way to answer questions about Orthodoxy is just to come and see". Once she did, she found the ancient faith of the Apostles and Holy Fathers and she converted to Orthodoxy. Most Protestants are very open. They may have some preconceived ideas that are false, but once they go to the "source", they can't ignore the truth. I can't blame some Anti-Catholics because that was just the way they were brought up. Some are just bigots who choose to ignore the truth and pass falsehood agaisnt others. Not every Protestant is Anti-Catholic or even Anti-Orthodox. Look at Billy Graham. He studied the Catholic Church, went to their services and found friendships in Christ with Catholics. He never compromised his beliefs nor did he fully agree with some teachings of Catholicism, but he understood theirs and came to know them as brothers and sisters in Christ. Many Protestants are the same. In IC.XC, Ramon Amen. |
|
|
|
Post by johnregnier on Aug 5, 2014 14:58:46 GMT -5
The Word of God has nothing to say about Apostoic Succession. Therefore, there is none.
May God bless, John
|
|
