|
|
Post by Cepha on Feb 18, 2009 21:00:15 GMT -5
Actually, we believe that too. But there can only be one Apostolic Succession, one Church that preserves the Faith from Heresy. Truth cannot contradict itself, and there was and still is an authoritative Church, VISIBLE (that is it has real people, real deacons, pastors, bishops etc. real sacraments, real baptisms.) If there was some "Great Apostasy" as you and the Mormons claim, then how on earth was this same Church able to Canonize the Bible? If the Bible is reliable, it has to be because the Church reliably brought it forth (by the Holy Spirit) A bad tree cannot produce good fruit watchman! peace teresa I always wondered how many Protestants there where at Nicea when The Bible was canonized. When I ask them, they say that it didn't matter...but I never exactly got a number. I have heard many of them say that they wished that they were around earlier so that they could've contributed to the defense of Christianity during the Crusades. None of them can claim that they contributed to protecting Christianity during these times...or to canonizing The Holy Bible...or to Evangelizing The World...or to producing the most beautiful devotions to God through the Arts...or to revealing The Doctrines of Salvation, The Holy Trinity, etc... So, what did they contribute besides division?  Oh, they have GREAT singers in their churches...that's for sure! Oh, and they have that Holy Land attraction in Orlando... ...but we have this:  |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Feb 18, 2009 21:06:51 GMT -5
You should look at the thread in traditional christianity, cepha has asked if there are any differences between what the Apostles taught and what the catholic church of today teaches. So far I have mentioned just one of the discrepancies between the two. The Amillinneal stand of the catholic church goes against the premillennial stand of the Apostles. If you have any thoughts about that I would like to hear it in that thread, and then I will move on to the next teaching that the catholics have corrupted. If the teaching was true, how could Catholics corrupt it? Doesn't God override any man? I don't understand, are you saying that The Catholic Church's "gates" prevailed of Jesus' Church? |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Feb 18, 2009 21:11:34 GMT -5
Yes, I have thoughts about that. I think that non-Catholics tend to be overly obsessed with the "end times" and I think it is ridiculous to be obsessed with something that no one really knows how it will happen, but we do know Jesus is coming back. I think the Church Fathers were to concerned about preaching the gospel and tending to their flock so as not to be making graphs and charts about their end times theories and making sure they all were in agreement. It's just not at the core of our faith. The core of Christianity is about loving a person(Jesus Christ) and serving His body, the Church and spreading the gospel. The "end-times" always have and always will(until the end times are over) be a debatable subject even among godly people because it is somewhat shrouded in mystery. Since the "Millennialism" debate ranks relatively low on the hierarchy of doctrinal importance, I'm not really worried about it. It is also known that even those Christians that were mentored by St. John (of Revelation) really didn't understand much of it. Again, how does it change how Christians are supposed to live their lives? Does it change who Jesus was and is? No. But we shall soon find out whose theory is correct. Maybe both are wrong. peace teresa Amen to that! Imagine if they put as much zeal into Jesus' teachings on The Eucharist as they do into Miller's teachings! Then, that teaching would not be 'hard" for them to listen too! But they can't focus on The Eucharist...that's a "Catholic" thing. We own The Body and Blood of Christ Belief. Just like we own the "love everybody that Jesus loved "as" He loved them" belief. There are so many of them that we own, that they only have The Rapture left. I gotta give it to them....they have it down. They can recite every word relating to that particular post 18th Century American Belief, but ask them about where in The Bible it calls Mary our mother? They get a blank look on their face (then out come the personal attacks an insults). |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Feb 18, 2009 21:15:17 GMT -5
Actually, we believe that too. But there can only be one Apostolic Succession, one Church that preserves the Faith from Heresy. Truth cannot contradict itself, and there was and still is an authoritative Church, VISIBLE (that is it has real people, real deacons, pastors, bishops etc. real sacraments, real baptisms.) If there was some "Great Apostasy" as you and the Mormons claim, then how on earth was this same Church able to Canonize the Bible? If the Bible is reliable, it has to be because the Church reliably brought it forth (by the Holy Spirit) A bad tree cannot produce good fruit watchman! peace teresa Yeah? Who would God choose to Canonize The Holy Bible? The only Christian Church that existed at the time? Or a Homosexual Pedophile Secular King named James? |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Feb 18, 2009 21:29:45 GMT -5
...but we have this: Wow...seeing that video clip really makes me reflect on just how lucky we are! I better check my behavior.  I need to start acting "right". |
|
|
|
Post by watchman on Feb 18, 2009 22:44:09 GMT -5
It is also known that even those Christians that were mentored by St. John (of Revelation) really didn't understand much of it. This is absolutely untrue Polycarp, as well as Irenius both knew exactly what would happen just before and after the return of Christ. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Feb 19, 2009 15:58:40 GMT -5
It is also known that even those Christians that were mentored by St. John (of Revelation) really didn't understand much of it. This is absolutely untrue Polycarp, as well as Irenius both knew exactly what would happen just before and after the return of Christ. Can you quote them to support this belief of yours? And don't forget, they were subject to The Church, so if The Church told them they were wrong, they had to accept it as good Catholics. |
|
|
|
Post by watchman on Feb 19, 2009 17:07:46 GMT -5
This is absolutely untrue Polycarp, as well as Irenius both knew exactly what would happen just before and after the return of Christ. Can you quote them to support this belief of yours? And don't forget, they were subject to The Church, so if The Church told them they were wrong, they had to accept it as good Catholics. Here is one of many quotes of Polycarp on the subject. “There will be a millennium after the resurrection of the dead, when the personal reign of Christ will be established on this earth.” Polycarp (A.D. 70-156) |
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on Feb 19, 2009 17:48:03 GMT -5
Watchman, I'm just curious why you are so adament that we take the "millenium" literally, but you don't take the Eucharist literally?
|
|
|
|
Post by watchman on Feb 19, 2009 17:50:13 GMT -5
Watchman, I'm just curious why you are so adament that we take the "millenium" literally, but you don't take the Eucharist literally? Kind of odd because I have never once said that the Eucharist is not literal. However I could ask you or any other amillennialist the same question in reverse. |
|
|
|
Post by robhom on Feb 19, 2009 21:15:35 GMT -5
I fear that watchman has not made a clear response to Cepha's challenge.
Watchman, while you tried, you never made clear the response. One can fathom out scripture quotations...in snippets hither, thither, and yon....but that is to little avail, as scriptures snippetized are little more than scriptures taken out of context.
Simply put.... you really can't meet the challenge in the way it needs to be met, because no where within the Bible is the Doctrine of Salvation "outlined" as a doctrine.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Feb 19, 2009 23:28:04 GMT -5
Watchman, I'm just curious why you are so adament that we take the "millenium" literally, but you don't take the Eucharist literally? Kind of odd because I have never once said that the Eucharist is not literal. However I could ask you or any other amillennialist the same question in reverse. No, you got around that one by saying that Jesus was being "literally symbolic".  LOL |
|
|
|
Post by watchman on Feb 19, 2009 23:45:44 GMT -5
Kind of odd because I have never once said that the Eucharist is not literal. However I could ask you or any other amillennialist the same question in reverse. No, you got around that one by saying that Jesus was being "literally symbolic". LOL Didn't say that, not even close. I never said anything about Jesus words in John 6 not being 100% literal. I did say the parables were symbols, but not John 6. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Feb 19, 2009 23:50:14 GMT -5
Can you quote them to support this belief of yours? And don't forget, they were subject to The Church, so if The Church told them they were wrong, they had to accept it as good Catholics. Here is one of many quotes of Polycarp on the subject. “There will be a millennium after the resurrection of the dead, when the personal reign of Christ will be established on this earth.” Polycarp (A.D. 70-156)And was that a thousand years man's time? Or a thousand years "God's" time (which would then, only be a day)? |
|
|
|
Post by watchman on Feb 19, 2009 23:55:01 GMT -5
Here is one of many quotes of Polycarp on the subject. “There will be a millennium after the resurrection of the dead, when the personal reign of Christ will be established on this earth.” Polycarp (A.D. 70-156)That quote seems to be "incorrectly" quoted...here's what I've found: And was that a thousand years man's time? Or a thousand years "God's" time (which would then, only be a day)? I don't know did Jesus rise after 3 days or 3,000 years? please no more infantile questions. We both know 1,000 years means 1,000 years or at least we should. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Feb 19, 2009 23:59:33 GMT -5
That quote seems to be "incorrectly" quoted...here's what I've found: And was that a thousand years man's time? Or a thousand years "God's" time (which would then, only be a day)? I don't know did Jesus rise after 3 days or 3,000 years? please no more infantile questions. We both know 1,000 years means 1,000 years or at least we should. Well, you don't have to become insulting. It's a legitimate question even if you can't answer it. Well, what about when in The Bible it says that to God 1,000 years is a day? When God gave this prophecy to John, did God mean 1,000 years (which would really mean a day)? Or was it John's version of a thousand years? Where do you go for guidance on this? The Holy Spirit? If so, and it doesn't lie, then why "don't" you know the answer? |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Feb 20, 2009 0:02:43 GMT -5
No, you got around that one by saying that Jesus was being "literally symbolic". LOL Didn't say that, not even close. I never said anything about Jesus words in John 6 not being 100% literal. I did say the parables were symbols, but not John 6. Well, you said that if we wanted to believe that we were eating Jesus' flesh, that was up to us as if to infer that it was our own personal interpretation. Right? Does that mean now that if you personally don't partake in The Eucharist in the manner that Jesus instituted The Sacrament by consecrating The Host as a Priest, that you will not go to Heaven? (that is "if" you take it literally?) |
|
|
|
Post by watchman on Feb 20, 2009 0:05:03 GMT -5
I don't know did Jesus rise after 3 days or 3,000 years? please no more infantile questions. We both know 1,000 years means 1,000 years or at least we should. Well, you don't have to become insulting. It's a legitimate question even if you can't answer it. Well, what about when in The Bible it says that to God 1,000 years is a day? When God gave this prophecy to John, did God mean 1,000 years (which would really mean a day)? Or was it John's version of a thousand years? Where do you go for guidance on this? The Holy Spirit? If so, and it doesn't lie, then why "don't" you know the answer? I know the answer and so do you. Peter meant God is not limited by what we know as time. you as an inteligent man should realize that. now answer my question and another. #1 How long was Jesus dead 3 days or 3,000 years? #2 When God created the earth did He do so in 6 days or 6,000 years? You answer those 2 questions and you will have answered you own. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Feb 20, 2009 0:09:09 GMT -5
“There will be a millennium after the resurrection of the dead, when the personal reign of Christ will be established on this earth.” Polycarp (A.D. 70-156) That quote seems to only appear on Millernarian sites... What I've found on other pro-millernarian sites is this quote: " There will be a millennium after the resurrection from the dead, when the personal reign of Christ will be established on this earth." See that? "From" the dead, not "of" the dead. Where'd you get your quote from? That quote seems to be attributed not to Papias, not to Polycarp. Here's where I got my quote from... 74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:i3SzijdOKY0J:ldolphin.org/premillhist.html+polycarp+There+will+be+a+millennium+after+the+resurrection+from+the+dead,+when+the+personal+reign+of+Christ+will+be+established+on+this+earth&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us |
|
|
|
Post by watchman on Feb 20, 2009 0:14:27 GMT -5
Here is one of many quotes of Polycarp on the subject. “There will be a millennium after the resurrection of the dead, when the personal reign of Christ will be established on this earth.” Polycarp (A.D. 70-156)That quote seems to only appear on Millernarian sites... What I've found on secular sites is this quote: "There will be a millennium after the resurrection from the dead, when the personal reign of Christ will be established on this earth." See that? "From" the dead, not "of" the dead. Where'd you get your quote from? Here's where I got mine from:  First of all who is to say your site is not the one that is wrong, and secondly it doesn't matter. Whether Polycarp said ''from the dead'' or ''of the dead''. I will gladly accept that your quote is correct. The quote still proves he believed in the millennial reign, and the premillennial return of Christ. Now answer my 2 question. #1 Did Jesus rise from the dead after 3 days or 3,000 years? #2 Did God create the earth in 6 days or 6,000 years? |
|
