|
|
Post by Cepha on Feb 20, 2009 0:18:11 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. Finally! Someone who read the thread! Thank you...that's all I asked for...the "Doctrine of Salvation", where is it if it's taught in The Bible (not the seperate parsed teachings that contribute to it, but the actual "doctrine", the organized collection and explaination of the collection of teachings). Thank you Rob!   |
|
|
|
Post by watchman on Feb 20, 2009 0:19:36 GMT -5
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?
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Feb 20, 2009 0:24:35 GMT -5
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? That's easy...3 human days (we know this because The Apostles were still alive and didn't die when He came back). #2? He created the earth in 6000 years. According to the bible, history is about 12,000 years old at the end of the OT...take the 5000 from Genesis to the last book of The OT, add the 6000 years of creation, + the 1000 years that God rested, Boom! You get your 12k years before the NT.  |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Feb 20, 2009 0:26:33 GMT -5
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?
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?
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 0:27:48 GMT -5
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? That's easy...3 human days (we know this because The Apostles were still alive and didn't die when He came back). #2? He created the earth in 6000 years. According to the bible, history is about 12,000 years old at the end of the OT...take the 5000 from Genesis to the last book of The OT, add the 6000 years of creation, + the 1000 years that God rested, Boom! You get your 12k years before the NT. You are joking right? Show me the Catholic teaching that says the 6 days of Genesis were not 6 24 hr days but 6,000 years instead. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Feb 20, 2009 0:29:40 GMT -5
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? But according to these Pro-Millernarian sites, it wasn't Polycarp who said this. That's why I'm asking you to cite your source so that we can test it's reliability. Where did you get that quote from? |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Feb 20, 2009 0:33:06 GMT -5
That's easy...3 human days (we know this because The Apostles were still alive and didn't die when He came back). #2? He created the earth in 6000 years. According to the bible, history is about 12,000 years old at the end of the OT...take the 5000 from Genesis to the last book of The OT, add the 6000 years of creation, + the 1000 years that God rested, Boom! You get your 12k years before the NT. You are joking right? Show me the Catholic teaching that says the 6 days of Genesis were not 6 24 hr days but 6,000 years instead. Dude, you asked me....you didn't ask me to tell you what The Church taught. I have no idea what The Church taught. If you wanted The Church's teaching on it, you should've been more specific. I answered your question as it was asked. Now, this is a "new" question (after I answered your first question)...and again, I have no idea what The Church teaches on this matter. I'm can only answer for my view on it. To God, a day is like a thousand years. Since no "man" existed before the final day, then those 6 years were God years. Not man years. +, His day of rest "before" He created man... 7000 years. |
|
|
|
Post by watchman on Feb 20, 2009 0:34:45 GMT -5
Not only did Polycarp teach the Millennium, but also did his student Irenaeus, there is no reason for you to deny this truth. It is one thing to say what they taught was wrong but to deny they taught it, that is crazy.
By the way we both no 3 days means 3 days, 6 days means 6 daysand 1,000 years means 1,000 years. playing stupid word games does not change the fact that the Apostle taught one thing and Catholicism teaches another.
|
|
|
|
Post by watchman on Feb 20, 2009 0:37:59 GMT -5
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IrenaeusMillennium See also: Millennialism Irenaeus declares that the Antichrist's future three-and-a-half-year reign, when he sits in the temple at Jerusalem, will be terminated by the second advent, with the resurrection of the just, the destruction for the wicked, and the millennial reign of the righteous. The general resurrection and the judgment follow the descent of the New Jerusalem at the end of the millennial kingdom.[42][45]Irenaeus calls those "heretics" who maintain that the saved are immediately glorified in the kingdom to come after death, before their resurrection. He avers that the millennial kingdom and the resurrection are actualities, not allegories, the first resurrection introducing this promised kingdom in which the risen saints are described as ruling over the renewed earth during the millennium, between the two resurrections.[46][47] Irenaeus held to the old Jewish tradition that the first six days of creation week were typical of the first six thousand years of human history, with Antichrist manifesting himself in the sixth period. And he expected the millennial kingdom to begin with the second coming of Christ to destroy the wicked and inaugurate, for the righteous, the reign of the kingdom of God during the seventh thousand years, the millennial Sabbath, as signified by the Sabbath of creation week.[48][42][49] In common with many of the fathers, Irenaeus did not distinguish between the new earth re-created in its eternal state--the thousand years of Revelation 20--when the saints are with Christ after His second advent, and the Jewish traditions of the Messianic kingdom. Hence, he applies Biblical and traditional ideas to his descriptions of this earth during the millennium, throughout the closing chapters of Book 5. This conception of the reign of resurrected and translated saints with Christ on this earth during the millennium-popularly known as chiliasm--was the increasingly prevailing belief of this time. Incipient distortions due to the admixture of current traditions, which figure in the extreme forms of chiliasm, caused a reaction against the earlier interpretations of Bible prophecies.[50] St. Irenaeus was not looking for a Jewish kingdom. He interpreted Israel as the Christian church, the spiritual seed of Abraham.[51] At times his expressions are highly fanciful. He tells, for instance, of a prodigious fertility of this earth during the millennium, after the resurrection of the righteous, "when also the creation, having been renovated and set free, shall fructify with an abundance of all kinds of food." In this connection, he attributes to Christ the saying about the vine with ten thousand branches, and the ear of wheat with ten thousand grains, and so forth, which he quotes from Papias.[52]
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Feb 20, 2009 0:42:04 GMT -5
Not only did Polycarp teach the Millennium, but also did his student Irenaeus, there is no reason for you to deny this truth. It is one thing to say what they taught was wrong but to deny they taught it, that is crazy. For the umpteenth time! Quotes! Name the works you got this information from instead of just saying "they taught it"...ok, show and prove! I'm not denying it...I'm just asking you to prove it. If they taught Millernarialism, then show me the works (the documents)? Then show were The Catholic Church (whom they were subject to) approved of these and made them canonical teachings? Again with the insults?  2 Peter 3:8But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. I guess that's not "literally" true then, huh? For all we know, that "millenia" John spoke of was when Jesus came back ressurected and Michael sent Satan to Hell in Revelations 12 (which came before Revelations 20 coincidentally). It could've have easily have been done in 1 day for Jesus because remember... ... "With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day." |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Feb 20, 2009 0:47:33 GMT -5
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IrenaeusMillennium See also: Millennialism Irenaeus declares that the Antichrist's future three-and-a-half-year reign, when he sits in the temple at Jerusalem, will be terminated by the second advent, with the resurrection of the just, the destruction for the wicked, and the millennial reign of the righteous. The general resurrection and the judgment follow the descent of the New Jerusalem at the end of the millennial kingdom.[42][45]Irenaeus calls those "heretics" who maintain that the saved are immediately glorified in the kingdom to come after death, before their resurrection. He avers that the millennial kingdom and the resurrection are actualities, not allegories, the first resurrection introducing this promised kingdom in which the risen saints are described as ruling over the renewed earth during the millennium, between the two resurrections.[46][47] Irenaeus held to the old Jewish tradition that the first six days of creation week were typical of the first six thousand years of human history, with Antichrist manifesting himself in the sixth period. And he expected the millennial kingdom to begin with the second coming of Christ to destroy the wicked and inaugurate, for the righteous, the reign of the kingdom of God during the seventh thousand years, the millennial Sabbath, as signified by the Sabbath of creation week.[48][42][49] In common with many of the fathers, Irenaeus did not distinguish between the new earth re-created in its eternal state--the thousand years of Revelation 20--when the saints are with Christ after His second advent, and the Jewish traditions of the Messianic kingdom. Hence, he applies Biblical and traditional ideas to his descriptions of this earth during the millennium, throughout the closing chapters of Book 5. This conception of the reign of resurrected and translated saints with Christ on this earth during the millennium-popularly known as chiliasm--was the increasingly prevailing belief of this time. Incipient distortions due to the admixture of current traditions, which figure in the extreme forms of chiliasm, caused a reaction against the earlier interpretations of Bible prophecies.[50] St. Irenaeus was not looking for a Jewish kingdom. He interpreted Israel as the Christian church, the spiritual seed of Abraham.[51] At times his expressions are highly fanciful. He tells, for instance, of a prodigious fertility of this earth during the millennium, after the resurrection of the righteous, "when also the creation, having been renovated and set free, shall fructify with an abundance of all kinds of food." In this connection, he attributes to Christ the saying about the vine with ten thousand branches, and the ear of wheat with ten thousand grains, and so forth, which he quotes from Papias.[52] Yeah, I was the first one to quote Wikipedia, remember? I saw this. Now, show me their actual words...their quotes. And, show me where The Church ratified their beliefs and made them canonical law. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Feb 20, 2009 0:53:36 GMT -5
You should "heed" Irenaeus...
"[N]or does it consist in this, that he should again falsely imagine, as being above this [fancied being], a Pleroma at one time supposed to contain thirty, and at another time an innumerable tribe of Aeons, as these teachers who are destitute of truly divine wisdom maintain; while the Catholic Church possesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world, as we have already said." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1:10,3 (A.D. 180).
Irenaeus
"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).
Irenaeus
"If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?" (Against Heresies 4:33–32 [A.D. 189]).
"He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?" (ibid., 5:2).
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Feb 20, 2009 0:55:26 GMT -5
By the way...still waiting on your "proofs" that the Apostles taught Millernarialism.
You know, scriptures, verses, etc...
|
|
|
|
Post by watchman on Feb 20, 2009 1:06:09 GMT -5
By the way...still waiting on your "proofs" that the Apostles taught Millernarialism. You know, scriptures, verses, etc... I have giving you quotes from Polycarp and Irenaeus as well as scripture you are purposely blind that is your problem not mine. |
|
|
|
Post by watchman on Feb 20, 2009 1:18:27 GMT -5
www.gospelpedlar.com/articles/last%20things/history_prophecy.htmlTertullian "But we do confess that a kingdom is promised to us upon the earth, although before heaven, only in another state of existence; inasmuch as it will be after the resurrection for a thousand years in the divinely built city of Jerusalem" (Adv. Marcion 3,25). Irenaeus The first of the church fathers who devotes an extensive discussion to the coming of Antichrist and the Great Tribulation is Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons in the late second.century A. D. Irenaeus was a thoroughgoing premillenarian, the first, in fact, to give us a premillennial system of interpretation; but he did not believe in an any-moment coming of Christ and a rapture of the Church before the Tribulation and coming of Antichrist. On the contrary, he looked forward to a series of significant historical events within the Roman empire before Antichrist could arise and Christ return. "In a still clearer light has John, in the Apocalypse, indicated to the Lord's disciples what shall happen in the last times, and concerning the ten kings who shall then arise, among whom the empire which now rules [the earth] shall be partitioned. He teaches us what the ten horns shall be which were seen by Daniel, telling us that thus it had been said to him [see Rev. 17:12]. It is manifest, therefore, that of these [potentates], he who is to come shall slay three, and subject the remainder to his power, and that he shall be himself the eighth among them. And they shall lay Babylon waste, and burn her with fire, and shall give their kingdom to the beast, and put the church to flight. After that they shall be destroyed by the coming of our Lord" (Against Heresies, 5,26,1). Three important points are to be noted in Irenaeus' expectation of the future. First, he does not believe that the end is immediately at hand. A little further on he warns the Church against teachers who are propagating false views about the identity of the Antichrist. Like Barnabas, he urges them rather to await the division of the kingdom into ten parts which must occur before Antichrist can arise. Rather than expecting an immediate end, men are to await the fulfillment of these prophesies Irenaeus For all those, and other words, were unquestionably spoken in reference to the resurrection of the just, which takes place after the coming of the Antichrist, and the destruction of all nations under his rule; in (the times of) which (resurrection) the righteous shall reign on the earth, waxing stronger by the sight of the Lord: and through Him they shall become accustomed to partake in the glory of God the Father, and shall enjoy in the kingdom intercourse and communion with the holy angels, and union with spiritual beings; and (with respect to) those whom the Lord shall find in the flesh, awaiting Him from heaven, and who have suffered tribulation, as well as escaped the hands of the Wicked one" (35,1).
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Feb 20, 2009 1:29:04 GMT -5
www.gospelpedlar.com/articles/last%20things/history_prophecy.htmlTertullian "But we do confess that a kingdom is promised to us upon the earth, although before heaven, only in another state of existence; inasmuch as it will be after the resurrection for a thousand years in the divinely built city of Jerusalem" (Adv. Marcion 3,25). Irenaeus The first of the church fathers who devotes an extensive discussion to the coming of Antichrist and the Great Tribulation is Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons in the late second.century A. D. Irenaeus was a thoroughgoing premillenarian, the first, in fact, to give us a premillennial system of interpretation; but he did not believe in an any-moment coming of Christ and a rapture of the Church before the Tribulation and coming of Antichrist. On the contrary, he looked forward to a series of significant historical events within the Roman empire before Antichrist could arise and Christ return. "In a still clearer light has John, in the Apocalypse, indicated to the Lord's disciples what shall happen in the last times, and concerning the ten kings who shall then arise, among whom the empire which now rules [the earth] shall be partitioned. He teaches us what the ten horns shall be which were seen by Daniel, telling us that thus it had been said to him [see Rev. 17:12]. It is manifest, therefore, that of these [potentates], he who is to come shall slay three, and subject the remainder to his power, and that he shall be himself the eighth among them. And they shall lay Babylon waste, and burn her with fire, and shall give their kingdom to the beast, and put the church to flight. After that they shall be destroyed by the coming of our Lord" (Against Heresies, 5,26,1). Three important points are to be noted in Irenaeus' expectation of the future. First, he does not believe that the end is immediately at hand. A little further on he warns the Church against teachers who are propagating false views about the identity of the Antichrist. Like Barnabas, he urges them rather to await the division of the kingdom into ten parts which must occur before Antichrist can arise. Rather than expecting an immediate end, men are to await the fulfillment of these prophesies Irenaeus For all those, and other words, were unquestionably spoken in reference to the resurrection of the just, which takes place after the coming of the Antichrist, and the destruction of all nations under his rule; in (the times of) which (resurrection) the righteous shall reign on the earth, waxing stronger by the sight of the Lord: and through Him they shall become accustomed to partake in the glory of God the Father, and shall enjoy in the kingdom intercourse and communion with the holy angels, and union with spiritual beings; and (with respect to) those whom the Lord shall find in the flesh, awaiting Him from heaven, and who have suffered tribulation, as well as escaped the hands of the Wicked one" (35,1). A lot of text there...but, no official canon of The Church that these Gentlmen belonged to, is there? Showing that their beliefs were never ratified. And...if you accept this as "worthy" of belief, then, do you accept all of their teachings? Like the ones where they defend The Catholic Church? Or are you "cafeteriaish" and selective? See? Me? I'm a Catholic...we don't place our faith in individual men, but in The Church (so we don't get caught in that trap of having to pick and choose what we want to believe, deciding what these men you quote can be trusted with). Watchman, you are the greatest argument for why Christians should be Catholics! |
|
|
|
Post by watchman on Feb 20, 2009 1:34:06 GMT -5
I do not care about the ratification of the Catholic church they perverted these beliefs. These people preceded the false catholic church they were teaching truth. There beliefs are back up with scripture namely Rev 20:4-6 the amillennial view of catholicism is false and anti biblical
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Feb 20, 2009 1:34:57 GMT -5
By the way...still waiting on your "proofs" that the Apostles taught Millernarialism. You know, scriptures, verses, etc... I have giving you quotes from Polycarp and Irenaeus as well as scripture you are purposely blind that is your problem not mine. No, you gave me a quote which you attributed to Polycarp, but that actually was said by Papias, remember? And as for Ireneaus, you gave one quote, but didnt list the document and you didn't show the canonization of that teaching by The Church (which is the only way any Christian can beleive in anything taught...it has to be authorized "by" The Church as The New Testament teaches us). Still waiting for the canonical teachings, not the personal beliefs of these men. See, I can quote them and have the say that The Catholic Church is The Church instituted by Christ and I can provide canonical evidence of that "by" the same Church they refer to. "That" can be believed by a Christian. But you, you take uncanonized writings and attempt to pass them off as worthy of belief (when these men themselves submitted themeselves to the same Church that didn't ratify their teachings). This isn't about what I personally believe, but about what you can "prove". You're saying a lot, but you're not showing me any canons. And in the world of religion, the only thing that matters is what The Church teaches, not what individuals believe. |
|
|
|
Post by watchman on Feb 20, 2009 1:38:42 GMT -5
I have giving you quotes from Polycarp and Irenaeus as well as scripture you are purposely blind that is your problem not mine. No, you gave me a quote which you attributed to Polycarp, but that actually was said by Papias, remember? You claim it was papias not me remember do you say papias or polycarp were heretics? |
|
|
|
Post by watchman on Feb 20, 2009 1:39:43 GMT -5
I have giving you quotes from Polycarp and Irenaeus as well as scripture you are purposely blind that is your problem not mine. No, you gave me a quote which you attributed to Polycarp, but that actually was said by Papias, remember? And as for Ireneaus, you gave one quote, but didnt list the document and you didn't show the canonization of that teaching by The Church (which is the only way any Christian can beleive in anything taught...it has to be authorized "by" The Church as The New Testament teaches us). I gave the link |
|
