The unwritten mysteries of the church.

[popsthebuilder]

It may be a mistake to reply to the claims implied in your post but they are so profoundly unchristian and inaccurate as to make a reply useful for the edification of the faithful who read this thread.

• Firstly your words imply that Emperor Constantine founded the Catholic Church. This is patently absurd for these reasons:
  1. Ignatius of Antioch speaks of the Catholic Church in his letters dated before 110 AD and this is 200 years before there was any emperor Constantine this is sound historical evidence for the existence of the Catholic Church at least two centuries before Constantine became emperor thus showing that any claim that Constantine founded the Catholic Church is patently absurd and false.
  2. By RCC you appear to be claiming that the Roman Church was founded by emperor Constantine yet Paul in the 50s AD wrote a letter to the Church in Rome he wrote it 300 years before there was any emperor Constantine so any claim that Constantine founded the Roman Church is patently false and absurd.
• Secondly Emperor Constantine is said to have converted to Christ some time around 312 AD if he did convert to Christ then he was not a pagan sun worshipper as you claim.
• Thirdly Constantine's mother was not "the moon". Constantine's parents were Flavius Valerius Constantius (Constantine's father)and his wife Flavia Iulia Helena Augusta (Constantine's mother). His mother's name was Helena and never changed to "Mary" contrary to the spurious claim you make.
• Lastly your words imply that the Catholic Church is not a Christian Church. The very definition of orthodox Christian doctrine in this forum is the Nicene Creed written by the bishops of the Catholic Church. Catholic Christians today and throughout the ages since the Creed was written both approve and teach the Nicene Creed as the core profession of Christian faith. Thus by the forum's definition of Christian Catholics are Christians.

Any man who seeks to teach Christian truth by spreading inaccuracies, lies, and calumnies against Christians ought to feel deep shame for having done so and your post does exactly those things by

(1) making claims about the founder of the Catholic Church and the Roman Church which history shows to be false claims,
(2) lying about Constantine's mother being called Mary,
(3) and accusing Constantine of being a pagan after 312 AD - the date of his apparent conversion.​

You ought to retract your post's scurrilous claims.

Would the word catholic have referred to the universally faithful to God prior to being a name of a particular sect that was observably not universal?

This is a real question friend and not meant to be an attack, or of any malice or ill intent.

Peace


Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

 

[popsthebuilder]

OTHER WRITINGS BESIDES THE BIBLE.

I shouldn't say BESIDES, but underneath.

The jews have other writings underneath the Bible to explain the oral law. When they were captured and sent to Babylon, the rabies wrote a number of instructions on what the words of the Bible meant.

The RCC has done the same thing. Catechism to explain us what the word of God meant.

Islam picked up things from the Christians and jews and their own rules.

Other religions have their own gods and nothing to do with Jesus.

EVERYBODY is doing their OWN THING. Created their own religions to control power over their congregations.

Were those writings inspired by God? What do you think?

We have one book, why have other writings explain THE BOOK?

God gave us an inteligent brain that if properly used can go a long way. Are we that stupid that we need some people explain us what it means?

When other people write additional things is because they are going to explain things their way to obtain a SELFISH BENEFIT.

Who has inspired those writings?
The enemy of God because that is his business, the King Liar. His job is to deceive you so you can die spiritually and not to have a life for ever.

If you do not follow the TRUTH, Jesus, you are following something else, a lie, the Devil.

So my long comment here us that the Jewish nation changed their way after being kidnapped by the Babylon Ian and we're brainwashed with Satan's ideas.

Christianity, including the RCC, also were kidnapped by the Image of the Beast, the false prophet, and the Beast. And God's commandments were changed.

SUMMARIZING:

The BIBLE should be the only book.

Where is this mentioned above?

Revelation 22:19

"And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book oMIf life, and out of the Holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Amen.

Sent from my SM-N900T using Tapatalk

I agree with a good bit of what you said here but must disagree in a sense about the bible being the only book we are to read, or that your quote verifies that stance at all. That verse says not to take from that prophecy or add too it. I don't think books derived from, or attempting to explain core texts of the faithful to GOD are needed, but do think there is more than one book that is profitable for the inspired word of GOD.

Obviously, any of said core writings that do not reflect the teachings of the Christ are indeed not inspired by GOD.

Opinion technically, I suppose, but can you produce any verses that exclaim that we as Christians are to read only the Bible? Pretty sure that's impossible seeing as how there was no bible at the time of the writing of the individual parts.

With humility and sincerity,

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

 

[popsthebuilder]

[MENTION=13]Josiah[/MENTION]

Christians still have a lot of things wrong about what God said on the Bible.

Christians say that "The Lord's Day" is Sunday because He was resurrected on that day.

Jesus was resurrected on His day, not Saturday, but the Sabbath= Shabatt=the day of rest, like His father rested on the last day if the week.

To call it Saturday is PAGAN because you are using a name to pay respect to Saturn, part of the creation. We should pay respect to the Creator=God.

Also calling Sunday=day of the sun is pagan and worshipping to God on that day is wrong. God is going to do a repeat of what happened in the OT. Remember? He asked the jews about what happened with His sabbath when they were captured and taken to Babylon.

He is going to ask the christians, what happened to my sabbaths, you have forgotten my 4th commandment. I hate to see the results of this. Being desobediente to God brings serious consequences.

There are so many other things that have been CHANGED and inspired by none other than Satan.

SO BE SMART AND FOLLOW JESUS AND NOT THE DECEPTIONS OF THE ENEMY.

YOU HAVE TO BE A FRIEND OF JESUS.

Sent from my SM-N900T using Tapatalk

What is wrong with being appreciative or thankful towards or for the creation as long as you understand it's subsidiary nature and it's origin, which in itself turns such praise toward the creator of said creation?

Genuinely curious.

Thanks,
Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

 

[popsthebuilder]

[MENTION=13]Josiah[/MENTION]

There are scriptures that are not the Bible.

How about the sacred scriptures of Islam?
They are sacred to them and are also called their sacred scriptures.

How about the Hindies?
They also have their own sacred scriptures with several gods and is not the Bible?

How about the sacred scriptures of the country of Japan?
Also sacred scriptures to them.

And I can go on and on regarding other sacred scriptures that have beliefs very different from what believe are the only sacred scriptures.

So what I was referring was that they other sacred scriptures to those other people that have different ideas from what we believe. So you are kind of insulting these other believers that they don't have any scriptures. They have scriptures and they believe that they are sacred to them.

Instead of using a word that could be vague regarding "scriptures" you should be more specific if you are referring to the Bible. Call things by what they are, vagueness causes problems with communications and specially the Devi has used this technique to cause CHAOS whenever we discuss the word of his enemy.

I hope you understand what I meant.

People through out words that they fully don't really know what they mean, and that is why we have these discussions to come to an agreement, but it does not happen.

HOW SAD.

Sent from my SM-N900T using Tapatalk

I couldn't help but notice that you mentioned quite a few ancient texts referring to them as sacred scriptures.

You went further in saying that they teach a wholly different thing from the bible.

I humbly ask you to verify this claim with examples, please.

Thank you

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

 

[amadeois]

Did you read what I said?

By your answer and question it seems you did not understand what I said.

Msy God Bless Us All.

Sent from my SM-N900T using Tapatalk

 

[MoreCoffee]

Would the word catholic have referred to the universally faithful to God prior to being a name of a particular sect that was observably not universal?

This is a real question friend and not meant to be an attack, or of any malice or ill intent.

Peace


Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

The meaning of the word "catholic" has not changed but those wanting to claim it as a label for their religious group may have changed. In ancient times Donatists wanted the name "church" but were not successful in claiming it. In the earliest part of Christian history there were many sects and many heresies but the Church used the word "catholic" to distinguish themselves from all those sects. In the centuries since The Catholic Church has retained the word "catholic" in its name without reference to others who have claimed one or more of "catholic", "orthodox", "christian", "Church of God", "Church of Christ", "apostolic", and so forth. Many whose religious loyalty resides with some group other than the Catholic Church complain that "catholic" belongs to them (or at least that it does not belong exclusively to the Catholic Church) and that the Catholic Church has in some way usurped the word or stolen it from some imagined ancient (and now extinct) church. This is contrary to history and regardless of how deeply felt such denials and claims may be the facts of history point to the use of Catholic in the name of the Catholic Church from as far back as can be traced (back to Ignatius of Antioch in the first century AD and the early second century AD). I invite you to check the accuracy of what I have written above. It is no small task to perform that check. Start with Ignatius of Antioch, read his letters, they can be found online.

For those who claim that the word "catholic" belonged to an ancient (and now extinct) church, let them show from history when and where this church became extinct. If they cannot then let them explain exactly when and where (or over what stretch of time) the ancient church transformed into their own denomination or group or independent meeting. If some point to the Orthodox churches let those making the claim explain why they do not follow Orthodox teaching themselves (unless, of course they do in fact follow Orthodox church teaching).

 

[popsthebuilder]

The meaning of the word "catholic" has not changed but those wanting to claim it as a label for their religious group may have changed. In ancient times Donatists wanted the name "church" but were not successful in claiming it. In the earliest part of Christian history there were many sects and many heresies but the Church used the word "catholic" to distinguish themselves from all those sects. In the centuries since The Catholic Church has retained the word "catholic" in its name without reference to others who have claimed one or more of "catholic", "orthodox", "christian", "Church of God", "Church of Christ", "apostolic", and so forth. Many whose religious loyalty resides with some group other than the Catholic Church complain that "catholic" belongs to them (or at least that it does not belong exclusively to the Catholic Church) and that the Catholic Church has in some way usurped the word or stolen it from some imagined ancient (and now extinct) church. This is contrary to history and regardless of how deeply felt such denials and claims may be the facts of history point to the use of Catholic in the name of the Catholic Church from as far back as can be traced (back to Ignatius of Antioch in the first century AD and the early second century AD). I invite you to check the accuracy of what I have written above. It is no small task to perform that check. Start with Ignatius of Antioch, read his letters, they can be found online.

For those who claim that the word "catholic" belonged to an ancient (and now extinct) church, let them show from history when and where this church became extinct. If they cannot then let them explain exactly when and where (or over what stretch of time) the ancient church transformed into their own denomination or group or independent meeting. If some point to the Orthodox churches let those making the claim explain why they do not follow Orthodox teaching themselves (unless, of course they do in fact follow Orthodox church teaching).

I don't disagree or agree. I'm too ignorant on the detailed history of the church.

I was just thinking that the word catholic doesn't really fit with much of the past works of the Roman Catholic Church. I don't want to argue about the validity of your church, and wasn't referencing what you were talking about.

The definition of the word is lovely. And instead of referring to one division of the faithful of GOD, perhaps it was once used more loosely sorta. Surely those imbued with and aware of the Holy Spirit were universally of one accord, and that accord would be universally the same.
A focus on equality is also taught by the Christ which is to a form of universality.

Indeed all obedient to the Will of GOD across the planet are of one accord and the word universal in this case transcends sects and even religions, leaving simply a universal faith in GOD.

Is it feasible to deduce that there is a good possibility that the early Christians started using this word as an accurate descriptor before it became associated with a particular, more systematic or political uhm...church?

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

 

[MoreCoffee]

I don't disagree or agree. I'm too ignorant on the detailed history of the church.

I was just thinking that the word catholic doesn't really fit with much of the past works of the Roman Catholic Church. I don't want to argue about the validity of your church, and wasn't referencing what you were talking about.

The definition of the word is lovely. And instead of referring to one division of the faithful of GOD, perhaps it was once used more loosely sorta. Surely those imbued with and aware of the Holy Spirit were universally of one accord, and that accord would be universally the same.
A focus on equality is also taught by the Christ which is to a form of universality.

Indeed all obedient to the Will of GOD across the planet are of one accord and the word universal in this case transcends sects and even religions, leaving simply a universal faith in GOD.

Is it feasible to deduce that there is a good possibility that the early Christians started using this word as an accurate descriptor before it became associated with a particular, more systematic or political uhm...church?

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

The earliest recorded use of the word in association with Christians is in the letters of saint Ignatius of Antioch.

Saint Ignatius wrote (some time around 100 AD) "Where the bishop is present, there is the Catholic Church" (To the Smyrnaeans 8:2) I think that is the first written use of the word "catholic" with reference to Christians.

 

[psalms 91]

As in universal catholic or is it how the catholic church views it?

 

[MoreCoffee]

As in universal catholic or is it how the catholic church views it?

The meanings are the same. In the first century "catholic" and "catholic church" were the same in meaning when referencing Christians. Today some Christians are not Catholics in the formal sense of full communicant membership in the Catholic Church but the majority are it appears from statistics.

 

[popsthebuilder]

The meanings are the same. In the first century "catholic" and "catholic church" were the same in meaning when referencing Christians. Today some Christians are not Catholics in the formal sense of full communicant membership in the Catholic Church but the majority are it appears from statistics.

But the word in no way resembles a universal anything in reference to the current congregation that goes by that name.

They do seem more eager as of late to be willing to modify their stance or doctrine maybe, but what about who they consider the church? Do they only consider that particular church to be rightly guided? Do they agree that all are universally askew to an equal amount in the sight of GOD at this time?

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

 

[MoreCoffee]

But the word in no way resembles a universal anything in reference to the current congregation that goes by that name.

[1] They do seem more eager as of late to be willing to modify their stance or doctrine maybe, [2] but what about who they consider the church? [3] Do they only consider that particular church to be rightly guided? [4] Do they agree that all are universally askew to an equal amount in the sight of GOD at this time?

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

[1] Doctrine is not modified but application and interpretation changes with time. It is not a recent phenomenon. In fact it goes back many centuries (about twenty centuries). Immutable truth followed by mutable application and mutable interpretation.

[3] The Catholic Church teaches that her doctrine is the teaching of Christ. It is up to individuals to decide if they agree or not. The choice will decide their relationship with the Catholic Church. In brief the Catholic Church teaches that in matters of faith and morals the Church is the instrument of God for the salvation of souls and is rightly guided even if among her number some (or many) act contrary to truth and against the will of God. The visible earthly Church has both good seed and weed seed growing in the field (or good and bad fish in the net) according to the Lord Jesus Christ's teaching.

[2] The Church is the body of Christ and who is "in" or "out" depends on individuals and their choices about fellowship and their choices about beliefs. If the choice is to believe what the Catholic Church teaches and they also choose to be in fellowship/communion with the Church then they will be fully communicant members of the Catholic Church but if the choice not to be in fellowship while believing what the Church teaches then they will be separated from the Church by their own choice and if the choice is not to believe what the Church teaches then they will be separated from the Church in doctrine as well as in membership. The choice is up to individuals.

[4] The Church teaches that all are astray from the perfection to which God calls humanity and some are astray specifically about doctrine and morals by their individual choices to separate themselves from the Catholic Church. The degree of separation is an individual's choice. Some choose only to be separate from the Church while believing what the Church teaches while others choose to reject Church teaching. The degree of rejection of doctrine varies with some rejecting a few things some choosing to reject more things and some choosing to reject many or even all things taught by the Catholic Church. So the Catholic Church does not teach that all are equally united with Christ and with his Church.

 

[Josiah]

The meanings are the same. In the first century "catholic" and "catholic church" were the same in meaning when referencing Christians.

Yes, for centuries, the adjective "catholic" was used to refer to the corpus of Christians. So was the adjective "orthodox." These adjectives applied to people. Still do.

What is a later invention is the egotistical, divisive move to turn these adjectives into proper nouns, legal monikers, to refer to a denomination, an inter-congregational legal economic political institution, an It.

In modern English, we typically capitalize proper nouns but not adjectives. Thus, we are all catholic and many of us are orthodox but not all of the thousands of denominations are The Catholic Church or The Orthodox Church.


Now, I have no idea what that has to do with the foundational claim of the RCC and LDS denominations that Jesus (and the Apostles) taught a plethora of uber-important, de fide Dogmas that the Holy Spirit in His Divine Wisdom chose to not disclose in His Holy Scriptures to Christians but somehow...... eventually...... maybe centuries later...... one denominatiion "discovered" them and...... eventually...... maybe centuries later........ chose to do the opposite of what the Holy Spirit did and disclosed them..... partly.




- Josiah

 

[Josiah]

The earliest recorded use of the word in association with Christians is in the letters of saint Ignatius of Antioch.

Saint Ignatius wrote (some time around 100 AD) "Where the bishop is present, there is the Catholic Church" (To the Smyrnaeans 8:2) I think that is the first written use of the word "catholic" with reference to Christians.

Yup.... he used it the same way everyone did, for centuries: as an adjective to refer to PEOPLE.... (thus, you commit a very elementary grammatical error in capitalizing it; adjectives are not capitalized); he was NOT referring to any specific, particular, individual, legal - economic - geopolitical institution and thus not The Catholic Church. It is sad that Catholic teachers at times so violate very basic English grammar (and Catholics - doing what Catholics are charged to do: just swallow it docilicly, unthinkingly, and parrot it) turning this adjective applying to PEOPLE into the legal moniker of a denomination. The reason they do this seems obvious: so that they can CLAIM their denomination existed in the first Century. But Catholics like you know this is deception (obviously intentional) because he meant it as an adjective applying to people - not the legal moniker of a specific denomination.


Back to the issue at hand...



- Josiah




.

 

[popsthebuilder]

[1] Doctrine is not modified but application and interpretation changes with time. It is not a recent phenomenon. In fact it goes back many centuries (about twenty centuries). Immutable truth followed by mutable application and mutable interpretation.

[3] The Catholic Church teaches that her doctrine is the teaching of Christ. It is up to individuals to decide if they agree or not. The choice will decide their relationship with the Catholic Church. In brief the Catholic Church teaches that in matters of faith and morals the Church is the instrument of God for the salvation of souls and is rightly guided even if among her number some (or many) act contrary to truth and against the will of God. The visible earthly Church has both good seed and weed seed growing in the field (or good and bad fish in the net) according to the Lord Jesus Christ's teaching.

[2] The Church is the body of Christ and who is "in" or "out" depends on individuals and their choices about fellowship and their choices about beliefs. If the choice is to believe what the Catholic Church teaches and they also choose to be in fellowship/communion with the Church then they will be fully communicant members of the Catholic Church but if the choice not to be in fellowship while believing what the Church teaches then they will be separated from the Church by their own choice and if the choice is not to believe what the Church teaches then they will be separated from the Church in doctrine as well as in membership. The choice is up to individuals.

[4] The Church teaches that all are astray from the perfection to which God calls humanity and some are astray specifically about doctrine and morals by their individual choices to separate themselves from the Catholic Church. The degree of separation is an individual's choice. Some choose only to be separate from the Church while believing what the Church teaches while others choose to reject Church teaching. The degree of rejection of doctrine varies with some rejecting a few things some choosing to reject more things and some choosing to reject many or even all things taught by the Catholic Church. So the Catholic Church does not teach that all are equally united with Christ and with his Church.

Do they consider their church to be right, and all others wrong.

By the way, I'm not sure how we got on this subject. It wasn't my intention.

I commend you for your sincere attempts to answer my questions and have and will continue to value your opinion regardless of your denomination or my own beliefs.

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

 

[MoreCoffee]

Do they consider their church to be right, and all others wrong.

By the way, I'm not sure how we got on this subject. It wasn't my intention.

I commend you for your sincere attempts to answer my questions and have and will continue to value your opinion regardless of your denomination or my own beliefs.

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

Q: Do they consider their church to be right, and all others wrong.
A: Others are right as far as their teaching coincides with the teaching of Christ which is the teaching of the Catholic Church. Where there are differences if they are differences of substance rather than differences of wording or of emphasis then they are likely to be in error.

 

[Josiah]

Q: Do they consider their church to be right, and all others wrong.
A: Others are right as far as their teaching coincides with the teaching of Christ which is the teaching of the Catholic Church. Where there are differences if they are differences of substance rather than differences of wording or of emphasis then they are likely to be in error.

Are you familiar with "circular reasoning?"

 

[visionary]

Not among Jewish believers.... catholic represented a different thing, powerful political religious body and still does. Yeshua was never catholic and never will be.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Not among Jewish believers.... catholic represented a different thing, powerful political religious body and still does. Yeshua was never catholic and never will be.

Believers? Specifically what do they believe? Do they believe the things said in the Nicene Creed?

I believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.

I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Only Begotten Son of God,
born of the Father before all ages.
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary,
and became man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate,
he suffered death and was buried,
and rose again on the third day
in accordance with the Scriptures.
He ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory
to judge the living and the dead
and his kingdom will have no end.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son,
who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.

I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.
I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins
and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead
and the life of the world to come. Amen.​

 

[Josiah]

Believers? Specifically what do they believe? Do they believe the things said in the Nicene Creed?

I believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.

I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Only Begotten Son of God,
born of the Father before all ages.
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary,
and became man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate,
he suffered death and was buried,
and rose again on the third day
in accordance with the Scriptures.
He ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory
to judge the living and the dead
and his kingdom will have no end.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son,
who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.

I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.
I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins
and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead
and the life of the world to come. Amen.​

I suspect Jesus would approve of all that.... certainly I as a Lutheran affirm every word of it..... and of course, by noting the Creed, you just confirm Visionary's point: NOTHING that REMOTELY suggests that Jesus was an official registered member of a parish owned and operated by the individual RC Denomination or that He docilicly submitted and mindlessly swallowed whole WHATEVER the individual, singular, sole RC Denomination happens to officially say at that moment - and thus was Catholic. Christian ("catholic" as the creed notes) - YES! A Catholic, NO WAY!


Now, I have no idea how your comment confirms the foundational claim of the RCC and LDS Denominations that Jesus (and thus the 13 - 14 Apostles) taught a whole plethora of essential Dogmas which the Holy Spirit in His divine wisdom chose to not disclose in the Holy Scriptures to Christians but SOMEHOW..... centuries later...... the RCC or LDS found out about some or all of them..... and....... perhaps centuries later...... did the opposite of what the Holy Spirit did and sorta, kinda, in part disclosed them.




- Josiah