-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Authority of the Roman Catholic Church
- Thread starter Jethro
- Start date
Scott1
Well-Known Member
Sorry ... missing the point of this post.
Did you mean to add this to a different thread?
blackout
Violet.
Nope. I typed exactly what I meant.
(and in the right place)
by the authority vested in me.
Scott1
Well-Known Member
well. if anyone has any direct evidence on how everyone then decided that jesus was christ dispite some groups at the time not believing he was, and some info to back up the churches from that period it would be of great help. From the time christ was alive to the decisions on what should be in the bible is of much dispute. As far as doctrine, scripture. And exactly how the final product came about.
a time line of sorts, with people involved who made the decisions on what is what.
so much for God inspired i suppose.....
Scott1
Well-Known Member
It all comes down to one thing: the ressurection.
If you believe it to be factual, well ... in my opinion everything else becomes clearer.
If you don't ... there are lots of ways to know the Truth outside of Christianity and outside of faith in general.
Avoid evil - seek to do good -- > easy-peazy see you in heaven!
... but I could be wrong!
If you believe it to be factual, well ... in my opinion everything else becomes clearer.
If you don't ... there are lots of ways to know the Truth outside of Christianity and outside of faith in general.
Avoid evil - seek to do good -- > easy-peazy see you in heaven!
... but I could be wrong!
true.
we have the final copies from the groups that apparently believe in the ressurection. Or at least want us to believe in the ressurection.
But we are only reading one side.
If someone had other things written, in the same time period or before, coming from one of the groups that existed then that didnt believe in the resurrection and was against this being part of the doctrine it would make it easier to look at both sides.
i have looked up the jewish opinons on it. But that isnt the same as looking at a sect DIRECTLY involved in the early church who disagreed with it. which from what i have understood there were a couple that just backed out of the process because they didnt believe in that aspect of it. But they weren't quite jews either...
Scott1
Well-Known Member
Well you can't "disagree" with something you didn't see - those who were not a witness to the risen Lord could simply not believe it to be true.
Christianity without belief in the resurrection is properly called JUDAISM.
All the non-believers would have continued to be Jews, believing Jesus was a pretty smart guy - or one of many wackos who thought he was something other than just a man.
Christianity without belief in the resurrection is properly called JUDAISM.
All the non-believers would have continued to be Jews, believing Jesus was a pretty smart guy - or one of many wackos who thought he was something other than just a man.
why. people agree with something they didnt see. Whats the difference?
how much of the bible was written by people that didnt know christ? How much was written many years after christs death?
im looking at the dates from the web page you gave me. And it seems they are fourty years a.d. two hundred years a.d. or more...
how do you write about something that happend a hundred or two hundred years ago with any authenticity? why did they take so long to write this stuff from when he died?
and then you read stuff like this...
"Eric Eve writes: "Despite 1 Pet 1:1, the author is unlikely to have been the apostle Peter. The cultured Greek of the epistle makes it perhaps the most literary composition in the NT. The apostle Peter probably knew some Greek, but 1 Peter does not look like the product of an unlettered (Acts 4:13) Galilean fisherman. It employs a sophisticated vocabulary incorporating several NT hapax legomena, and its author appears to have some command of the techniques of Hellenistic rhetoric. He is also intimately acquainted with the OT in the LXX, whereas we should have expected the Galilean Peter to have been more familiar with an Aramaic Targum or the Hebrew." (The Oxford Bible Commentary, p. 1263)"
huh? so who wrote peter? no one knows?????????????????
it is confusing. And at least to me (i dont profess to be a genius) quite a bit to bite off and try to figure out..
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
I am not sure age of a Church is of any great weight.
Those ancient churches , the Coptic's Ethiopians and Arian's were certainly older than the "Roman" Church, which did not become established in Rome in a form we might recognise, until after nicaea.
The Judo-Christians of the mid first century as portrayed in the Didache believed almost nothing similar to the Roman Catholic Church. They worshipped only God the father.They did not believe in the Blood and body in the Eucharist or the trinity. And made no mention of the virgin Birth or the redemption of sin.These were all later concepts.
Of course all the apostles were Judo-Christians. Rome did not establish its dogma until it had the authority of the Roman Empire to sustain it. It may well have a link to Peter but Peter would not recognise the Church or teachings establish under his authority.
Scott1
Well-Known Member
It's obvious that the topic is too detailed to cover here... can only offer again to keep searching for what truth is to you.
I am sure you kind find a prophet or whatever who started their church this past year or so --- being able to hear directly from this person should mean a lot to you.
Peace,
S
I am sure you kind find a prophet or whatever who started their church this past year or so --- being able to hear directly from this person should mean a lot to you.
Peace,
S
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
I admire your love of your Church and your conviction that it is the Church established by Jesus Christ. Unfortunately, I believe you're wrong. I am a Mormon, and I believe that my Church is Jesus Christ's re-establishment of the Church He established anciently, but which fell into apostasy shortly after the deaths of His Apostles.
(I'll await your use of Matthew 16:18 to support your point of view, but I would ask you to remember that this thread is in the Comparative Religion forum, where no actual debating is permitted.)
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
Shouldn't this thread be on a debate forum instead of the Comparative Religions forum? I don't see how it's possible that it not turn into a debate. Either that, or else it needs to be very carefully moderated to make sure that posters do not cross the line into debating.
interesting. would you happen to have a link to them for more information?
SaintAugustine
At the Monastery
lol..you beat me to the punch...bravo...and I will not debate..given the parameters..
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
The best modern work on the subject and worth having is reviewed here.
It gives a completely new translation of the Didache and the original Greek. As well as full exploratory notes. Prior to his work, academics had tried to show its links to the Gospels which simply does not work, because the Gospels were un written at the time, though they do share a little common source material.
I feel that it is these earlier studies that have put students off the Didache, because they confuse rather than enlighten.
DESCRIPTION OF BOOK:
Used copies are available on amazon for as little as $3.25
Amazon.com: The Didache: Text, Translation, Analysis, and Commentary (9780814658314): Aaron Milavec: Books
A fuller work is also available by him which goes into greater detail.
Amazon.com: The Didache: Faith, Hope, and Life of the Earliest Christian Communities, 50-70 C.E. (9780809105373): Aaron Milavec: Books#_