DISCUSSION FORUMS
MAIN MENU
Home
Help
Advanced Search
Recent Posts
Site Statistics
Who's Online
Forum Rules
Bible Resources
• Bible Study Aids
• Bible Devotionals
• Audio Sermons
Community
• ChristiansUnite Blogs
• Christian Forums
• Facebook Apps
Web Search
• Christian Family Sites
• Top Christian Sites
• Christian RSS Feeds
Family Life
• Christian Finance
• ChristiansUnite KIDS
Shop
• Christian Magazines
• Christian Book Store
Read
• Christian News
• Christian Columns
• Christian Song Lyrics
• Christian Mailing Lists
Connect
• Christian Singles
• Christian Classifieds
Graphics
• Free Christian Clipart
• Christian Wallpaper
Fun Stuff
• Clean Christian Jokes
• Bible Trivia Quiz
• Online Video Games
• Bible Crosswords
Webmasters
• Christian Guestbooks
• Banner Exchange
• Dynamic Content

Subscribe to our Free Newsletter.
Enter your email address:

ChristiansUnite
Forums
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
October 17, 2017, 03:40:24 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Our Lord Jesus Christ loves you.
277655 Posts in 26439 Topics by 3790 Members
Latest Member: Goodwin
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  ChristiansUnite Forums
|-+  Theology
| |-+  Bible Study (Moderator: admin)
| | |-+  Peter, the Rock, and the Keys
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] Go Down Print
Author Topic: Peter, the Rock, and the Keys  (Read 13729 times)
michael_legna
Gold Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 832



View Profile
« Reply #75 on: January 23, 2004, 12:18:27 PM »


Quote
Quote
posted by michael at reply #72
It is true some of the Father's questioned them, even Jerome who translated the Vulgate did not intend to include them.   He was ordered to by the Pope, which shows that the RCC did accept them as part of the Canon.  

So there you go, the Roman Catholic church added the pseaudapedigraphical and deutorocanonical books to the bible.

The way you can misinterpret even a simple english statement amazes me Petro.  How does the Jerome submitting to use the Septuigant based on the Popes instructions prove the Church added the Deuterocanonicals?  Those books were already in the Greek OT put there by the Israelites, used by the Apostles and accepted by the Council of Hippo and Carthage.

All Jerome did was submit to the Church as we are instructed to do in the scriptures. (Heb 13:17)   The same Church who had decided what books were to be included in the New Testament.  If you want to accuse the RCC of adding books to the Bible you should start with Matthew, Mark, Luke and John since they are the ones who put them in the Canon.

Quote
By the way you are wrong, the pope never ordered Jerome to add anything, he translated them into latin and included them on account of Augustine's encouragement.

...and your source for this bizarre claim is what?  I have thje following independent unbiased source for my position.

It was in 382 that Pope Damasus (366-384) called upon Jerome (Sophronius Eusebius Hieronymus) to remedy the situation. Jerome was the greatest scholar of his generation, and the Pope asked him to make an official Latin version -- both to remedy the poor quality of the existing translations and to give one standard reference for future copies. Damasus also called upon Jerome to use the best possible Greek texts -- even while giving him the contradictory command to stay as close to the existing versions as possible.

Jerome agreed to take on the project, somewhat reluctantly, but he never truly finished his work. By about 384, he had prepared a revision of the Gospels, which simultaneously improved their Latin and reduced the number of "Western" readings. But if he ever worked on the rest of the New Testament, his revisions were very hasty. The Vulgate of the Acts and Epistles is not far from the Old Latin. Jerome had become fascinated with Hebrew, and spent the rest of his translational life working on the Latin Old Testament.

quoted from http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn/Versions.html#Vulgate


Quote
Quote
Since the doctrine of Purgatory goes back to the 100's this again proves that the Church accepted the Deuterocanonicals since the beginning.  Gee you just can't catch a break can you Petro, your own analysis even goes against you.

Hah...purgatory never existed as a teaching until much much later..

Once again your claim is based on an anti-Catholic website who would of course deny the antiquity of the doctrine of purgatory since they came along much later and don't accept it.  If your claim were true then there would be no mention of it in the writings of the early Church Fathers now would there?  But unfortunately for you there is.

John Chrysostom

"Let us help and commemorate them. If Job’s sons were purified by their father’s sacrifice [Job 1:5], why would we doubt that our offerings for the dead bring them some consolation? Let us not hesitate to help those who have died and to offer our prayers for them" (Homilies on First Corinthians 41:5 [A.D. 392]).


Augustine

"Temporal punishments are suffered by some in this life only, by some after death, by some both here and hereafter, but all of them before that last and strictest judgment. But not all who suffer temporal punishments after death will come to eternal punishments, which are to follow after that judgment" (The City of God 21:13 [A.D. 419]).

There are more quotes available at the following to show the doctrine of purgatory was well know to the early Church Fathers

http://www.catholic.com/library/Roots_of_Purgatory.asp

http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/purg.htm
« Last Edit: January 23, 2004, 12:19:52 PM by michael_legna » Logged

Matt 5:11  Blessed are ye when they shall revile you, and persecute you, and speak all that is evil against you, untruly, for my sake:
Petro
Gold Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1535


I'm a llama!


View Profile
« Reply #76 on: January 25, 2004, 07:45:14 AM »

Quote
posted by michael at reply #72

Since the doctrine of Purgatory goes back to the 100's this again proves that the Church accepted the Deuterocanonicals since the beginning.  Gee you just can't catch a break can you Petro, your own analysis even goes against you.

michael,

You haven't produced any evidence that proves anything concerning purgatory was a teaching in the church in the 100's (first century)

By the time crysostom, and augustine began teaching this phony doctrine, the Roman Catholic church had become well established.

I don't consider either of these men church fathers, when I say Church Fathers, I am speaking of the per Nicene fathers, (perhaps ending with the likes of Bishop Anathasius) so, anyone after him I wouldn't get to excited about.

Although I recognize Augustine did contribute some good teachings, it is questionable in mind whether this man was truly a child of God.

Clearly He is the sole responsible individual who began the teaching of purgatory, as for Chrysostom or any of the popes, I simply ignore anything they have to say.

Your reference to Aurelius's commentary in "City of God" XXI:13, I would suggest you look at the title of the paragraph you quoted;

13. Against the opinion of those who think that the punishments of the wicked after death are purgatorial

Then read the entire parapgraphs in the lite of Plato and Virgils comments which he critics herein. You will never prove anything using a few sentences on his commentary, besides chapter 12, and 14 need to examined together with 13.

Besides all this Augustine errored in his teaching of temporray punishments after death, because of his warped view of eschatology.

His interpretation of the Millennium as the era between the Incarnation and Second Advent of Christ in which the church would conquer the world led to the Roman emphasis on the Church of Rome as the universal church destined to bring all within its fold and to the idea of postmillennialism.

What is interesting is that the Watchtower teaches Augustuines thoughts concerning this today.  

That in it self should cause a lite to go off in religious peoples brain, since whenever the likes of JW's embrace a doctrine taught as if it were inspired, Watch Out....cause Satan is not far away.

Romanisn, may very well rise up again in the last generation to once again crusade and persecute the real belivers.

What I find interesting is that you believe Augustiunes teachings on purgatory, which are false, and reject His teaching on the eternal security of the believers which has more scriptural authority than the former.

Of all of his doctrinal errors, Aurelius Augustine was most importantly wrong about the foremost doctrine in all of Scripture—how to be saved.

And, since Augustine's salvation plan is no real plan of salvation at all, both it and Augustine himself would thereby be condemned under Gal. 1:8,9, by Paul:

It is clear Calvin simply picked up Augustines teachings and ran with them during the reformation, both have errored in the teaching.

But your belief, of this or that doesn't surprise me, since it is clear to me you don't understand exactly what you believe, and most clearly you do not believe, what the bible teaches,.............................. thats for sure.


Petro
« Last Edit: January 25, 2004, 07:51:56 AM by Petro » Logged

michael_legna
Gold Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 832



View Profile
« Reply #77 on: January 25, 2004, 08:43:55 PM »


Quote
You haven't produced any evidence that proves anything concerning purgatory was a teaching in the church in the 100's (first century)

I didn't realize that I would have to be so literal in my defense, but that's ok I can be.  It is just I thought that since your church hadn't come into existence until the last 500 years or so you would accept those much earlier in the Church, I especially chose Augustine because he was relied on so heavily by Calvin, even though calvin misunderstood most of what he read.

Quote
By the time crysostom, and augustine began teaching this phony doctrine, the Roman Catholic church had become well established.

Actually it was Paul who first started teaching this doctrine within the Church in his First Epistle to the Corinthians.  But Clement of Alexandria also taught it.

Accordingly the believer, through great discipline, divesting himself of the passions, passes to the mansion which is better than the former one, viz., to the greatest torment, taking with him the characteristic of repentance from the sins he has committed after baptism.  He is tortured then still more--not yet or not quite attaining what he sees others to have acquired. Besides, he is also ashamed of his transgressions. The greatest torments, indeed, are assigned to the believer. For God's righteousness is good, and His goodness is
righteous. And though the punishments cease in the course of the completion of the expiation and purification of each one, yet those have very great and permanent grief who are found worthy of the other fold, on account of not being along with those that have been glorified through righteousness.
CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA, The Stromata, Book 6, Chapter 14 [A.D. 188-199]

Quote
I don't consider either of these men church fathers, when I say Church Fathers, I am speaking of the per Nicene fathers, (perhaps ending with the likes of Bishop Anathasius) so, anyone after him I wouldn't get to excited about.

Well who you do and don't consider to be a Church Father is of no concern to me.  I said the Church taught purgatory since the 100's (actually the doctrine comes from the book of Maccabees in the Old Testament and the book of 1st Corinthians in the New Testament so the Church taught it since it inception).  It matters not if you agree with the individual, because if the Church was not teaching it at the time, they could not have even been putting forth the idea, or argue against it for that matter.  So if we see evidence of either it proves my point.

Let us see what Clement of Rome says, since he is even of the 1st Century

However those who through the grace of God, have been made perfect in love, now possess a place among the godly.  And they will be made manifest at the revelation of the kingdom of Christ.  For it is written; Enter into your secret chambers for a little time, until my wrath and fury pass away.  And I will remember a propitious day, and will raise you up out of your graves.  (Clement of Rome c.96 - 1.18)

Here he refers to Is 26:20 which is also later quoted by Tertullian in the same way, showing a consistent interpretation by the Church of an intermediate state that exists between our death and entrance into heaven.

Quote
Although I recognize Augustine did contribute some good teachings, it is questionable in mind whether this man was truly a child of God.

Clearly He is the sole responsible individual who began the teaching of purgatory, as for Chrysostom or any of the popes, I simply ignore anything they have to say.

It is nonsense to claim Augustine as the originator of the idea that there was an intermediate state after death between mortal life and heaven.  The Book of Maccabees showed that there were those even prior to the Church who taught this doctrine.

You are free to disbelieve anything the Popes say to your own peril, but you cannot simply ignore it or you are purposely ignoring history and that is what we are discussing here, not the merits of the doctrine but when it was first taught to correct your erroneous claim.

Quote
Your reference to Aurelius's commentary in "City of God" XXI:13, I would suggest you look at the title of the paragraph you quoted;

13. Against the opinion of those who think that the punishments of the wicked after death are purgatorial

Then read the entire parapgraphs in the lite of Plato and Virgils comments which he critics herein. You will never prove anything using a few sentences on his commentary, besides chapter 12, and 14 need to examined together with 13.

I have reviewed the material and disagree with your interpretation of his teachings, but it matters not, since because he referenced the teaching it shows the teaching was in the Church during or even prior to his life time (even if he was arguing against it, which he was not).  As for proving anything or not based on a few paragraphs I would agree that one cannot prove the validity of the doctrine of purgatory by selecting a few quotes from the huge libraries we have of the Church Fathers, but you forget the point of the discussion.  It is not whether the doctrine is true it is whether the Church taught the doctrine of purgatory in the 100's.  And since I have proven the early Church Fathers were aware of the doctrine that proves it was taught in the Church.

Quote
What I find interesting is that you believe Augustiunes teachings on purgatory, which are false, and reject His teaching on the eternal security of the believers which has more scriptural authority than the former.

No, I do not disagree with Augustine's teachings I disagree with your understanding of Augsutine, as you hold that he taught Once Saved Always Saved and I know he didn't.  That is one error of Calvin’s analysis of Augustine you should definitely abandon.  If he had taught this idea the Catholic Church who denies it would not have made Augustine a Doctor of the Church.

Quote
Of all of his doctrinal errors, Aurelius Augustine was most importantly wrong about the foremost doctrine in all of Scripture how to be saved.

And, since Augustine's salvation plan is no real plan of salvation at all, both it and Augustine himself would thereby be condemned under Gal. 1:8,9, by Paul:
Quote

I love these vague thrusts, at others works, you always do, without providing any true details.  It lets you belittle others without the fear of being corrected or shown to be in error.  It's a very safe way to approach controversy but not a very honest way.

Quote
It is clear Calvin simply picked up Augustines teachings and ran with them during the reformation, both have errored in the teaching.

So now the marvelous Petro is a greater mind and better theologian than Augustine, Chrysostom, and even Calvin, his pride knows no bounds.
Logged

Matt 5:11  Blessed are ye when they shall revile you, and persecute you, and speak all that is evil against you, untruly, for my sake:
ladybug
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


I'm a llama!


View Profile
« Reply #78 on: February 22, 2004, 02:42:56 PM »

It has been my understanding that Jesus respnded to teachings within Judaism, so in many cases it pays to know some of the teachings which existed. On this particular subject, I think this might apply.
The Jewish people believed then , as today, that God is One and found it hard to accept Jesus.
   In Rabbinic teaching, it was said ( according to Rashi in commenting on Gen. 49:24 ) that the word "stone or rock"
symbolized the relationship between father & son, which was a sign of permancy. The word for rock is "eben" which is a contraction of Av for father and ben for son.

When Jesus asked in Mat. 16:13,"Who do you say that I am?"
Peter responded, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living  God."  Jesus knew that could only be revealed through God and when He said "... upon this "rock" (or "eben" )
I will build my church." I think He might have been referring to the belief in THE FATHER & THE SON.
So I would see it meaning that you must accept Jesus as God's Son to be a part of the church.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  



More From ChristiansUnite...    About Us | Privacy Policy | | ChristiansUnite.com Site Map | Statement of Beliefs



Copyright © 1999-2016 ChristiansUnite.com. All rights reserved.
Please send your questions, comments, or bug reports to the

Powered by SMF 1.1 RC2 | SMF © 2001-2005, Lewis Media