tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5423834967410731322.post6451182676342770141..comments2023-07-05T10:49:32.751-04:00Comments on The Joys of Being Catholic: Connecting the Dots Between the Early Church and Catholicism, Part VArthur and Teresa Beemhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09759876885743015082noreply@blogger.comBlogger35125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5423834967410731322.post-60296796531047776842013-04-22T14:46:14.233-04:002013-04-22T14:46:14.233-04:00Eric, How old are you? You are doing a very good j...Eric, How old are you? You are doing a very good job of writing if English is your second language? <br /><br />At this point, I think we must agree to disagree. You wish to remain Seventh-day Adventists and you will see all information through SDA eyes. God bless you and I hope you are allowed to purchase the book when you are a little older. <br /><br />If you can get EWTN.com where you live that would be awesome for you to watch. Then you can really learn what Catholics believe. God bless you!<br />Arthur and Teresa Beemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09759876885743015082noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5423834967410731322.post-42001035316762126362013-04-22T13:14:45.340-04:002013-04-22T13:14:45.340-04:00You wrote:
This is the problem.
After the Reforma...You wrote:<br /><i>This is the problem. <br />After the Reformation a few British and French groups (very, very tiny groups) were reading the Bible for themselves and they began to believe that the Ten Commandments were binding for Christians (and this is because the Catholic church refers to the Ten Commandments in their catechism for instructional reasons as a "discipline" which means instructional rather than dogma). So when these few people read them they realized that Sunday was being kept more like Sabbath than Saturday. So they decided to start keeping the Jewish Sabbath completely misunderstanding the New Covenant. <br />The story is much more complex (get my book www.amazon.com) and you can read the whole thing....<br />But in the end, the idea of a Sunday Sabbath came from Calvinists (not Calvin) during the 16th century and didn't catch on ever until the SDAs came around. They misread history, the Catholic Church and scripture.</i><br />This is an interesting theory I must to admit, but not entirely true. Many churches along the history have kept the Sabbath. There is an “continuous line” of Sabbath keeping that we can traces till apostolic times and the very Creation of the world.<br /> <br /><br />You wrote:<br /><i>Constantine never changed the Sabbath. Christians worshipped daily and many rested on Sabbath for many centuries in the east. And it is ironic that Constantine moved the Empire's capital to the EAST--so if he was trying to stamp out Sabbath rest, he certainly didn't do a good job. Which Constantine changing the Sabbath to Sunday is pure SDA fiction anyway.</i><br />You are right, Constantine never changed the Sabbath, actually he just used the force of the state to impose the Sunday keeping, exactly the same thing that Rome and USA will do in a near future. Many churches were keeping the Sabbath in Africa, Asia, and north and western Europe.<br />Eric Richterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10531933890393277102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5423834967410731322.post-71954968965635002242013-04-22T13:11:02.463-04:002013-04-22T13:11:02.463-04:00You wrote:
You should read my book, "It's...You wrote:<br /><i>You should read my book, "It's Okay NOT to be a Seventh-day Adventist" because for ten chapters I laid out the history of Sabbath keeping and carefully documented how the idea of a Sunday Sabbath came about. You are correct and this is why Adventism cannot be.</i><br />I’ve told you that I have not way to purchase your book, though I really want to read it. An underage boy like me cannot buy from Amazon in Argentina.<br /> <br /><br />You wrote:<br /><i>The western church for various reasons quit observing the Saturday rest early on. Perhaps it was because so many soldiers and slaves became Christian and they couldn't rest on Saturday. But it was not because they were breaking a commandment for Paul clearly told them that keeping any day holy was up to the local church or even the person. Rest or not rest on SAbbath--don't judge and follow your conscience. Well soldiers and slaves aren't at liberty to follow their conscience even if they did believe sabbath rest was still necessary. So the bishops of the west worshipped daily and no longer rested on Sabbath.</i><br />I have never seen historical evidence of what you are talking. <br /><br />You wrote:<br /><i>The eastern part of the Empire was different (we think it is because of St. John--he had been the youngest disciples and perhaps was the least likely to feel he had the authority to tell people they didn't have to rest on Sabbath). In any case, the east was more traditional. They rested on Sabbath (guess they had more liberty!) and kept Passover on the exact date as the Jews (something that caused a huge problem with the western church and indeed the weekly sabbath rest didn't. This proves that the weekly sabbath rest issue wasn't important or their would have been a huge fight like the Easter/Passover Sabbath did.)</i><br />Your argumentation is ridiculous, John was not the main responsible of evangelize the west. Peter, according many historians, was preaching in Antioch and Corinth. Felipe was preaching in Minor Asia as well. Paul was the main preacher in Minor Asia, according the Bible. Why these apostles never teach against the Sabbath keeping? <br />When Rome wanted to impose their custom on the western church, the asian bishop said that they kept Easter according the Apostolic teaching of John and Felipe.<br /><br /><br />You wrote:<br /><i>Today we have the weekend because the eastern part of Christianity rested on Sabbath and celebrated the Lord's Day on Sunday. There was no confusion over which day was Sabbath. Nowhere in Christendom for the first 1500 years was there any confusion that Sunday was Sabbath. In all Latin languages and you can hear at the Vatican TODAY the world "Sabbath/Sabbato" for Saturday. They never changed the word for Sunday into Sabbath nor have they ever even in their minds. </i><br />You’re almost right. Christianity always knew the difference between the “christian” Lord’s Day” and the “jew” Sabbath. But some catholic minorities along the Church history claimed that the Sunday had completely replaced the Sabbath, in every aspect. Adventist believes that the true change is still in the future. In the end of the times Rome and USA will join their strengths in order to impose the Sunday as the only and holy Sabbath. This is the “famous” Dominical Lay that you already know.<br />What Constantine did was –for the first time in History- was force all christians to observe the Sunday as a day of rest. <br />Eric Richterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10531933890393277102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5423834967410731322.post-79687191062522029002013-04-22T13:09:22.691-04:002013-04-22T13:09:22.691-04:00You wrote:
Chapter 9. Let us live with Christ
If, ...You wrote:<br /><i>Chapter 9. Let us live with Christ<br />If, therefore, those who were brought up in the ancient order of things have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord's Day, on which also our life has sprung up again by Him and by His death....<br />COMMENT: The two sources I have on this contain the word's "The Lord's Day" perhaps you have a different translation. I don't know... </i><br />Maybe you did not read what I wrote. I have no translation at all. I have read the very original greek text. <br />The original greek text, as is found in the Codex Medicio-Laurentianus is as follows:<br /><i>“If, therefore, those who were brought up in the ancient order of things have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer sabbatizing, but living according to the Lord’s life, in which also our life has sprung up again by Him and by His death”</i><br />The Codex Medicio-Laurentianus is the oldest which contain the Ignatian epistles. The manuscript Caiensis 395, the oldest latin translation of Ignatian epistles also contain the words <i>“no longer sabbatizing, but living according to the Lord’s”</i>. In this manuscript does not appear the word “life” or “day” either. <br />You can confirm these texts with a brief research in the web.<br /><br />The context supports the translation “Lord’s life” as well. <br /><i>“Be not deceived with strange doctrines, nor with old fables, which are unprofitable. For if we still live according to the Jewish law, we acknowledge that we have not received grace. For the divine prophets lived according to Christ Jesus. On this account also they were persecuted, being inspired by His grace to fully convince the unbelieving that there is one God, who has manifested Himself by Jesus Christ His Son, who is His eternal Word, not proceeding forth from silence, and who in all things pleased Him that sent Him. <br />If, therefore, those who were brought up in the ancient order of things have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing sabbatizing, but living accorging to the Lord’s life”</i> (Epistle to Magnesians, chap. 8-9)<br />The “divine prophets” were who did not sabbatizing but lived according the Lord’s life/day. Off course, the prophets of Old Testament did not keep the Sunday, that’s completely ridiculous. They kept the Sabbath, but not according the jews’ manners. Just like Jesus did, the Hebrew prophets lived the Sabbath as a blessing for them and for their neighbor. The parishioners of Ignatius should keep the Sabbath following the example of Jesus and the Prophets of the Old Testament.<br /><br />Ignatius epistle is not a proof for Sunday advocating but Sabbath advocating instead. Early Christians at Ignatius times were keeping the Sabbath.<br /><br />You wrote:<br /><i>But if we look at the passage in context I think it will be obvious that it is rejecting Sabbaths rather than supporting them. I am pasting the entire Chapter 10 below and it says nothing about Sabbaths... so perhaps you wrote down the wrong source....<br />Chapter 10. Beware of Judaizing<br />Let us not, therefore, be insensible to His kindness. For were He to reward us according to our works, we should cease to be. Therefore, having become His disciples, let us learn to live according to the principles of Christianity. For whosoever is called by any other name besides this, is not of God. Lay aside, therefore, the evil, the old, the sour leaven, and be changed into the new leaven, which is Jesus Christ. Be salted in Him, lest any one among you should be corrupted, since by your savour you shall be convicted. It is absurd to profess Christ Jesus, and to Judaize. For Christianity did not embrace Judaism, but Judaism Christianity, that so every tongue which believes might be gathered together to God.</i><br />As I have shown you, the context supports Sabbath, at least that you accept the Old Testament prophets were Sunday keepers. <br />Eric Richterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10531933890393277102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5423834967410731322.post-11009366156234205052013-04-22T13:07:18.441-04:002013-04-22T13:07:18.441-04:00You wrote:
Let us examine Ignatius' Letter to ...You wrote:<br /><i>Let us examine Ignatius' Letter to the Magnesian church and see what church is most resembles: <br />Chapter 3. Honour your youthful bishop<br />...yield him all reverence, having respect to the power of God the Father, as I have known even holy presbyters do ...submitting to him, or rather not to him, but to the Father of Jesus Christ, the bishop of us all. ...obey [your bishop], in honour of Him who has willed us [so to do], since he that does not so deceives not [by such conduct] the bishop that is visible, but seeks to mock Him that is invisible. And all such conduct has reference not to man, but to God, who knows all secrets.<br />COMMENT: What church today continues to teach that one must submit, obey and reverence its bishops as if they are God?<br />Chapter 4. Some wickedly act independently of the bishop<br />It is fitting, then, not only to be called Christians, but to be so in reality: as some indeed give one the title of bishop, but do all things without him. Now such persons seem to me to be not possessed of a good conscience, seeing they are not stedfastly gathered together according to the commandment.<br />COMMENT: What church today continues to teach that one must do nothing without the bishop? (in a moral and liturgical sense.)<br />Chapter 6. Preserve harmony<br />...I exhort you to study to do all things with a divine harmony, while your bishop presides in the place of God, and your presbyters in the place of the assembly of the apostles, along with your deacons, who are most dear to me, and are entrusted with the ministry of Jesus Christ... Let nothing exist among you that may divide you; but be united with your bishop, and those that preside over you, as a type and evidence of your immortality.<br />COMMENT: What church today teaches that being in union with the bishops is an evidence of immortality and that that divisions in the church are evil? <br />Chapter 7. Do nothing without the bishop and presbyters<br />As therefore the Lord did nothing without the Father, being united to Him, neither by Himself nor by the apostles, so neither do anything without the bishop and presbyters. Neither endeavour that anything appear reasonable and proper to yourselves apart; but being come together into the same place, let there be one prayer, one supplication, one mind, one hope, in love and in joy undefiled. There is one Jesus Christ, than whom nothing is more excellent. Therefore run together as into one temple of God, as to one altar, as to one Jesus Christ, who came forth from one Father, and is with and has gone to one.<br />COMMENT: What church today still teaches that there is but ONE altar, one church, and one temple and that Christianity must remain united under the Apostles, bishops and priests?</i><br />You are ignoring the context of Ignatius letters. The target churches of Ignatius epistles were in troubles concerning their unity. Ignatius saw that the best solution to put in practice in order to avoid divisions were the obedience to the bishops, who were appointed in their places by the very apostles. I wanna remark that Ignatius was not advocating the roman primacy. He did not believe that every Christians should to submit themselves to the roman bishops but local bishop instead. What church can claim the same privilege that the early bishop had? <br />Non modern bishop was appointed by the apostles or apostles’ followers. Roman see claims that has a bishop who is the successor of the apostles, but the History shows a very different story. The alleged Apostolic Succession is a myth that a brief research can rule out.<br />Eric Richterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10531933890393277102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5423834967410731322.post-43409307480161357302013-04-22T13:06:38.764-04:002013-04-22T13:06:38.764-04:00You wrote:
While Protestants fumble and seem disor...You wrote:<br /><i>While Protestants fumble and seem disoriented about Jesus words to be perfect, and judgment by works, they have tried to solve the problem by splitting the idea of faith and works. They have divided what God had joined together. Catholics have ALWAYS taught faith and works were "one flesh." As James wrote, "faith without works is dead." Faith has a body and a spirit to be alive--belief IS acting out on that belief. We allow faith and works to be two sides of the same coin and that explains Jesus' words about judgement. </i><br />Adventists believe that Faith is what saves us. Faith is not some theological knowledge but the intimate belief that Jesus saved us all. The difference between knowledge and Faith is that the Faith move us to make good works, not in order to be saved, but because we were saved. In the other hand, catholic believe that works might saves as well as Faith, and that’s something unbiblical.<br /><br />You wrote:<br /><i>So any contradiction you may think you see in the deuterocanonical writings is just a simply misunderstanding about priority in interpretation. See them through the lens of the Catholic Church and the mistakes clear up like a target shooter going from one eye to two....</i><br />I have shown you the historical and biblical evidence that forces me to reject the Apocrypha. I won’t believe that God might inspire a writer and then inspire less another; God does not work like this. If a book shows historical mistakes, doctrinal heresies and contradictions, obviously cannot come from the Infallible God.<br />Eric Richterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10531933890393277102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5423834967410731322.post-22660923509181834172013-04-22T13:04:17.198-04:002013-04-22T13:04:17.198-04:00You wrote:
When reading argumentation of the early...You wrote:<br /><i>When reading argumentation of the early church over these writings, often they are not speaking of a "either they are inspired or they are not" but rather they were arguing on HOW inspired they were. The debate wasn't about if but about degree.</i><br />‘ve never seen this alleged argumentation of inspiration’s degres. Would you be as kind as show me?<br /> <br /><br />You wrote:<br /><i>But we must understand that these men, though they might have disagreements about doctrines, the fact that there ARE disagreements is a blessing to us because they left a paper trail. This paper trail shows us how the doctrine DID develop and that these men DID NOT abandon the church when they didn't get their way over theology. They submitted BECAUSE they knew God was leading the church. They did not break off for conscience sake and begin a new church. They understood unity was more important than individual opinion.<br />That speaks volumes about their faith in Christ's church.</i><br />I think that you ignored certain aspects of early Christianity. First Christians were not a unified Church but a religious movement instead. Some Church Fathers started new churches, for example Tatian, or joined to others churches, like Tertullian. The ultimate authority was the regional Bishop, not the Pope. Early councils contradicted each other and many bishop confronted others bishops. Doctrinal and hierarchical unity in early Christianity is a myth, something that never happened. <br />The “doctrine development” that you support is the best evidence that the apostles and first Christians DID NOT believe in catholic doctrines. If they believed them, “development” had not been necessary. <br /><br />You wrote:<br /><i>This is again where Catholicism shows its genius and its foundation in the supernatural God who wrote Scripture. When there is a hierarchy in scripture it solves all the seemingly divided and contradictory passages. God inspired the text and the compilation by the Church and God inspires the interpretation through His Church. When Jesus makes a statement that seems to contradict what Paul wrote... say on works vs. faith... (Jesus said we are judged by how we helped the least of these, Paul says we are saved by faith) we choose to see Paul's writings interpreted through the lens of the gospels. We see that Jesus is telling us what faith looks like, Jesus is DEFINING faith for us. We actually understand Paul better when we see his writings through the words of Christ. Often Protestants reverse that and try to make sense of Jesus through the lens of Paul.</i><br />Bible explains itself for us. One verse explains another. With a full perspective, we can understand the alleged contradictions in the biblical text. But Apocrypha have also historical and doctrinal mistakes. For example, Judith 1:5 states:<br /><i>“Thereafter, in the twelfth year of his reign, Nebuchadnezzar, king of the Assyrians, who reigned in Nineveh the great city, fought against Arphaxad and prevailed over him:”</i><br />Nebuchadnezzar never reigned over Assyria, but Babylon instead. There’re not historical records of an Assyrian king named Nebuchadnezzar. In a matter of fact, there’s not historical evidence of Judith’s story at all. <br />Tobias shows us an Angel of God who sins, telling a lie (Tob. 12:15). The demons can be repelled through magic (Ibid. 6:8). Alms could save us from sin and death (Ibid. 12:9). <br />Baruch contradicts the biblical Chronology. According Baruch, the Israelites who lived in Babylon sent money and offerings to Jerusalem in order to make sacrifices in the <i>“altar of the Lord”</i> (Baruch 1:10) and a letter to be recited in the <i>“Temple of the Lord”</i> (Baruch 1:14). But at those times, the temple was completely destroyed. <br /><br />So, how can I believe in books so obviously equivocated?<br />Eric Richterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10531933890393277102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5423834967410731322.post-26276602560668367622013-04-22T13:01:22.272-04:002013-04-22T13:01:22.272-04:00In the other hand we have another story or Antioch...In the other hand we have another story or Antiochus’ death in the same book, in the chapter nine:<br /><i>“At the same time, Antiochus returned in dishonor from Persia. For he had entered into the city called Persepolis, and attempted to rob the temple, and to oppress the city, but the multitude, rushing to arms, turned them to flight, and so it happened that Antiochus, after fleeing, returned in disgrace. And when he had arrived near Ecbatana, he realized what had happened to Nicanor and Timothy. And so, rising up in anger, he thought to turn back upon the Jews the injury done by those who had put him to flight. And, therefore, he ordered his chariot to be driven without stopping along the way, for the judgment of heaven was urging him on, because he had spoken so arrogantly about how he would come to Jerusalem and make it into a mass grave for the Jews. But the Lord God of Israel, who oversees all things, struck him with an incurable and invisible plague. For, as soon as he had finished these words, a dire pain in his abdomen seized him, with bitter internal torments.And, indeed, it sprung forth justly, since he had tormented the internal organs of others with many strange and new tortures, yet he in no way ceased from his malice. But, beyond this, being filled with arrogance, breathing fire with his soul against the Jews, and instructing the task to be accelerated, it happened that, as he was rushing on forcefully, he fell from the chariot, and his limbs were afflicted with a serious bruising of the body. And he, being filled with arrogance beyond human means, seemed to himself to command even the waves of the sea and to weigh even the heights of the mountains in a balance. But now, humbled to the ground, he was carried on a stretcher, calling himself as a witness to the manifest virtue of God. So then, worms swarmed from his impious body, and, as he lived on in pain, his flesh fell away, and then his odorous stench oppressed the army. And him who, a little before, thought that he could touch the stars of heaven, no one could endure to carry, because of the intolerable stench. And so, from then on, being led away from his heavy arrogance by the admonishment of a divine plague, he began to come to an understanding of himself, with his pains increasing through every moment. […] And so the murderer and blasphemer, having been struck very badly, just as he himself had treated others, passed from this life in a miserable death on a journey among the mountains.”</i><br /><br />We can readily see that the three stories are completely different each other. So, how Antiochus died according the “infallible word of God”? <br />God does not contradict himself because He is infallible. Their revelation to the human race, the Bible, must to be infallible too or God could not be infallible. But Maccabeus contradict themselves three times!! This means that Maccabeus are not infallible nor the word of God. <br /><br />Bible also said that <i>“God spoke to the fathers through the Prophets;”</i> (Heb. 1:1). Prophets are the channel which God uses to communicate with human beings. But in Maccabeus times there’re no prophets in Israel (1 Macc. 4:46; 9:27). The very Author of Maccabeus acknowledged that his work was not inspired:<br /><i>“And, indeed, if I have done well, so as to have made an adequate history, this also is what I wanted. But if it is less than worthy, may it be permitted me. <br />For, just as it is adverse to drink always wine, or always water, so also it is pleasant to use sometimes the one, and sometimes the other. So, if the words were always exact, it would not be pleasing to the readers. Therefore, here it shall be completed.</i>” (1 Macc. 15:37-39)<br />The Author admitted that his intention was create a literary work, not an inspired writing. He himself considered that his work might have mistakes. But a canonical book is as infallible as God Himself.<br />Eric Richterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10531933890393277102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5423834967410731322.post-75170160795786007142013-04-22T12:58:27.664-04:002013-04-22T12:58:27.664-04:00You wrote:
One other insight that might help you u...You wrote:<br /><i>One other insight that might help you understand Catholicism. Protestants are raised in this culture of equality and it effects ALL their assessments even without realizing it. Catholics are hierarchical more like the Jews. To the Jews Torah is the most holy of the writings. The prophets were of lesser status, even though inspired by God. Catholics have always set the four gospels above all scripture. We see the rest of scripture THROUGH the eyes of the four gospel writers. We understand the Old Testament through the life of Jesus not the other way around. The gospels are our "holy of holies" and then comes the writings of Paul and the letters... This is true of the Old Testament.”</i><br />This is confused to me. I can’t believe that the Holy Spirit inspired a writer and then He inspired another writer but with a different “level of inspiration”. I don’t see biblical evidence of such thing. And it does not matter what the jews believe about the Old Testament, their scriptural interpretation was wrong at Jesus’ times and so is now.<br /> <br />You wrote:<br /><i>These deuterocanonical books the Protestants removed were always of less importance to the Old Testament.</i><br />I think that the historical proves are enough to state that the protestant did not removed those books from the Bible, but Catholics added to It. Christianity never accepted unanimously the canonicity of Apocrypha, and many early theologian rejected it.<br /><br />You wrote:<br />“They were never considered as inspired and holy as the Pentateuch. Yet, they were still the infallible Word of God.”<br />Infallible??? You make me laugh :D.<br />Apocrypha contradict the Bible and even contradict itself. For example, 1 Maccabeus 6:8-16 says that Antiochus died in Persia because a severe depression. <br /><i>“And it happened that, when the king heard these words, he was terrified and very moved. And he fell down on his bed, and he fell into feebleness out of grief. For it had not happened to him as he had intended. And he was in that place through many days. For a great grief was renewed in him, and he concluded that he would die. And he called all his friends, and he said to them: "Sleep has withdrawn from my eyes, and I am declining, and my heart has collapsed out of anxiety. And I said in my heart: How much trouble has come to me, and what floods of sorrow there are, where I am now! I used to be cheerful and beloved in my power! Truly, now, I remember the evils that I did in Jerusalem, from which place I also took away all the spoils of gold and silver that were in it, and I sent to carry away the inhabitants of Judah without cause. Therefore, I know that it is because of this that these evils have found me. And behold, I perish with great sorrow in a foreign land." Then he called Philip, one of his friends, and he placed him first over all his kingdom. And he gave him the diadem, and his robe, and his ring, so that he would guide Antiochus, his son, and raise him, and so that he would reign. And king Antiochus died there, in the one hundred and forty-ninth year.” </i><br /><br />But in 2 Maccabeus 1:14-16 says that Antiochus was killed by the priests of the city of Nanea:<br /><i>“For Antiochus also came to the place with his friends, as if to live with her, and so that he would receive much money in the name of a dowry. <br />nd when the priests of Nanea had made the proposal, and he had entered with a few men into the vestibule of the shrine, they closed the temple, after Antiochus had entered. And throwing open a hidden entrance to the temple, they cast stones, and they struck the leader and those who were with him. And, having severed their limbs and cut off their heads, they threw them outside.”</i><br />Eric Richterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10531933890393277102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5423834967410731322.post-38229602554346203552013-04-22T12:57:34.906-04:002013-04-22T12:57:34.906-04:00Gregory of Nazianzus, patriarch of Constantinople,...Gregory of Nazianzus, patriarch of Constantinople, wrote a poem:<br /><i>“But let not extraneous books seduce your mind. <br />For many malignant writings have been disseminated.<br /> Accept, o friend, this, my approved number. <br />These are all twelve of the historical books, of the most ancient Hebrew wisdom: <br />First there is Genesis, then Exodus, Leviticus too.<br />Then Numbers, and the Second Law. <br />Then Joshua and Judges. Ruth is eighth. <br />The ninth and tenth books, the acts of Kings,<br />And, Chronicles. Last you have Ezra.<br /> The poetic books are five: Job being first, <br />then [the Psalms of] David; and three of Solomon,<br /> Ecclesiastes, Canticles and Proverbs. <br />And similarly five of prophetic inspiration. <br />There are the Twelve written in one book:<br /> Hosea and Amos, and Micah the third; <br />then Joel, and Jonah, Obadiah, <br />Nahum also, and Habakkuk, and Zephaniah, <br />Haggai, then Zechariah, and Malachi. <br />All these are one. The second is of Isaiah. <br />Then the one called as an infant, Jeremiah, <br />Then Ezekiel, and the gift of Daniel. <br />I count therefore, twenty-two of the ancient books, <br />corresponding to the number of the Hebrew letters. <br /><b>And if there are any beyond these, they are not genuine.”</b></i> (Migne’s Patrologia Graeca, vol. 37, p. 471-474)<br /><br />Epiphanius, apologist and bishop of Salamis (320 – 403 AD), wrote:<br /><i>“By the time of the captives’ return from Babylon these Jews had acquired the following books and prophets, and the following books of the prophets: 1. Genesis. 2. Exodus. 3. Leviticus. 4. Numbers. 5. Deuteronomy. 6. The Book of Joshua the son of Nun. 7. The Book of the Judges. 8. Ruth. 9. Job. 10. The Psalter. 11. The Proverbs of Solomon. 12. Ecclesiastes. 13. The Song of Songs. 14. The First Book of Kings. 15. The Second Book of Kings. 16. The Third Book of Kings. 17. The Fourth Book of Kings. 18. The First Book of Chronicles. 19. The Second Book of Chronicles. 20. The Book of the Twelve Prophets. 21. The Prophet Isaiah. 22. The Prophet Jeremiah, with the Lamentations and the Epistles of Jeremiah and Baruch. 23. The Prophet Ezekiel. 24. The Prophet Daniel. 25. I Ezra. 26. II Ezra. 27. Esther. These are the twenty-seven books given the Jews by God. They are counted as twenty-two, however, like the letters of their Hebrew alphabet, because ten books which (Jews) reckon as five are double. But I have explained this clearly elsewhere. And they have two more books of disputed canonicity, the Wisdom of Sirach and the Wisdom of Solomon, apart from certain other apocrypha. All these sacred books taught (them) Judaism and Law’s observances till the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.”</i> (The Panarion, chap. VIII)Eric Richterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10531933890393277102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5423834967410731322.post-81512727294155447142013-04-22T12:52:15.573-04:002013-04-22T12:52:15.573-04:00Origen, who received the title of “Doctor of the C...Origen, who received the title of “Doctor of the Church”, wrote: <br /><i>“It should be stated that the canonical books, as the Hebrews have handed them down, are twenty-two; corresponding with the number of their letters: The twenty-two books of the Hebrews are the following: That which is called by us Genesis, but by the Hebrews, from the beginning of the book, Bresith, which means, ‘In the beginning’; Exodus, Welesmoth, that is, ‘These are the names’; Leviticus, Wikra, ‘And he called‘; Numbers, Ammesphekodeim; Deuteronomy, Eleaddebareim, ‘These are the words’; Jesus, the son of Nave, Josoue ben Noun; Judges and Ruth, among them in one book, Saphateim; the First and Second of Kings, among them one, Samouel, that is, ‘The called of God’; the Third and Fourth of Kings in one, Wammelch David, that is, ‘The kingdom of David’; of the Chronicles, the First and Second in one, Dabreïamein, that is, ‘Records of days’; Esdras, First and Second in one, Ezra, that is, ‘An assistant’ (It means Ezra and Nehemiah); the book of Psalms, Spharthelleim; the Proverbs of Solomon, Meloth; Ecclesiastes, Koelth; the Song of Songs, Sir Hassirim; Isaiah, Jessia; Jeremiah, with Lamentations and the epistle in one, Jeremia; Daniel, Daniel; Ezekiel, Jezekiel; Job, Job; Esther, Esther. And besides these there are the Maccabees, which are entitled Sarbeth Sabanaiel.”</i> (The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, series II, vol. I, p. 272)<br />Origen did not include the Apocrypha into his list. The mention of Maccabeus does not mean an acknowledgment of their canonicity, because they are mentioned aside of the list and not included in the list of twenty-two books. <br /><br />The Synod of Laodicea (364 AD), which met bishop from Minor Asia, stated I its Canon LX:<br /><i>“These are all the books of Old Testament appointed to be read: 1, Genesis of the world; 2, The Exodus from Egypt; 3, Leviticus; 4, Numbers; 5, Deuteronomy; 6, Joshua, the son of Nun; 7, Judges, Ruth; 8, Esther; 9, Of the Kings, First and Second; 10, Of the Kings, Third and Fourth; 11, Chronicles, First and Second; 12, Esdras, First and Second; 13, The Book of Psalms; 14, The Proverbs of Solomon; 15, Ecclesiastes; 16, The Song of Songs; 17, Job; 18, The Twelve Prophets; 19, Isaiah; 20, Jeremiah, and Baruch, the Lamentations, and the Epistle; 21, Ezekiel; 22, Daniel.”</i> (The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series II, Vol XIV, p. 125)<br />Into this list the Apocrypha is not included, except for Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah.<br /><br />Cyril, bishop of Jerusalem, wrote: <br /><i>“And of the Old Testament, as we have said, study the two and twenty books, which, if thou art desirous of learning, strive to remember by name, as I recite them. For of the Law the books of Moses are the first five, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. And next, Joshua the son of Nave, and the book of Judges, including Ruth, counted as seventh. And of the other historical books, the first and second books of the Kings are among the Hebrews one book; also the third and fourth one book. And in like manner, the first and second of Chronicles are with them one book; and the first and second of Esdras are counted one. Esther is the twelfth book; and these are the Historical writings. But those which are written in verses are five, Job, and the book of Psalms, and Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs, which is the seventeenth book. And after these come the five Prophetic books: of the Twelve Prophets one book, of Isaiah one, of Jeremiah one, including Baruch and Lamentations and the Epistle; then Ezekiel, and the Book of Daniel, the twenty-second of the Old Testament.</i> (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series II, Vol. 114, p. 159)<br />Again the Apocrypha is ignored as canonical Scripture, except for Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah. These books seem to be very valued in the East Church.Eric Richterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10531933890393277102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5423834967410731322.post-81243041302775464092013-04-22T12:40:19.103-04:002013-04-22T12:40:19.103-04:00You wrote
You are confusing argument and opinion w...You wrote<br /><i>You are confusing argument and opinion with actions. St. Jerome argued against including the seven books into the canon but when asked by the pope to include them he obeyed. Obedience is the ultimate proof of Catholicism rather than what a person's opinion is. Many, many Protestants assume that theological arguments from Catholics means something more than it does. It is the submission to God's authorities that shows what one really believes. St. Jerome was very Catholic. He obeyed and translated the seven books. I cannot believe you would even include Athanasius and Cyril in you list. Again, these men were fully Catholic in all they did, even if they didn't agree with the canon as decided by the church, they accepted the canon. </i><br />Athanasius (an egyptian bishop) was the first person in the History who accepted the current biblical canon of NT. He listed the 27 books of the New Testament as the canonical Scripture. At Rome, and many others places, apocryphal books were accepted as canonical. The Athanasius’ canon is the currently accepted by the most of Christianity.<br /><i>“There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews; their respective order and names being as follows. The first is Genesis, then Exodus, next Leviticus, after that Numbers, and then Deuteronomy. Following these there is Joshua, the son of Nun, then Judges, then Ruth. And again, after these four books of Kings, the first and second being reckoned as one book, and so likewise the third and fourth as one book. And again, the first and second of the Chronicles are reckoned as one book. Again Ezra, the first and second are similarly one book. After these there is the book of Psalms, then the Proverbs, next Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. Job follows, then the Prophets, the twelve being reckoned as one book. Then Isaiah, one book, then Jeremiah with Baruch, Lamentations, and the epistle, one book; afterwards, Ezekiel and Daniel, each one book. Thus far constitutes the Old Testament. […]But for greater exactness I add this also, writing of necessity; that there are other books besides these <b>not indeed included in the Canon</b>, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd.”</i> (The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series II, Vol. IVV, p. 552)<br />There were others Father of the Church that also denied the canonicity of the Apocrypha. <br />Melito, philosopher and bishop of Sardis, wrote a <i>“catalogue of the acknowledged books of the Old Testament”</i> in one of his books:<br /><i>“Of Moses, five books: Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, Deuteronomy; Jesus Nave (Joshua), Judges, Ruth; of Kings, four books (two of Samuel and tow of Kings); of Chronicles, two; the Psalms of David, the Proverbs of Solomon, Wisdom also (the original text said “Book of Proverbs”, so the texts remains ambiguous), Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Job; of Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah; of the twelve prophets, one book; Daniel, Ezekiel, Esdras (in which Nehemiah was included).”</i> (The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, series II, vol. I, p. 205)<br />As you can see, the canon of this Church Father its almost identical to the Palestinian Canon. The omission of Esther maybe is caused by the male chauvinism that prevailed among the first Christians and the rejection of its canonicity by many Jews. The insertion of Wisdom is probably caused by an confusion of the original greek text.<br />It’s necessary to say that Eusebius recorded a travel of Melito to Palestine in order to identify the books recognized as canonical by the Jews.<br />Eric Richterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10531933890393277102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5423834967410731322.post-53701927401376170602013-04-12T11:56:12.546-04:002013-04-12T11:56:12.546-04:00This is the problem.
After the Reformation a few...This is the problem. <br /><br />After the Reformation a few British and French groups (very, very tiny groups) were reading the Bible for themselves and they began to believe that the Ten Commandments were binding for Christians (and this is because the Catholic church refers to the Ten Commandments in their catechism for instructional reasons as a "discipline" which means instructional rather than dogma). So when these few people read them they realized that Sunday was being kept more like Sabbath than Saturday. So they decided to start keeping the Jewish Sabbath completely misunderstanding the New Covenant. <br /><br />The story is much more complex (get my book www.amazon.com) and you can read the whole thing.... <br /><br />But in the end, the idea of a Sunday Sabbath came from Calvinists (not Calvin) during the 16th century and didn't catch on ever until the SDAs came around. They misread history, the Catholic Church and scripture. <br /><br />Constantine never changed the Sabbath. Christians worshipped daily and many rested on Sabbath for many centuries in the east. And it is ironic that Constantine moved the Empire's capital to the EAST--so if he was trying to stamp out Sabbath rest, he certainly didn't do a good job. Which Constantine changing the Sabbath to Sunday is pure SDA fiction anyway. <br /><br />But please don't get me wrong. Adventists are not purposefully repeating myth and are not culpable for any wrong doing. They just need to be courageous enough to research history without fear of being deceived. <br /><br />God bless you Eric and I am impressed that you are doing so much research into this. God promised that if we seek with ALL our hearts we will find... I know it is true in my life. We just also need to be humble as we seek. (Not preaching at you but myself!)<br />Arthur and Teresa Beemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09759876885743015082noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5423834967410731322.post-48472639949366971782013-04-12T11:43:38.969-04:002013-04-12T11:43:38.969-04:00Eric wrote:
I also gave you quotes from historian...Eric wrote:<br /><br />I also gave you quotes from historians that prove the coexistence of the Sabbath and Sunday as far as the fifth century.<br /><br />My response: <br /><br />You should read my book, "It's Okay NOT to be a Seventh-day Adventist" because for ten chapters I laid out the history of Sabbath keeping and carefully documented how the idea of a Sunday Sabbath came about. You are correct and this is why Adventism cannot be. <br /><br />The western church for various reasons quit observing the Saturday rest early on. Perhaps it was because so many soldiers and slaves became Christian and they couldn't rest on Saturday. But it was not because they were breaking a commandment for Paul clearly told them that keeping any day holy was up to the local church or even the person. Rest or not rest on SAbbath--don't judge and follow your conscience. Well soldiers and slaves aren't at liberty to follow their conscience even if they did believe sabbath rest was still necessary. So the bishops of the west worshipped daily and no longer rested on Sabbath. <br /><br />The eastern part of the Empire was different (we think it is because of St. John--he had been the youngest disciples and perhaps was the least likely to feel he had the authority to tell people they didn't have to rest on Sabbath). In any case, the east was more traditional. They rested on Sabbath (guess they had more liberty!) and kept Passover on the exact date as the Jews (something that caused a huge problem with the western church and indeed the weekly sabbath rest didn't. This proves that the weekly sabbath rest issue wasn't important or their would have been a huge fight like the Easter/Passover Sabbath did. )<br /><br />Today we have the weekend because the eastern part of Christianity rested on Sabbath and celebrated the Lord's Day on Sunday. There was no confusion over which day was Sabbath. Nowhere in Christendom for the first 1500 years was there any confusion that Sunday was Sabbath. In all Latin languages and you can hear at the Vatican TODAY the world "Sabbath/Sabbato" for Saturday. They never changed the word for Sunday into Sabbath nor have they ever even in their minds. <br /><br /><br />Arthur and Teresa Beemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09759876885743015082noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5423834967410731322.post-76597871310378751352013-04-12T11:29:21.193-04:002013-04-12T11:29:21.193-04:00Chapter 9. Let us live with Christ
If, therefore,...Chapter 9. Let us live with Christ<br /><br />If, therefore, those who were brought up in the ancient order of things have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord's Day, on which also our life has sprung up again by Him and by His death....<br /><br />COMMENT: The two sources I have on this contain the word's "The Lord's Day" perhaps you have a different translation. I don't know... <br /><br />But if we look at the passage in context I think it will be obvious that it is rejecting Sabbaths rather than supporting them. I am pasting the entire Chapter 10 below and it says nothing about Sabbaths... so perhaps you wrote down the wrong source....<br /><br /><br />Chapter 10. Beware of Judaizing<br /><br />Let us not, therefore, be insensible to His kindness. For were He to reward us according to our works, we should cease to be. Therefore, having become His disciples, let us learn to live according to the principles of Christianity. For whosoever is called by any other name besides this, is not of God. Lay aside, therefore, the evil, the old, the sour leaven, and be changed into the new leaven, which is Jesus Christ. Be salted in Him, lest any one among you should be corrupted, since by your savour you shall be convicted. It is absurd to profess Christ Jesus, and to Judaize. For Christianity did not embrace Judaism, but Judaism Christianity, that so every tongue which believes might be gathered together to God.<br /><br />Arthur and Teresa Beemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09759876885743015082noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5423834967410731322.post-32199443780529691492013-04-12T11:22:45.460-04:002013-04-12T11:22:45.460-04:00Chapter 6. Preserve harmony
...I exhort you to st...Chapter 6. Preserve harmony<br /><br />...I exhort you to study to do all things with a divine harmony, while your bishop presides in the place of God, and your presbyters in the place of the assembly of the apostles, along with your deacons, who are most dear to me, and are entrusted with the ministry of Jesus Christ... Let nothing exist among you that may divide you; but be united with your bishop, and those that preside over you, as a type and evidence of your immortality.<br /><br />COMMENT: What church today teaches that being in union with the bishops is an evidence of immortality and that that divisions in the church are evil? <br /><br /><br />Chapter 7. Do nothing without the bishop and presbyters<br /><br />As therefore the Lord did nothing without the Father, being united to Him, neither by Himself nor by the apostles, so neither do anything without the bishop and presbyters. Neither endeavour that anything appear reasonable and proper to yourselves apart; but being come together into the same place, let there be one prayer, one supplication, one mind, one hope, in love and in joy undefiled. There is one Jesus Christ, than whom nothing is more excellent. Therefore run together as into one temple of God, as to one altar, as to one Jesus Christ, who came forth from one Father, and is with and has gone to one.<br /><br /><br />COMMENT: What church today still teaches that there is but ONE altar, one church, and one temple and that Christianity must remain united under the Apostles, bishops and priests?Arthur and Teresa Beemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09759876885743015082noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5423834967410731322.post-6037650491848902052013-04-12T11:17:29.593-04:002013-04-12T11:17:29.593-04:00Let us examine Ignatius' Letter to the Magnesi...Let us examine Ignatius' Letter to the Magnesian church and see what church is most resembles: <br /><br />Chapter 3. Honour your youthful bishop<br /><br />...yield him all reverence, having respect to the power of God the Father, as I have known even holy presbyters do ...submitting to him, or rather not to him, but to the Father of Jesus Christ, the bishop of us all. ...obey [your bishop], in honour of Him who has willed us [so to do], since he that does not so deceives not [by such conduct] the bishop that is visible, but seeks to mock Him that is invisible. And all such conduct has reference not to man, but to God, who knows all secrets.<br /><br /><br />COMMENT: What church today continues to teach that one must submit, obey and reverence its bishops as if they are God?<br /><br /><br />Chapter 4. Some wickedly act independently of the bishop<br /><br />It is fitting, then, not only to be called Christians, but to be so in reality: as some indeed give one the title of bishop, but do all things without him. Now such persons seem to me to be not possessed of a good conscience, seeing they are not stedfastly gathered together according to the commandment.<br /><br /><br />COMMENT: What church today continues to teach that one must do nothing without the bishop? (in a moral and liturgical sense.)<br /><br /><br />Arthur and Teresa Beemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09759876885743015082noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5423834967410731322.post-21250053895619810202013-04-12T11:07:21.111-04:002013-04-12T11:07:21.111-04:00Eric wrote:
In a matter of fact, the apocrypha ex...Eric wrote: <br />In a matter of fact, the apocrypha explicitly contradict other texts of the Bible. If we gonna believe in the apocrypha we need to believe that the Inspiration is divided. <br /><br />My response:<br /><br />This is again where Catholicism shows its genius and its foundation in the supernatural God who wrote Scripture. When there is a hierarchy in scripture it solves all the seemingly divided and contradictory passages. God inspired the text and the compilation by the Church and God inspires the interpretation through His Church. When Jesus makes a statement that seems to contradict what Paul wrote... say on works vs. faith... (Jesus said we are judged by how we helped the least of these, Paul says we are saved by faith) we choose to see Paul's writings interpreted through the lens of the gospels. We see that Jesus is telling us what faith looks like, Jesus is DEFINING faith for us. We actually understand Paul better when we see his writings through the words of Christ. Often Protestants reverse that and try to make sense of Jesus through the lens of Paul.<br /><br />While Protestants fumble and seem disoriented about Jesus words to be perfect, and judgment by works, they have tried to solve the problem by splitting the idea of faith and works. They have divided what God had joined together. Catholics have ALWAYS taught faith and works were "one flesh." As James wrote, "faith without works is dead." Faith has a body and a spirit to be alive--belief IS acting out on that belief. We allow faith and works to be two sides of the same coin and that explains Jesus' words about judgement. <br /><br />So any contradiction you may think you see in the deuterocanonical writings is just a simply misunderstanding about priority in interpretation. See them through the lens of the Catholic Church and the mistakes clear up like a target shooter going from one eye to two....<br />Arthur and Teresa Beemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09759876885743015082noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5423834967410731322.post-81555736927274226952013-04-12T10:50:52.161-04:002013-04-12T10:50:52.161-04:00Eric wrote:
We cannot accuse the protestant of re...Eric wrote: <br />We cannot accuse the protestant of removing books from the Bible for rejected the apocryphal. If we do that therefore need to accuse the same to Hilary of Potiers, Saint Jerome, Athanasius of Alexandria, Cyril of Jerusalem, Tome of Aquino, Gregorius I and many others. <br />In a matter of fact, the apocrypha explicitly contradict other texts of the Bible. If we gonna believe in the apocrypha we need to believe that the Inspiration is divided. <br /><br />My response: <br /><br />You are confusing argument and opinion with actions. St. Jerome argued against including the seven books into the canon but when asked by the pope to include them he obeyed. Obedience is the ultimate proof of Catholicism rather than what a person's opinion is. Many, many Protestants assume that theological arguments from Catholics means something more than it does. It is the submission to God's authorities that shows what one really believes. St. Jerome was very Catholic. He obeyed and translated the seven books. I cannot believe you would even include Athanasius and Cyril in you list. Again, these men were fully Catholic in all they did, even if they didn't agree with the canon as decided by the church, they accepted the canon. <br /><br />One other insight that might help you understand Catholicism. Protestants are raised in this culture of equality and it effects ALL their assessments even without realizing it. Catholics are hierarchical more like the Jews. To the Jews Torah is the most holy of the writings. The prophets were of lesser status, even though inspired by God. Catholics have always set the four gospels above all scripture. We see the rest of scripture THROUGH the eyes of the four gospel writers. We understand the Old Testament through the life of Jesus not the other way around. The gospels are our "holy of holies" and then comes the writings of Paul and the letters... This is true of the Old Testament. These deuterocanonical books the Protestants removed were always of less importance to the Old Testament. They were never considered as inspired and holy as the Pentateuch. Yet, they were still the infallible Word of God. <br /><br />When reading argumentation of the early church over these writings, often they are not speaking of a "either they are inspired or they are not" but rather they were arguing on HOW inspired they were. The debate wasn't about if but about degree. <br /><br />But we must understand that these men, though they might have disagreements about doctrines, the fact that there ARE disagreements is a blessing to us because they left a paper trail. This paper trail shows us how the doctrine DID develop and that these men DID NOT abandon the church when they didn't get their way over theology. They submitted BECAUSE they knew God was leading the church. They did not break off for conscience sake and begin a new church. They understood unity was more important than individual opinion. <br /><br />That speaks volumes about their faith in Christ's church.<br />Arthur and Teresa Beemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09759876885743015082noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5423834967410731322.post-78717309911978841182013-04-11T19:39:54.883-04:002013-04-11T19:39:54.883-04:00Well, I didn’t say that the Christians only worshi...Well, I didn’t say that the Christians only worship on Saturday. There’s nothing wrong in worship on Sunday. Not even Adventist worship only in Sabbath, we also gather together in others days (even Sunday) to worship God. What is wrong is keep as holy another day than Saturday. A primary text is the statement of Ignatius of Antioch, who exhorted the asian Christians to observed the Sabbath according Jesus’ example. That is, not following the jew traditions, but making the Holy Sabbath a blessing to the man. (Epistle of Magnesias, chap. X). This quote comes from the beginning of the Second Century. It’s earlier that any quote about Sunday.<br />I also gave you quotes from historians that prove the coexistence of the Sabbath and Sunday as far as the fifth century.<br /><br />I don’t believe that the christians should to be vegetarian. I am one, but I believe (along with E.G.W.) that to eat or not to eat meat is not a salvation issue. Jesus wasn’t vegetarian, and I have no knowledge if some early christian was one. <br />The Bible is very clear recommending do not drink alcohol. Even who wanted to be ecclesiastical authorities should avoid alcohol drinks (Titus 1:7; 2:3; 1 Timothy 3:3)<br />I never found a single text in the NT which forbids the levitical food restrictions. Even Peter, the alleged first pope, was keeping them years after Christ’s Death (Acts 10:14).<br /><br />I have never said that God abandoned His Church. What I said is that His church abandoned God’s doctrines, becoming into a renegade people. Jesus Himself stated:<br /><i>“Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;”</i> (John 8:31 KJV)<br />This apostasy change wasn’t abrupt but gradual instead. Some groups denounced the apostasy of Christians. I’ll give an example: At the beginning of the third century the Montanists (a prophetic movement) arose. Tertullian joined this group tired of seeing the relaxed live of clergy. Sadly, the Montanists became itself in a heretical sect.<br /><br />I have never seen a single text in the NT which claimed that the judgment started at the times of the Apostles. Would you be as kind as show me some?<br /><br />I think that the early church liturgy (First and Second century) is complete different compared with the liturgy of every modern churches. The theology of early Christians was quite different of our modern christian theology. They were focused in the daily life and the good deeds and the propagation of Gospel. They were preaching to pagans and healing sick persons and feeding poor persons. Many apologists said that Christians’ behavior was the best argument against the pagan idea which said that they were dangerous. <br />I don’t think that the Adventism theology matches perfectly with the theology of early Christians. But it’s closer than the catholic theology.<br />Eric Richterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10531933890393277102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5423834967410731322.post-17605827792711650712013-04-11T19:39:33.218-04:002013-04-11T19:39:33.218-04:00I agree with you that most Church Fathers had diff...I agree with you that most Church Fathers had different opinions concerning doctrines and interpretations. But they agreed in some things. The papal supremacy was one of these topics where the most of them were agreed in something. Most early christian writers denied that primacy of Rome. A lot of bishops and councils disagreed with the Bishop of Rome and even disobeyed his orders. <br />I don’t understand why so many Catholics believe in the primacy of Rome and the papal infallibility, when the History shows us clearly that these are not more that myths.<br /><br />I think that the apocryphal and pseudo-epigraphical writings are valid historical sources, but only in their context. If some book -that contains some particular doctrine- was rejected, then I should believe that a small minority of christians believe that particular doctrine, but the most of Christians rejected it. Therefore, if this particular doctrine was considered as heretical, it should be not support by us. <br />The first two hundred of Christianity were entirely different to the current Roman Church. Not only in theological aspects but in liturgical too. There’s no mention of candles, incense, altars, priesthood, etc. until the third century. The oldest church (I mean the building) is from the third century. Before that time, Christians gather themselves in houses.<br /><br /><br />I have realized that the interpretation of Peter as the “rock” in which the Church has been founded is very ancient (although some important catholic theologian have rejected). I did not know that. But this is an “interpretation issue”. Despite theoretically many early fathers considered Peter as the most important apostle, they did not assigned to the bishop of Rome the same role of Peter. In practice early bishop did not pay obedience to the bishop of Rome and some councils took decisions opposite to the roman decisions. Papal primacy doesn’t have precedents in early Christianity.<br /><br /><br />The Apocrypha<br />Jerome did not accept the deuterocanonical books as inspired. He wrote:<br /><i>“As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it read these two volumes for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church”</i> (Prefaces to Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs; in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, series II, vol. VI, p. 492)<br />This is a very clear statement.<br />I must to say that the current catholic canon wasn’t decided till one thousand five hundred years after Christ. The Council of Trent had place when the Catholic Church was under attack from the Reformation. The Protestants accused the Catholics of having unbiblical doctrines. But the apocryphal books had texts that could be used for support the catholic doctrines. That’s why the Council affirms their canonicity. <br />We cannot accuse the protestant of removing books from the Bible for rejected the apocryphal. If we do that therefore need to accuse the same to Hilary of Potiers, Saint Jerome, Athanasius of Alexandria, Cyril of Jerusalem, Tome of Aquino, Gregorius I and many others. <br />In a matter of fact, the apocrypha explicitly contradict other texts of the Bible. If we gonna believe in the apocrypha we need to believe that the Inspiration is divided. <br /><br />Eric Richterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10531933890393277102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5423834967410731322.post-7860903388854495252013-04-09T11:21:10.545-04:002013-04-09T11:21:10.545-04:00Okay Eric,
Please show me in Christian history f...Okay Eric, <br /><br />Please show me in Christian history from primary texts where the early church DID NOT worship daily with a special observance of Sunday as the day of the Resurrection? Is there any proof whatsoever from primary sources that the early church ONLY worshipped on Saturday and rejected worshipping on Sunday? <br /><br />Please show me in any primary Christian history sources where the church taught that vegetarianism was to be followed or that the Levitical food restrictions were still to be kept or that wine was not to be drunk? <br /><br />Please show me in any primary Christian history sources where a Christian prophet taught that the Lord would abandon His Church contradicting the promise He made to her when He said, "I will never leave or forsake you," or "I will be with you to the end of the age." Where in scripture or Christian history is there any prophet raised up to warn people of the Catholic Church's apostasy? (A prophetical warning BEFORE it happened....as Christ always does with true prophets.)<br /><br />Please show me in any primary source where the early church believed that the investigative judgment was coming later... especially when scripture records that judgment started at the time of the Apostles. <br /><br />Please show me in any primary source where the early Christians believed that the Sabbath would one day be a test and that it would one day be required. <br /><br />Please show me some proof that early Christianity resembled Adventism? From early Christian sources themselves...<br /><br />There are none. There were some heretical groups that resembled some of Adventism like the Ebionites and the Montanists, but they were thoroughly heretical in many of their beliefs and I doubt Adventists would want to tie themselves to those groups in any way. <br /><br />The historical facts are that the early Christians believed what Catholics believe even if they were in seed form. Early Christianity in almost no way resembled today's Protestantism neither in liturgy, practice or theology. <br /><br />If you disagree please show me in primary sources...<br /><br />Thanks for all your work. Know that I never get emotional in any way with debates or discussions. Jesus called us to reason together and this we are obliged to do! See a smile of Christian love at the end of each line! God bless, <br />TeresaArthur and Teresa Beemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09759876885743015082noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5423834967410731322.post-28426415127660404852013-04-09T11:01:59.803-04:002013-04-09T11:01:59.803-04:00As far as the Eusebius quote I got it from a:
http...As far as the Eusebius quote I got it from a:<br />http://www.catholic.com/tracts/peters-primacy<br /><br />The problem is that quote is from the original in Latin of "The Chronicles"... so I don't have a English primary source....Arthur and Teresa Beemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09759876885743015082noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5423834967410731322.post-70728676662828845142013-04-09T10:47:14.352-04:002013-04-09T10:47:14.352-04:00Okay to a different point: The Apocrypha.
First ...Okay to a different point: The Apocrypha. <br /><br />First the word meant many different writings back then. So when Jerome or anyone from that timeframe uses the word, you have to research to know which books they were speaking of. <br /><br />Secondly, St. Augustine and St. Jerome fought about which books were to be in scripture. Even though St. Jerome argued for the Hebrew Old Testament, he eventually relented and translated the Septuagint. He was obedient to Rome and the word of Pope Damasus for in the end, he knew who to be respectful of and was thoroughly Catholic. The Latin Vulgate was and still is the basis for most of Christianity's Bibles. Some of the Reformers took out the seven books they did not agree with. Jerome didn't do that... What if we all started removing books from the Bible we don't find inspirational or agrees with our theology? What a mess! We have to trust God knew what He was doing when the Bible canon was formed or Protestants have no Bible!!<br /><br /><br />Arthur and Teresa Beemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09759876885743015082noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5423834967410731322.post-80361862272091542562013-04-09T10:38:50.125-04:002013-04-09T10:38:50.125-04:00And:
Council of Ephesus
"Philip, presbyter ...And: <br />Council of Ephesus<br /><br />"Philip, presbyter and legate of [Pope Celestine I] said: ‘We offer our thanks to the holy and venerable synod, that when the writings of our holy and blessed pope had been read to you . . . you joined yourselves to the holy head also by your holy acclamations. For your blessednesses is not ignorant that the head of the whole faith, the head of the apostles, is blessed Peter the apostle’" (Acts of the Council, session 2 [A.D. 431]). <br /><br />"Philip, the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See [Rome] said: ‘There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors’" (ibid., session 3). Arthur and Teresa Beemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09759876885743015082noreply@blogger.com