-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
- Status
OK.....this is kool and a wonderful way of looking at the concepoion.........But
Mary magdaline and John were at most of those aswell (with the exception of The Wedding at Cana&The Finding of the Child Jesus in the temple )Do you pray to them aswell or d they hold the same signifigance in the church?Elizabeth the mother f John the baptist as equally chosen to cary a child(The voice crying in the wilderness to anounce the birth of messiah)Why does she not hold the same esteem?
Saul intreated the dead spirit of Samuel and was punished for it.1Sam.28:9-20
Why would Christ Jesus do this same thing on the mount of transfiguration?Or do you feel we as people can intreat the dead without familiar spirits?
It was a common practice that the Romans would crucify people in odd positions for sport.This could be more of a reason for the inverted crucifixion of Peter moreso than the former conclusion,since the sentenced had no rights to dictate how they died,The Romans held that right exclusivly.
The restI have no idea of where it came from .........nor do I dare coment on.....
Mary magdaline and John were at most of those aswell (with the exception of The Wedding at Cana&The Finding of the Child Jesus in the temple )Do you pray to them aswell or d they hold the same signifigance in the church?Elizabeth the mother f John the baptist as equally chosen to cary a child(The voice crying in the wilderness to anounce the birth of messiah)Why does she not hold the same esteem?
Saul intreated the dead spirit of Samuel and was punished for it.1Sam.28:9-20
Why would Christ Jesus do this same thing on the mount of transfiguration?Or do you feel we as people can intreat the dead without familiar spirits?
It was a common practice that the Romans would crucify people in odd positions for sport.This could be more of a reason for the inverted crucifixion of Peter moreso than the former conclusion,since the sentenced had no rights to dictate how they died,The Romans held that right exclusivly.
The restI have no idea of where it came from .........nor do I dare coment on.....
You have a great zeal for the truth. Why don't you go on the streets and share the gospel of Jesus Christ with them. You may just run into some who are Catholics on the street. The gospel of grace through Jesus Christ is the only gospel that can save them. Most of them will not have the understanding you do, but you will have the love of God motivating you to share with them the simplicity that is in believing Christ and Him crucified. Most of them have no idea about grace and the simple faith of believing in the name of Christ. If you brought up what was wrong in their faith you would probably lose them right away. Look how creative Jesus Christ was with the Samaritan woman at the well in (John 4:1-26).
Love is creative and it looks upon the heart. So when you minister to people discern their heart because God may have prepared them just to hear what you have to say. Even if they say they believe that Christ paid for their sins, you can always ask them what is stopping them from believing that in their heart by grace and through faith. If they believe because of their own works then you tell them that God does not require any works on their part except to believe. Then you can show them it is okay to be a good person but God only requires faith in His Son and what He did on the cross for them, for salvation which includes the forgiveness of all their sin. Tell them that heaven is only filled with people who have believed and trusted Christ for their salvation.
What you have done, even though they have not responded by faith, is to plant a precious seed of faith that the Holy Spirit can use to draw them to Himself. Remember, no man cometh unto the Father except He draw them (John 6:44). This is only been a suggestion and by no means am I telling you what to do. I am sure that you will be lead of God in these things and be given grace to fulfill the great commission in the will of God. I am for you and not against you.
Love is creative and it looks upon the heart. So when you minister to people discern their heart because God may have prepared them just to hear what you have to say. Even if they say they believe that Christ paid for their sins, you can always ask them what is stopping them from believing that in their heart by grace and through faith. If they believe because of their own works then you tell them that God does not require any works on their part except to believe. Then you can show them it is okay to be a good person but God only requires faith in His Son and what He did on the cross for them, for salvation which includes the forgiveness of all their sin. Tell them that heaven is only filled with people who have believed and trusted Christ for their salvation.
What you have done, even though they have not responded by faith, is to plant a precious seed of faith that the Holy Spirit can use to draw them to Himself. Remember, no man cometh unto the Father except He draw them (John 6:44). This is only been a suggestion and by no means am I telling you what to do. I am sure that you will be lead of God in these things and be given grace to fulfill the great commission in the will of God. I am for you and not against you.
P
It seems in 1Sam.28:9-20 that Saul is not being punished for intreating Samuel, rather he is being punished for failing to perform God's will. Also , asking for the Saints prayers is not quite the same as what Saul even did there. We don't ask the saints to "re appear" before us as spirits or seek out there advice once we have gone against the Lord. Rather we ask them to pray for us just as you ask your neighbor to pray for you. We are not entreating the dead because they are not dead but are alive in Christ. We are all part of the Body of Christ, all the Baptized believers that is.
In the Eastern Churches, we hold John the Baptist in very great esteem as well as his mother. Not as much as Mary, the Theotokos, but all esteem given to Mary is based off of the fact that she gave her will over to God in an action that lead directly to the salvation of mankind.
In the Eastern Churches, we hold John the Baptist in very great esteem as well as his mother. Not as much as Mary, the Theotokos, but all esteem given to Mary is based off of the fact that she gave her will over to God in an action that lead directly to the salvation of mankind.
S
Catholic or Orthodox , so there are two churches now ? Oh what division! Look at the division in the Church. I thought you said there was one church.
Clarky, if you are a Roman Catholic, according to a website which you probably quoted for the above list of dates, your church was formed in 1054 when the Pope of Rome considered himself to be the universal head of the Church...
quote
http://www.stjoseph-standrew.org/age.html
Lamentably, in 1054, the Pope of Rome broke away from the other four Apostolic Patriarchates (Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem), by unilaterally altering the original Creed of the Church and considering himself to be the universal head of the Church. Thus, your church was founded in the year 1054.[/quo
Not quite
The (Filioque) is a combination of Latin words meaning "and from the Son," added to the Nicene Creed by the Third Council of Toledo in 589:
Credo in Spiritum Sanctum qui ex patre filioque procedit ("I believe in the Holy Spirit who proceeds from the Father and Son"). It refers to the doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son.
The Spanish councils intended to condemn Arianism by reaffirming the Son's divinity.
The dogma of the procession either from the "Father" or from the "Father and the Son" did not create much difficulty at all during the course of the first four centuries.
If the double Procession of the Holy Ghost was discussed at all in those earlier times, the controversy was restricted to the East and was of short duration.
Many Latin and Greek Fathers (beginning with St. Hilary, St. Basil, Diogenus, and St. John Damascene), certainly prepared the way for the introduction into the creed of that formula referring to the Holy Spirit as one who "proceeds from the Father and the Son."
Tertullian, Origen, Maximus, Gregory The Wonderworker, Hilary, Didymus, Epiphanius, Basil, Ambrose of Milan, Gregory of Nyssa, Augustine, Cyril, Fulgence, the Council of Toledo, and The Athanasian Creed were in agreement.
It was assailed vehemently by Photius, the patriarch of Constantinople in 867 and 879. The Eastern church did not accept the addition on two distinct grounds:
(1) The addition was made (unilaterally), altering a creed approved by early ecumenical councils; and
(2) The formula reflected a particular Western conception of the Trinity, to which most Byzantine theologians objected.
The Nicene Creed was originally adopted by the First Council of Nicaea in AD 325. Let us remember (all of the bishops at this council were from the east), save one from Spain.
Most works attribute the (authorization) of the creed in use by the Eastern Church today to the Council of Constantinople in 381.
However, there is no actual (authentic) evidence that this version of the creed was accepted by this council. Also, (all of the bishops present at this council were from the east).
It should also be noted that Gregory of Nazianzus openly discussed the procession of the Spirit equally from the Father and the Son at this council.
In 589, at the Third Council of Toledo (at which, apparently, no eastern bishops were present), the word (filioque) was first inserted into the creed.
This change was motivated by an ancient western creed called the Quicunque vult (the Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son, not made or created or begotten, but proceeding) and the teachings of Augustine.
Later, in the early 800s, Pope Leo III approved the filioque doctrine, but insisted that the creed remain (unchanged).
Historically, the first denial of the double Procession of the Holy Ghost we find in the seventh century among the heretics of Constantinople when St. Martin I (649-655), in his synodal writing against the Monothelites, employed the expression "Filioque".
The next significant event with respect to the Nicean creed occurred in AD 784 with Tarasius’ (patriarch of Constantinople) addition of the words ‘through the Son’ to the creed.
This addition was contained in his profession of faith, and the change was accepted by the second council of Nicaea in 787.
Also, the (Filioque) of the West became an occasion for a schism which had already been actuated by Photius (882), which was consummated and extended to almost all the Christian East in 1054.
The Creed of Constantinople (at first) declared only the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father because it was directed against the followers of Macedonius who denied the Procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father.
In the East, the omission of Filioque did not lead to any misunderstanding. But conditions were different in Spain after the Goths had renounced Arianism and professed the Catholic faith in the Third Synod of Toledo, 589.
It cannot be acertained who first added the Filioque to the Creed; but it appears to be certain that the Creed, with the addition of the Filioque, was first sung in the Spanish Church after the conversion of the Goths.
In 796 the Patriarch of Aquileia justified and adopted the same addition at the Synod of Friaul, and in 809 the Council of Aachen appears to have approved of it.
The decrees of this last council were examined by Pope Leo III, who approved of the doctrine conveyed by the Filioque, but gave the advice to omit the expression in the Creed.
The practice of adding the Filioque was retained in spite of the papal advice, and in the middle of the eleventh century it had gained a firm foothold in Rome itself.
Scholars do not agree as to the exact time of its introduction into Rome, but most assign it to the reign of Benedict VIII (1014-15).
Efforts to reunite the Eastern and Western churches began with the Council of Lyons in 1274 and continued with the Council of Florence in 1434 (both councils authorized the word filioque).
The Catholic doctrine was accepted by the Greek deputies who were present at the Second Council of Florence, in 1439, when the Creed was sung both in Greek and Latin, with the addition of the word (Filioque).
On each occasion it was hoped that the Patriarch of Constantinople and his subjects had abandoned the state of heresy and schism in which they had been living since the time of Photius, who about 870 found in the Filioque an (EXCUSE) for throwing off all dependence on Rome.
The Councils of Lyons and Florence did not require the Greeks to insert the Filioque into the Creed, but only to accept the Catholic doctrine of the double Procession of the Holy Ghost.
At the Council of Florence, a vigorous discussion erupted between the eastern and western bishops over words spoken by Basil claiming that the Spirit proceeded from the Father and the Son.
After much debate, the eastern delegates accepted the filioque addition to the creed (at least in the west), and made other concessions. The following quote summarizes:
"The council of Ferrara, which was transferred to Florence in 1439, witnessed protracted discussion between Greeks and Latins, in which as a final result (the primacy of the Pope) was accepted in vague terms, which seemed to preserve the rights of the Eastern patriarchs, the Greeks retained their peculiarities of worship and priestly marriage, while the disputed (filioque clause) of the creed was acknowledged by the Greeks, though with the understanding that they would not add it to the ancient symbol".
At the Council of Florence (1439) when the Latins stated the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son they did not mean to exclude that the Father is the source and the principle of all divinity, that is, of the Son and the Holy Spirit.
Nor did they wish to deny that the Son learned from the Father that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son; nor do they hold that there are two principles or (two spirations). They asserted that one only is the principle and one only the spiration of the Holy Spirit.
The problems on the order of terminology were resolved and the intentions clarified, to the extent that each party, the Greeks and the Latins, during the sixth session (July 6, 1439) were able to sign this common definition:
"In the name of the Holy Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, with the approval of this sacred and universal Council of Florence, we establish that this truth of faith must be believed and accepted by all Christians and thus all must profess that the Holy Spirit is eternally of (the Father and the Son), that he has his existence and his subsistent being from the Father and the Son together, and that he proceeds eternally from the one and from the other as from a single principle and from a single spiration."
There is an additional clarification to which St. Thomas had devoted an article of the Summa (Ultrum Spiritus Sanctus Procedat a Patre Per Filium).
"We declare," said the Council, "what the holy Doctors and Fathers stated that is, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son tends to make understandable and means that the Son too, like the Father, is the cause, as the Greeks say, and the principle, as the Latins say, of the subsistence of the Holy Spirit. And since all that the Father has he has given to the Son in his generation, with the exception of being Father, this very procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son the Son himself has eternally from the Father, from whom he has been eternally generated."
At the conclusion of the council, the reunion of the Eastern and Western Church was (joyfully proclaimed). This joyful reunion was not to last long, however. Since the time of the Second Vatican Council a fruitful ecumenical dialogue has been developing.
It seems to have led to the conclusion that the formula (Filioque) does not constitute an essential obstacle to the dialogue itself and to its development, which all hope for and pray for to the Holy Spirit.
I hope this has cleared a few things up for you my friend
Clarky, if you are a Roman Catholic, according to a website which you probably quoted for the above list of dates, your church was formed in 1054 when the Pope of Rome considered himself to be the universal head of the Church...
quote
http://www.stjoseph-standrew.org/age.html
Lamentably, in 1054, the Pope of Rome broke away from the other four Apostolic Patriarchates (Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem), by unilaterally altering the original Creed of the Church and considering himself to be the universal head of the Church. Thus, your church was founded in the year 1054.[/quo
Not quite
The (Filioque) is a combination of Latin words meaning "and from the Son," added to the Nicene Creed by the Third Council of Toledo in 589:
Credo in Spiritum Sanctum qui ex patre filioque procedit ("I believe in the Holy Spirit who proceeds from the Father and Son"). It refers to the doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son.
The Spanish councils intended to condemn Arianism by reaffirming the Son's divinity.
The dogma of the procession either from the "Father" or from the "Father and the Son" did not create much difficulty at all during the course of the first four centuries.
If the double Procession of the Holy Ghost was discussed at all in those earlier times, the controversy was restricted to the East and was of short duration.
Many Latin and Greek Fathers (beginning with St. Hilary, St. Basil, Diogenus, and St. John Damascene), certainly prepared the way for the introduction into the creed of that formula referring to the Holy Spirit as one who "proceeds from the Father and the Son."
Tertullian, Origen, Maximus, Gregory The Wonderworker, Hilary, Didymus, Epiphanius, Basil, Ambrose of Milan, Gregory of Nyssa, Augustine, Cyril, Fulgence, the Council of Toledo, and The Athanasian Creed were in agreement.
It was assailed vehemently by Photius, the patriarch of Constantinople in 867 and 879. The Eastern church did not accept the addition on two distinct grounds:
(1) The addition was made (unilaterally), altering a creed approved by early ecumenical councils; and
(2) The formula reflected a particular Western conception of the Trinity, to which most Byzantine theologians objected.
The Nicene Creed was originally adopted by the First Council of Nicaea in AD 325. Let us remember (all of the bishops at this council were from the east), save one from Spain.
Most works attribute the (authorization) of the creed in use by the Eastern Church today to the Council of Constantinople in 381.
However, there is no actual (authentic) evidence that this version of the creed was accepted by this council. Also, (all of the bishops present at this council were from the east).
It should also be noted that Gregory of Nazianzus openly discussed the procession of the Spirit equally from the Father and the Son at this council.
In 589, at the Third Council of Toledo (at which, apparently, no eastern bishops were present), the word (filioque) was first inserted into the creed.
This change was motivated by an ancient western creed called the Quicunque vult (the Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son, not made or created or begotten, but proceeding) and the teachings of Augustine.
Later, in the early 800s, Pope Leo III approved the filioque doctrine, but insisted that the creed remain (unchanged).
Historically, the first denial of the double Procession of the Holy Ghost we find in the seventh century among the heretics of Constantinople when St. Martin I (649-655), in his synodal writing against the Monothelites, employed the expression "Filioque".
The next significant event with respect to the Nicean creed occurred in AD 784 with Tarasius’ (patriarch of Constantinople) addition of the words ‘through the Son’ to the creed.
This addition was contained in his profession of faith, and the change was accepted by the second council of Nicaea in 787.
Also, the (Filioque) of the West became an occasion for a schism which had already been actuated by Photius (882), which was consummated and extended to almost all the Christian East in 1054.
The Creed of Constantinople (at first) declared only the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father because it was directed against the followers of Macedonius who denied the Procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father.
In the East, the omission of Filioque did not lead to any misunderstanding. But conditions were different in Spain after the Goths had renounced Arianism and professed the Catholic faith in the Third Synod of Toledo, 589.
It cannot be acertained who first added the Filioque to the Creed; but it appears to be certain that the Creed, with the addition of the Filioque, was first sung in the Spanish Church after the conversion of the Goths.
In 796 the Patriarch of Aquileia justified and adopted the same addition at the Synod of Friaul, and in 809 the Council of Aachen appears to have approved of it.
The decrees of this last council were examined by Pope Leo III, who approved of the doctrine conveyed by the Filioque, but gave the advice to omit the expression in the Creed.
The practice of adding the Filioque was retained in spite of the papal advice, and in the middle of the eleventh century it had gained a firm foothold in Rome itself.
Scholars do not agree as to the exact time of its introduction into Rome, but most assign it to the reign of Benedict VIII (1014-15).
Efforts to reunite the Eastern and Western churches began with the Council of Lyons in 1274 and continued with the Council of Florence in 1434 (both councils authorized the word filioque).
The Catholic doctrine was accepted by the Greek deputies who were present at the Second Council of Florence, in 1439, when the Creed was sung both in Greek and Latin, with the addition of the word (Filioque).
On each occasion it was hoped that the Patriarch of Constantinople and his subjects had abandoned the state of heresy and schism in which they had been living since the time of Photius, who about 870 found in the Filioque an (EXCUSE) for throwing off all dependence on Rome.
The Councils of Lyons and Florence did not require the Greeks to insert the Filioque into the Creed, but only to accept the Catholic doctrine of the double Procession of the Holy Ghost.
At the Council of Florence, a vigorous discussion erupted between the eastern and western bishops over words spoken by Basil claiming that the Spirit proceeded from the Father and the Son.
After much debate, the eastern delegates accepted the filioque addition to the creed (at least in the west), and made other concessions. The following quote summarizes:
"The council of Ferrara, which was transferred to Florence in 1439, witnessed protracted discussion between Greeks and Latins, in which as a final result (the primacy of the Pope) was accepted in vague terms, which seemed to preserve the rights of the Eastern patriarchs, the Greeks retained their peculiarities of worship and priestly marriage, while the disputed (filioque clause) of the creed was acknowledged by the Greeks, though with the understanding that they would not add it to the ancient symbol".
At the Council of Florence (1439) when the Latins stated the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son they did not mean to exclude that the Father is the source and the principle of all divinity, that is, of the Son and the Holy Spirit.
Nor did they wish to deny that the Son learned from the Father that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son; nor do they hold that there are two principles or (two spirations). They asserted that one only is the principle and one only the spiration of the Holy Spirit.
The problems on the order of terminology were resolved and the intentions clarified, to the extent that each party, the Greeks and the Latins, during the sixth session (July 6, 1439) were able to sign this common definition:
"In the name of the Holy Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, with the approval of this sacred and universal Council of Florence, we establish that this truth of faith must be believed and accepted by all Christians and thus all must profess that the Holy Spirit is eternally of (the Father and the Son), that he has his existence and his subsistent being from the Father and the Son together, and that he proceeds eternally from the one and from the other as from a single principle and from a single spiration."
There is an additional clarification to which St. Thomas had devoted an article of the Summa (Ultrum Spiritus Sanctus Procedat a Patre Per Filium).
"We declare," said the Council, "what the holy Doctors and Fathers stated that is, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son tends to make understandable and means that the Son too, like the Father, is the cause, as the Greeks say, and the principle, as the Latins say, of the subsistence of the Holy Spirit. And since all that the Father has he has given to the Son in his generation, with the exception of being Father, this very procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son the Son himself has eternally from the Father, from whom he has been eternally generated."
At the conclusion of the council, the reunion of the Eastern and Western Church was (joyfully proclaimed). This joyful reunion was not to last long, however. Since the time of the Second Vatican Council a fruitful ecumenical dialogue has been developing.
It seems to have led to the conclusion that the formula (Filioque) does not constitute an essential obstacle to the dialogue itself and to its development, which all hope for and pray for to the Holy Spirit.
I hope this has cleared a few things up for you my friend
S
The practice of saintly intercession was first attacked by both by the Waldensians and the various Bogomil groups including the Albigensians, so it has always been apostolic and taught since the first century.The Calvinists and Zwinglians, 1500 years after the fact, were particularly zealous in their rejection of saintly intercession.
Luke 16:19-30 A dead man asked for help for the living. That is interceding, and it does not have to be answered anymore than my prayer has to have a positive result.
I desire therefore, first of all, that supplications, prayers, intercessions and thanksgivings be made for all men: 1 Timothy 2:1
Not only do those in heaven pray with us, they also pray for us. In the book of Revelation, John sees that the twenty-four elders, the leaders of the people of God in heaven, fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints (Rev. 5:8). So the saints in heaven offer to God the prayers of the saints on earth.
Soul Sleep refers to the idea that when we die, our souls cease to exist or at least "fall asleep" and become totally inert, until the end of the world and our resurrection.
Various religions have different understandings about exactly how soul sleep works, but in practical terms it would mean that the dead are not conscious in any way, and hence that there are no saints in heaven interceding on our behalf.
In dealing with the claim Catholics and Orthodox indulge in necromancy, taking to the dead, then Jesus Christ is guilty too since He talked to Elijah and Moses. Since CHRIST wouldnt sin, then the claim of necromancy against Catholics is invalid.
Read Revelation 6:9-10"When he broke the fifth seal, I saw underneath the altar the souls of all the people who had been killed on account of the word of God, for witnessing to it.
They shouted aloud, "Holy, faithful Master, how much longer will you wait before you pass sentence and take vengeance for our death on the inhabitants of the earth?"
The Bible is saying that martyrs go to heaven before the Judgment. Note that this takes place before the resurrection, before the end of the world, before the Judgment, while life is going on as usual on the earth.
Also, the martyrs, despite being "dead", have their own memories, and remember that they have been martyred. So to say that these martyrs know nothing is incorrect.
In Luke 16:19-30 Lazarus and the rich man have both died, but their souls are still alive, despite the death of their bodies (and the same is true of Abraham).
All this takes place before the resurrection of their bodies, while the rich man's brothers are still alive.
In 1 Peter 3:18-19 "For Christ also has once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: by which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison." If the spirits in prison are dead and "know nothing", then why is Jesus preaching to them?
Read Luke 12:4 "And I say unto you my friends, "Be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do."
Here we see that Jesus says that murderers kill only the body, and cannot harm the soul at all. In other words, our soul stays alive, despite anything a murderer might try to do.
Read 2 Corinthians 5:6,8-9 "Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord.We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord. Wherefore we labour, that, whether present or absent, we may be accepted of him."
If our soul dies when our body dies, then how can we be "absent" from the body? Yet, the Bible says that we can be with the Lord while absent from our body!
Read Matthew 22:31-32 "Have you not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, "I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?" God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.
Read Luke 24:37-39 "But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit. And he said unto them, "Why are you troubled? And why do thoughts arise in your hearts? Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit has not flesh and bones, as you see me have."
If a spirit apart from its body is dead, then surely the Apostles would know this and would not have thought that a living Jesus would be a spirit.
Also, if the Apostles had been incorrect in believing that a person's soul survives apart from that person's body, then why didn't Jesus correct them instead of encouraging them in this "erroneous" belief they held? In fact, Jesus here says that the spirit exists independently of the body.
Read Genesis 35:18 "And it came to pass, as her soul was in departing, (for she died)" Note that, when Rachel died, her soul departed. It didn't "fall asleep".
Read John 11:25-26 Jesus told her, "I am the resurrection and the life; whoever believes in me, even if he dies, will live, and everyone who lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?"
Read Revelation 20:4 "I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus; they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years." Note that John saw only the souls of the martyrs.
Read Jude 1:7 "Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."
Note that they are presently suffering, and thus not unconscious.
Read Luke 23:43 "And Jesus said unto him, "Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise." That day (today) was before the resurrection.
Read Matthew 17:1,3-4 "And after six days Jesus took Peter, James, and John his brother, and bring them up into a high mountain apart, and, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him. Then answered Peter, and said unto Jesus, "Lord, it is good for us to be here: if you will, let us make here three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias."
Moses had died, (Deuteronomy 34:5) So Moses the servant of the Lord died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of the Lord. And yet, despite being dead, he is able to speak to Jesus.
Rom 15:30 I urge you, (brothers,) by our Lord Jesus Christ and by the love of the Spirit, to join me in the struggle by your prayers to God on my behalf.
If a person believes that Jesus is the One Mediator and has faith in Him, Jesus says that he will never die, in John 11:25, 26, is that so?
John 11:25-26 Jesus told her, "I am the resurrection and the life; whoever believes in me, even if he dies, will live, and everyone who lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?"
We believe those who died believing in Jesus did not die; at least, that is according to Jesus. So if they are alive, they can pray for us. And if they are dead, then Jesus is a liar.
S
"Lamentably, in 1054, the Pope of Rome broke away from the other four Apostolic Patriarchates (Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem), "
Not quite
The three original patriarchal sees were Rome (St. Peter and Paul), Antioch (St. Peter), and Alexandria (St. Mark).
Later Jerusalem was added after it was restored from its period as a pagan city, and Constantinople was founded by St. Andrew.
Rome is the first because Peter was in residence there. The second was Antioch because Peter was bishop there first. Then Peter sent Mark to Alexandria to form the Church there.
After some time Jerusalem was added; remember it had been destroyed by Hadrian because Peter first exercised his ministry there.
Finally Constantinople applied for the rank of patriarch because Peter's brother, Andrew, brought the Faith there. So you see, the patriarchates all are related to PETER.
The five sees were ranked in descending order of precedence: Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Constantinople.
The title (Patriarch) was given to the highest ecclesiastical dignitaries after the pope, and the word (Patriarchate) to the territory they ruled.
At first they were used (loosely) as names of honour without any strict connotation; but in all such cases the (reality) existed before any special name was used. There were ecclesiastical dignitaries with all the rights and prerogatives of patriarchs in the first three centuries; but the (official) title does not occur till later.
As a Christian title of honour the word (patriarch) appears first as applied to Pope Leo I in a letter of Theodosius II (408-50; Mansi, VI, 68).
Certainly from the eighth and ninth centuries the word becomes an official title, used only as connoting a definite rank in the hierarchy, that of the chief bishops who ruled over metropolitans being subject only to the first patriarch at Rome.
Patriarchate (Greek patriarcheia; Latin patriarchatus) is the derived word meaning a patriarch's office, see, reign, or, most often, the (territory) he governs. It corresponds to episcopacy, episcopate, and diocese in relation to a bishop.
The oldest canon law admitted only three bishops as having what was called patriarchal rights; the Bishops of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch.
The successor of St. Peter as a matter of course held the highest place and combined in his own person all dignities.
He was not only bishop, but metropolitan, primate, and patriarch; Metropolitan of the Roman Province, Primate of Italy, and first of the patriarchs.
As soon as a hierarchy was organized among bishops, the chief authority and dignity were retained by the Bishop of Rome.
As (Bishop of Rome) he is the diocesan bishop of that diocese only; as (metropolitan) he governs the Roman Province; as (primate) he governs the Italian bishops; as (patriarch) he rules only the West.
As (pope) he is the visible head of the whole Church; no Christian is outside his papal jurisdiction. To Christians in the East he is supreme pontiff, not patriarch.
However, there was always a closer relation between Western bishops and the pope than between him and their Eastern bishops.
The Edict of Milan was drafted by Constantine Augustus of the WEST and Licinius Augustus of the EAST in AD 313. This document not only LEGALIZED the Christian Church, but all faiths within the Roman Empire.
In this DOCUMENT it states "Besides, both those who have purchased and those who have secured them by gift, are to appeal to the VICAR if they seek any recompense from our bounty, that they may be cared for through our clemency."
Now if Licinius Augustus of the EAST knew there was a VICAR in the Church, the EASTERN Bishops knew this as well. We know this refers to the Pontiff (VICAR) or POPE.
From the earliest times, the Christians of the whole world have consulted the popes on all matters pertaining to faith, morals, and discipline.
The earliest instance is the well-known appeal from Corinth to Pope Clement I, during the lifetime of St. John the Apostle, in the first century of the Christian Era.
From that time on, requests for decisions on various ecclesiastical matters were addressed to the Holy See from all parts of the known world, and the answers that were received were reverenced as proceeding from the mouth of Christ's chief Apostle and His vicar on earth.
The fact that the decrees of Church councils, whether general, provincial, or even diocesan, were anciently as a rule forwarded to the pope for his revision or confirmation, gave occasion for many papal constitutions during the early ages.
After the time of Constantine the Great, owing to the greater liberty allowed to the Church, such intercourse with the Apostolic See became more frequent and more open.
St. Jerome, in the fourth century testifies to the number of responses requested of the sovereign pontiff from both the Eastern and the Western Church during the time he acted as secretary to Pope Damasus.
That these papal responses soon began to constitute an important section of canon law, is evident from statements in the letters of various Roman pontiffs.
In fact, a papal constitution is a legal enactment of the ruler of the Church, just as a civil law is a decree emanating from a secular prince.
A careful research of history will show us Miltiades was elected pope in either 310 or 311 and died in 314.
About this time the edict of toleration signed by the Emperors Galerius, Licinius, and Constantine, put an end to the persecution of the Christians, and they were permitted to live as such, and also to reconstruct their places of religious worship.
However, the countries in the east were under the sway of Maximinus Daia and the Christians continue to be persecuted.
The emperor gave Pope Miltiades in Rome the right to receive back, through the prefect of the city, all ecclesiastical buildings and possessions which had been confiscated during the persecutions.
The two Roman deacons, Strato and Cassianus, were ordered by the pope to discuss this matter with the prefect, and to take over the church properties.
It then became possible to reorganize thoroughly the ecclesiastical administration and the religious life of the Christians in Rome.
Anyway, before the Council of Nicaea (AD 325) two bishops in the East had the same (patriarchal) authority over large territories, those of Alexandria and Antioch, but is difficult to say exactly how they obtained this position.
The most important cities in the East were Alexandria of Egypt and Antioch of Syria.
So the Bishop of Alexandria became the chief of all Egyptian bishops and metropolitans; the Bishop of Antioch held the same place over Syria and at the same time extended his sway over Asia Minor, Greece and the rest of the East.
Diocletian had divided the empire into four great prefectures. Three of these (Italy, Gaul, and Illyricum) made up the Roman patriarchate.
The other, the "East" had five (civil) "dioceses". Thrace, Asia, Pontus, the Diocese of the East, and Egypt. Egypt was the Alexandrine patriarchate. The Antiochene patriarchate embraced the civil "Diocese" of the East.
The other three civil divisions of Thrace, Asia, and Pontus would have probably developed into separate patriarchates, but for the rise of Constantinople.
Later it became a popular idea to connect all three patriarchates with the Prince of the Apostles. St. Peter had also reigned at Antioch; he had founded the Church of Alexandria by his disciple St. Mark.
At any rate the Council of Nicaea in AD 325 recognized the supreme place of the bishops of these three cities as an "ancient custom".
Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch are the three old patriarchates whose unique position and order were disturbed by later developments.
Three hundred and eighteen Bishops along with two delegates from the pope showed up.
When pilgrims began to flock to the Holy City, the Bishop of Jerusalem, the guardian of the sacred shrines, began to be considered as more than a mere suffragan of Caesarea.
The Council of Nicaea in AD 325 gave him an honorary primacy, saving, however, the (metropolitical) rights of Caesarea.
Juvenal of Jerusalem (420-58) succeeded finally, after much dispute, in changing this honorary position into a real patriarchate.
The Council of Chalcedon in AD 451 cut away Palestine and Arabia (Sinai) from Antioch and of them formed the Patriarchate of Jerusalem.
But the greatest change, the one that met most opposition, was the rise of Constantinople to patriarchal rank. Because Constantine had made Byzantium "New Rome", its bishop, once the humble suffragan of Heraclea, thought that he should become second only, if not almost equal, to the Bishop of Old Rome.
For many centuries the popes opposed this ambition, not because any one thought of disputing their first place, but because they were unwilling to change the old order of the hierarchy.
In AD 381 the Council of Constantinople declared that: "The Bishop of Constantinople shall have the primacy of honour (after the Bishop of Rome), because it is New Rome".
Chalcedon in AD 451 established Constantinople as a patriarchate with jurisdiction over Asia Minor and Thrace and gave it the second place (after) Rome. Pope Leo I (440-61) refused to admit this canon, which was made in the absence of his legates; for centuries Rome still refused to give the second place to Constantinople.
It was not until the Fourth Lateran Council (AD 1215) that the Latin Patriarch of Constantinople was allowed this place; in 1439 the Council of Florence gave it to the Greek patriarch.
Nevertheless in the East the emperor's wish was powerful enough to obtain recognition for his patriarch; from Chalcedon we must count Constantinople as practically, if not legally, the second patriarchate.
So we have the (new) order of the five patriarchs: Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. To the Eastern bishops it became an essential element of the constitution of the Church.
Not quite
The three original patriarchal sees were Rome (St. Peter and Paul), Antioch (St. Peter), and Alexandria (St. Mark).
Later Jerusalem was added after it was restored from its period as a pagan city, and Constantinople was founded by St. Andrew.
Rome is the first because Peter was in residence there. The second was Antioch because Peter was bishop there first. Then Peter sent Mark to Alexandria to form the Church there.
After some time Jerusalem was added; remember it had been destroyed by Hadrian because Peter first exercised his ministry there.
Finally Constantinople applied for the rank of patriarch because Peter's brother, Andrew, brought the Faith there. So you see, the patriarchates all are related to PETER.
The five sees were ranked in descending order of precedence: Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Constantinople.
The title (Patriarch) was given to the highest ecclesiastical dignitaries after the pope, and the word (Patriarchate) to the territory they ruled.
At first they were used (loosely) as names of honour without any strict connotation; but in all such cases the (reality) existed before any special name was used. There were ecclesiastical dignitaries with all the rights and prerogatives of patriarchs in the first three centuries; but the (official) title does not occur till later.
As a Christian title of honour the word (patriarch) appears first as applied to Pope Leo I in a letter of Theodosius II (408-50; Mansi, VI, 68).
Certainly from the eighth and ninth centuries the word becomes an official title, used only as connoting a definite rank in the hierarchy, that of the chief bishops who ruled over metropolitans being subject only to the first patriarch at Rome.
Patriarchate (Greek patriarcheia; Latin patriarchatus) is the derived word meaning a patriarch's office, see, reign, or, most often, the (territory) he governs. It corresponds to episcopacy, episcopate, and diocese in relation to a bishop.
The oldest canon law admitted only three bishops as having what was called patriarchal rights; the Bishops of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch.
The successor of St. Peter as a matter of course held the highest place and combined in his own person all dignities.
He was not only bishop, but metropolitan, primate, and patriarch; Metropolitan of the Roman Province, Primate of Italy, and first of the patriarchs.
As soon as a hierarchy was organized among bishops, the chief authority and dignity were retained by the Bishop of Rome.
As (Bishop of Rome) he is the diocesan bishop of that diocese only; as (metropolitan) he governs the Roman Province; as (primate) he governs the Italian bishops; as (patriarch) he rules only the West.
As (pope) he is the visible head of the whole Church; no Christian is outside his papal jurisdiction. To Christians in the East he is supreme pontiff, not patriarch.
However, there was always a closer relation between Western bishops and the pope than between him and their Eastern bishops.
The Edict of Milan was drafted by Constantine Augustus of the WEST and Licinius Augustus of the EAST in AD 313. This document not only LEGALIZED the Christian Church, but all faiths within the Roman Empire.
In this DOCUMENT it states "Besides, both those who have purchased and those who have secured them by gift, are to appeal to the VICAR if they seek any recompense from our bounty, that they may be cared for through our clemency."
Now if Licinius Augustus of the EAST knew there was a VICAR in the Church, the EASTERN Bishops knew this as well. We know this refers to the Pontiff (VICAR) or POPE.
From the earliest times, the Christians of the whole world have consulted the popes on all matters pertaining to faith, morals, and discipline.
The earliest instance is the well-known appeal from Corinth to Pope Clement I, during the lifetime of St. John the Apostle, in the first century of the Christian Era.
From that time on, requests for decisions on various ecclesiastical matters were addressed to the Holy See from all parts of the known world, and the answers that were received were reverenced as proceeding from the mouth of Christ's chief Apostle and His vicar on earth.
The fact that the decrees of Church councils, whether general, provincial, or even diocesan, were anciently as a rule forwarded to the pope for his revision or confirmation, gave occasion for many papal constitutions during the early ages.
After the time of Constantine the Great, owing to the greater liberty allowed to the Church, such intercourse with the Apostolic See became more frequent and more open.
St. Jerome, in the fourth century testifies to the number of responses requested of the sovereign pontiff from both the Eastern and the Western Church during the time he acted as secretary to Pope Damasus.
That these papal responses soon began to constitute an important section of canon law, is evident from statements in the letters of various Roman pontiffs.
In fact, a papal constitution is a legal enactment of the ruler of the Church, just as a civil law is a decree emanating from a secular prince.
A careful research of history will show us Miltiades was elected pope in either 310 or 311 and died in 314.
About this time the edict of toleration signed by the Emperors Galerius, Licinius, and Constantine, put an end to the persecution of the Christians, and they were permitted to live as such, and also to reconstruct their places of religious worship.
However, the countries in the east were under the sway of Maximinus Daia and the Christians continue to be persecuted.
The emperor gave Pope Miltiades in Rome the right to receive back, through the prefect of the city, all ecclesiastical buildings and possessions which had been confiscated during the persecutions.
The two Roman deacons, Strato and Cassianus, were ordered by the pope to discuss this matter with the prefect, and to take over the church properties.
It then became possible to reorganize thoroughly the ecclesiastical administration and the religious life of the Christians in Rome.
Anyway, before the Council of Nicaea (AD 325) two bishops in the East had the same (patriarchal) authority over large territories, those of Alexandria and Antioch, but is difficult to say exactly how they obtained this position.
The most important cities in the East were Alexandria of Egypt and Antioch of Syria.
So the Bishop of Alexandria became the chief of all Egyptian bishops and metropolitans; the Bishop of Antioch held the same place over Syria and at the same time extended his sway over Asia Minor, Greece and the rest of the East.
Diocletian had divided the empire into four great prefectures. Three of these (Italy, Gaul, and Illyricum) made up the Roman patriarchate.
The other, the "East" had five (civil) "dioceses". Thrace, Asia, Pontus, the Diocese of the East, and Egypt. Egypt was the Alexandrine patriarchate. The Antiochene patriarchate embraced the civil "Diocese" of the East.
The other three civil divisions of Thrace, Asia, and Pontus would have probably developed into separate patriarchates, but for the rise of Constantinople.
Later it became a popular idea to connect all three patriarchates with the Prince of the Apostles. St. Peter had also reigned at Antioch; he had founded the Church of Alexandria by his disciple St. Mark.
At any rate the Council of Nicaea in AD 325 recognized the supreme place of the bishops of these three cities as an "ancient custom".
Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch are the three old patriarchates whose unique position and order were disturbed by later developments.
Three hundred and eighteen Bishops along with two delegates from the pope showed up.
When pilgrims began to flock to the Holy City, the Bishop of Jerusalem, the guardian of the sacred shrines, began to be considered as more than a mere suffragan of Caesarea.
The Council of Nicaea in AD 325 gave him an honorary primacy, saving, however, the (metropolitical) rights of Caesarea.
Juvenal of Jerusalem (420-58) succeeded finally, after much dispute, in changing this honorary position into a real patriarchate.
The Council of Chalcedon in AD 451 cut away Palestine and Arabia (Sinai) from Antioch and of them formed the Patriarchate of Jerusalem.
But the greatest change, the one that met most opposition, was the rise of Constantinople to patriarchal rank. Because Constantine had made Byzantium "New Rome", its bishop, once the humble suffragan of Heraclea, thought that he should become second only, if not almost equal, to the Bishop of Old Rome.
For many centuries the popes opposed this ambition, not because any one thought of disputing their first place, but because they were unwilling to change the old order of the hierarchy.
In AD 381 the Council of Constantinople declared that: "The Bishop of Constantinople shall have the primacy of honour (after the Bishop of Rome), because it is New Rome".
Chalcedon in AD 451 established Constantinople as a patriarchate with jurisdiction over Asia Minor and Thrace and gave it the second place (after) Rome. Pope Leo I (440-61) refused to admit this canon, which was made in the absence of his legates; for centuries Rome still refused to give the second place to Constantinople.
It was not until the Fourth Lateran Council (AD 1215) that the Latin Patriarch of Constantinople was allowed this place; in 1439 the Council of Florence gave it to the Greek patriarch.
Nevertheless in the East the emperor's wish was powerful enough to obtain recognition for his patriarch; from Chalcedon we must count Constantinople as practically, if not legally, the second patriarchate.
So we have the (new) order of the five patriarchs: Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. To the Eastern bishops it became an essential element of the constitution of the Church.
I wondered if there were any examples of living people on the earth, Jesus or one of the apostles etc, praying or asking for help from dead saints. Is there any? When the disciples asked Jesus to teach them to pray, Jesus said, "our Father in heaven". Jesus taught them to go straight to the source, Jesus didn't teach them to contact a dead saint. So if it doesn't say it, how can we assume it was their practice to ask for help from the dead?
There can be no doubt that the soul lives on after death and that even those souls can communicate with God. However, there is still no clear example of a live person on the earth communicating with a live saint in heaven in the scriptures.
Luke 16 isn't really a good example. It shows a dead person communicating with God, and God refusing to answer his request. It does not show a live person on the earth communicating with someone in heaven, or hell of their own will. If anything Luke 16 indicates
a) the saints in heaven have no greater influence over God than we do on earth. They may be closer to God in the physical sense, but have no greater ability of changing God's mind than we do.
b) God rejected this saints request and rather said they had Moses and the Prophets i.e. the Scriptures, let them listen to them.
There can be no doubt that the soul lives on after death and that even those souls can communicate with God. However, there is still no clear example of a live person on the earth communicating with a live saint in heaven in the scriptures.
Luke 16 isn't really a good example. It shows a dead person communicating with God, and God refusing to answer his request. It does not show a live person on the earth communicating with someone in heaven, or hell of their own will. If anything Luke 16 indicates
a) the saints in heaven have no greater influence over God than we do on earth. They may be closer to God in the physical sense, but have no greater ability of changing God's mind than we do.
b) God rejected this saints request and rather said they had Moses and the Prophets i.e. the Scriptures, let them listen to them.
S
The parable of the rich man and Lazarus illustrates Luke's concern with Jesus' attitude toward the rich and the poor. The reversal of the fates of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:22-23) illustrates the teachings of Jesus in Luke's "Sermon on the Plain" (Luke 6:20-21, 24-25).
The fact remains in Luke 16:19-30 A dead man asked for help for the living. That is interceding.
Besides, who said it had to be in the bible? I am not aware of any verse OT or N T that teaches sola scriptura my friend. Are you?
Sure there is story of dead man asking for help for the living.
But is there a story of a living person asking a dead man for help?
It makes sense that dead people can talk to dead people etc, but can living people ie us on earth, talk to them, or do we must go through God always. Isn't there a barrier that prevents dead people from contacting us without God's permission and vice versa?
BTW I don't believe in Sola Scriptura either however I do be suspicious of beliefs that aren't well supported by scripture afterall the bible itself says:
2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
2Ti 3:17 that the man of God may be perfected, thoroughly furnished to every good work.
I just would have thought that a doctrine like intercession of the saints would be in the Scriptures? At least one example of the apostles or someone like that. Why isn't there any examples in scripture of the apostles calling out to St John the Baptist after he died.
Maybe we can get some insight about this if we look at what Jews believed?
I think Jews believed that we must not go through anyone else but God directly, must not contact God through any person because that person is never Holy enough. Is that correct?
But is there a story of a living person asking a dead man for help?
It makes sense that dead people can talk to dead people etc, but can living people ie us on earth, talk to them, or do we must go through God always. Isn't there a barrier that prevents dead people from contacting us without God's permission and vice versa?
BTW I don't believe in Sola Scriptura either however I do be suspicious of beliefs that aren't well supported by scripture afterall the bible itself says:
2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
2Ti 3:17 that the man of God may be perfected, thoroughly furnished to every good work.
I just would have thought that a doctrine like intercession of the saints would be in the Scriptures? At least one example of the apostles or someone like that. Why isn't there any examples in scripture of the apostles calling out to St John the Baptist after he died.
Maybe we can get some insight about this if we look at what Jews believed?
I think Jews believed that we must not go through anyone else but God directly, must not contact God through any person because that person is never Holy enough. Is that correct?
S
It is clear in Sacred Scripture that the saints in Heaven will intercede for us before the throne of Christ if they are petitioned in prayer REV. 8:3-4), and it is clear in the records of primitive Christianity that the first Christians eagerly sought their intercession.
Wrote St. John Chrysostom in the fourth century: ``When thou perceivest that God is chastening thee, fly not to His enemies, but to His friends, the martyrs, the saints, and those who were pleasing to Him, and who have great power.''
Heb. 12:1 - the “cloud of witnesses” (nephos marturon) that we are surrounded by is a great amphitheatre of witnesses to the earthly race, and they actively participate and cheer us (the runners) on, in our race to salvation.
Matt. 17:1-3; Mark 9:4; Luke 9:30-31 – deceased Moses and Elijah appear at the Transfiguration to converse with Jesus in the presence of Peter, James and John (these may be the two “witnesses” John refers to in Rev. 11:3).
Nothing in Scripture ever suggests that God abhors or cuts off communication between the living in heaven and the living on earth. To the contrary, God encourages communication within the communion of saints. Moses and Elijah’s appearance on earth also teach us that the saints in heaven have capabilities that far surpass our limitations on earth.
Matt. 26:53 – Jesus says He can call upon the assistance of twelve legions of angels. If Jesus said He could ask for the assistance of angel saints, then so can we, who are called to imitate Jesus in word and in deed. And, in Matt. 22:30, Jesus says we will be “like angels in heaven.” This means human saints (like the angel saints) can be called upon to assist people on earth.
Matt. 27:47,49; Mark 15:35-36 – the people believe that Jesus calls on Elijah for his intercession, and waits to see if Elijah would come to save Jesus on the cross.
Matt. 27:52-53 - at Jesus' passion, many saints were raised and went into the city to appear and presumably interact with the people, just as Jesus did after His resurrection.
Acts 12:7 – an angel strikes Peter on the side and wakes him up, freeing him from prison. The angel responds to Peter’s prayers.
Also in response to your (one) verse, when 2 Timothy 3:16-17 read in the context of the surrounding passages, one discovers that Paul’s reference to Scripture is only part of his exhortation that Timothy takes as his guide to Tradition and Scripture.
The two verses immediately before it state: "But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it, and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim. 3:14–15).
Paul tells Timothy to continue in what he has learned for two reasons: first, because he knows from whom he has learned it, Paul himself, and second, because he has been educated in the scriptures.
The first of these is a direct appeal to apostolic tradition, the oral teaching which the apostle Paul had given Timothy. So protestants must take 2 Timothy 3:16-17 out of context to arrive at the theory of sola scriptura.
But when the passage is read in context, it becomes clear that it is teaching the importance of apostolic tradition.
Paul appeals to apostolic tradition right before 2 Tim. 3:16-17. There is an appeal to tradition before there is an appeal to the scriptures, and you ignore this fact.
In 2 Tim. 3:15 - Paul appeals to the sacred writings of scripture referring to the Old Testament scriptures with which Timothy was raised (not the New Testament which was not even compiled at the time of Paul's teaching).
This verse also proves that one can come to faith in Jesus Christ without the New Testament.
In 2 Tim. 3:16 - it states that scripture is "profitable" for every good work, but not exclusive. The word "profitable" is "ophelimos" in Greek.
"Ophelimos" only means useful, which underscores that scripture is not mandatory or exclusive.
Also, in 2 Tim. 3:16, the verse "all scripture" uses the words "pasa graphe" which actually means every (not all) scripture. This means every passage of scripture is useful.
So your reading of "pasa graphe" would mean every single passage of scripture is exclusive. This would mean Christians could not only use "sola Matthew," or "sola Mark," but could rely on one single verse from a Gospel as the exclusive authority of God's word.
Also, "pasa graphe" cannot mean "all of scripture" because there was no New Testament canon to which Paul could have been referring, unless you argue that the New Testament is not being included by Paul.
Also, these inspired Old Testament scriptures Paul is referring to included the deuterocanonical books which the protestants removed from the Bible 1,500 years later.
In 2 Tim. 3:17 - Paul's reference to the "man of God" who may be complete refers to a clergyman, not a layman. It is an instruction to a bishop of the Church. So, although you use it to prove your case, the passage is not even relevant to most of the faithful.
Also in 2 Tim. 3:17 Paul's use of the word "complete" for every good work is "artios" which simply means the clergy is "suitable" or "fit." "Artios" does not describe the scriptures, it describes the clergyman.
So, you cannot use this verse to argue the scriptures are complete.
James 1:4 - steadfastness also makes a man "perfect (teleioi) and complete (holoklepoi), lacking nothing." This verse is important because "teleioi"and "holoklepoi" are much stronger words than "artios," but protestants do not argue that steadfastness is all one needs to be a Christian.
2 Tim 2:21- purity is also profitable for "any good work" ("pan ergon agathon"). This wording is the same as 2 Tim. 3:17, which shows that the scriptures are not exclusive, and that other things (good deeds and purity) are also profitable to men.
Col. 4:12 - prayer also makes men "fully assured." No where does scripture say the Christian faith is based solely on a book.
If the verses in 2 Tim. 3:16-17 really mean that Paul was teaching sola scriptura to the early Church, then why in 1 Thess. 2:13 does Paul teach that he is giving revelation from God orally?
Either Paul is contradicting his own teaching on sola scriptura, or Paul was not teaching sola scriptura in 2 Tim. 3:16-17.
S
FUNNY THING HAPPENED TO ME "ON THE WAY TO THE FORUM". I CANT FIND THE LINK ANYMORE TO THE "IS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH THE FALSE CHURCH?" You FUNDIES are a CRACK UP! LOL After being INSULTED not only by the room moderator, and the SNAIL, they decided to remove the link for the RESPONSES. ONCE AGAIN the CATHOLIC wins! BUWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAA!
Your old friend
CLARKY ROFLMAO
Your old friend
CLARKY ROFLMAO
K
"Pride". Yep. I used that word in describing catholics. They lay claim to a line from the current pope all the way back to Peter yet, their teachings of today contradict those of Peter and Jesus.
Some of those "protestants" accept Scripture. Origional Scripture. Not what some guy said in the 2nd, 4th, 17th or 21st century claims as "true" interpretation.
Tell me, did Philip ACTUALLY interpret Scripture to the eunuch or did he say "wait a minute and I'll go and ask Peter" ?
Peter, as well as others, warn us of false teachers. HOW can you know if it's false unless you compare the teachings to Scripture?
Those bureans who listened to Paul's teachings actually searched through Scripture to see if what Paul was teaching was true. They had every opportunity at that time to go to Peter. Yet, they went to Scripture.
God's Will is to believe in the One whom He sent: Jesus Christ. His Word is revealed to us by the Holy Spirit whom testifies of Jesus. God is no respector of persons.
Some of those "protestants" accept Scripture. Origional Scripture. Not what some guy said in the 2nd, 4th, 17th or 21st century claims as "true" interpretation.
Tell me, did Philip ACTUALLY interpret Scripture to the eunuch or did he say "wait a minute and I'll go and ask Peter" ?
Peter, as well as others, warn us of false teachers. HOW can you know if it's false unless you compare the teachings to Scripture?
Those bureans who listened to Paul's teachings actually searched through Scripture to see if what Paul was teaching was true. They had every opportunity at that time to go to Peter. Yet, they went to Scripture.
God's Will is to believe in the One whom He sent: Jesus Christ. His Word is revealed to us by the Holy Spirit whom testifies of Jesus. God is no respector of persons.
K
S
from kujo "Those bureans who listened to Paul's teachings actually searched through Scripture to see if what Paul was teaching was true. They had every opportunity at that time to go to Peter. Yet, they went to Scripture."
But when Jesus said "search the Scriptures," He was rebuking the Jews who did not believe that He was the Messiah. Jesus tells them to search the Scriptures to verify the Messianic prophecies and His oral teaching, and does not say "search the Scriptures alone." Moreover, since the New Testament was not yet written, the passage is not relevant to the protestant claim of sola Scriptura.
BUWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHA
WHAT A TRIP! LOL
But when Jesus said "search the Scriptures," He was rebuking the Jews who did not believe that He was the Messiah. Jesus tells them to search the Scriptures to verify the Messianic prophecies and His oral teaching, and does not say "search the Scriptures alone." Moreover, since the New Testament was not yet written, the passage is not relevant to the protestant claim of sola Scriptura.
BUWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHA
WHAT A TRIP! LOL
S
"Pride". Yep. I used that word in describing catholics. They lay claim to a line from the current pope all the way back to Peter
There are early records that before Peter and Paul were martyred in Rome they together chose Linus as Peter's successor.
He ruled the Church for about eleven years from 67. For the next twelve years Cletus was pope and then Clement from 90 to 100.
Peter d. 64 or 67, Linus 67-76, Anacletus I 76-88, Clement I 88-97, Evaristus 97-105,
Alexander I 105-15, Sixtus I 115-25, Telesphorus 125-36, Hyginus 136-40, Pius I 140-55, Anicetus 155-66,
Soter 166-75, Eleuterus 175-89, Victor I 189-99, Zephyrinus 199-217, Callistus I 217-22, Urban I 222-30, Pontain 230-35, Anterus 235-36, Fabian 236-50, Cornelius 251-53, Lucius I 253-54, Stephen I 254-57,
Sixtus II 257-58, Dionysius 260-68, Felix I 269-74, Eutychian 275-83, Caius 283-96, Marcellinus 296-304, Marcellus I 308-09, Eusebius 309-10, Miltiades 311-14, Sylvester I 314-35, Marcus 335-36,
Julius I 337-52, Liberius 352-66, Damasus I 366-83, Siricius 384-99, Anastasius I 399-401, Innocent I 401-17, Zosimus 417-18, Boniface I 418-22, Celestine I 422-32, Sixtus III 432-40, Leo I 440-61,
Hilarius 461-68, Simplicius 468-83, Felix III 483-92, Gelasius I 492-96, Anastasius II 496-98, Symmachus 498-514, Hormisdas 514-23, John I 523-26, Felix IV 526-30, Boniface II 530-32, John II 533-35,
Agapetus I 535-36, Silverius 536-37, Vigilius 537-55, Pelagius I 556-61, John III 561-74, Benedict I 575-79, Pelagius II 579-90, Gregory I 590-604, Sabinian 604-606, Boniface III 607, Boniface IV 608-15,
Deusdedit 615-18, Boniface V 619-25, Honorius I 625-38, Severinus 640, John IV 640-42, Theodore I 642-49, Martin I 649-55, Eugene I 655-57, Vitalian 657-72, Adeodatus 672-76, Donus 676-78,
Agatho 678-81, Leo II 681-83, Benedict II 684-85, John V 685-86, Conon 686-87, Sergius I 687-701, John VI 701-05, John VII 705-07, Sisinnius 708, Constantine 708-15, Gregory II 715-31,
Gregory III 731-41, Zacharias 741-52, Stephen II 752-57, Paul I 757-67, Stephen III 767-72, Adrian I 772-95, Leo III 795-816, Stephen IV 816-17, Paschal I 817-24, Eugene II 824-27, Valentine 827,
Gregory IV 827-44, Sergius II 844-47, Leo IV 847-55, Benedict III 855-58, Nicholas I 858-67, Adrian II 867-72, John VIII 872-82, Marinus I 882-84, Adrian III 884-85, Stephen V 885-91,
Formosus 891-96, Boniface VI 896, Stephen VI 896-97, Romanus 897, Theodore II 897, John IX 898-900, Benedict IV 900-03, Leo V 903, Chistopher 903-04, Sergius III 904-11, Anastasius III 911-13,
Lando 913-14, John X 914-28, Leo VI 928-29, Stephen VII 929-31, John XI 931-35, Leo VII 936-39, Stephen IX (VIII) 939-42, Marinus II 942-46, Agapetus II 946-55, John XII 955-63,
Leo VIII 963-64, Benedict V 964, John XIII 965-72, Benedict VI 973-74, Benedict VII 974-83, John XIV 983-84, Boniface VII 984-85, John XV 985-96, Gregory V 996-99, Sylvester II 999-1003,
John XVII 1003, John XVIII 1003-09, Sergius IV 1009-12, Benedict VIII 1012-24, John XIX 1024-33, Benedict IX 1033-45, Sylvester III 1045, Gregory VI 1045-46, Clement II 1046-47, Damasus II 1048,
Leo IX 1049-54, Victor II 1055-57, Stephen IX 1057-58, Benedidct X 1058, Nicholas II 1058-61, Alexander II 1061-73, Gregory VII 1073-85, Victor III 1086-87, Urban II 1088-99, Paschal II 1099-1118,
Gelasius II 1118-19, Callistus II 1119-24, Honorius II 1124-30, Innocent II 1130-43, Celestine II 1143-44, Lucius II 1144-45, Eugene III 1145-53, Anastasius IV 1153-54, Adrian IV 1154-59,
Alexander III 1159-81, Lucius III 1181-85, Urban III 1185-87, Gregory VIII 1187, Clement III 1187-91, Celestine III 1191-98, Innocent III 1198-1216, Honorius III 1216-27, Gregory IX 1227-41,
Celestine IV 1241, Innocent IV 1243-54, Alexander IV 1254-61, Urban IV 1261-64, Clement IV 1265-68, Gregory X 1271-76, Innocent V 1276, Adrian V 1276, John XXI 1276-77, Nicholas III 1277-80,
Martin IV 1281-85, Honorius IV 1285-87, Nicholas IV 1288-92, Celestine V 1294, Boniface VIII 1294-1303, Benedict XI 1303-04, Clement V 1305-14, John XXII 1316-34, Benedict XII 1334-42,
Clement VI 1342-52, Innocent VI 1352-62, Urban V 1362-70, Gregory XI 1370-78, Urban VI 1378-89, Boniface IX 1389-1404, Innocent VII 1406-06, Gregory XII 1406-15, Martin V 1417-31, Eugene IV 1431-47,
Nicholas V 1447-55, Callistus III 1445-58, Pius II 1458-64, Paul II 1464-71, Sixtus IV 1471-84, Innocent VIII 1484-92, Alexander VI 1492-1503, Pius III 1503, Julius II 1503-13, Leo X 1513-21,
Adrian VI 1522-23, Clement VII 1523-34, Paul III 1534-49, Julius III 1550-55, Marcellus II 1555, Paul IV 1555-59, Pius IV 1559-65, Pius V 1566-72, Gregory XIII 1572-85, Sixtus V 1585-90, Urban VII 1590,
Gregory XIV 1590-91, Innocent IX 1591, Clement VIII 1592-1605, Leo XI 1605, Paul V 1605-21, Gregory XV 1621-23, Urban VIII 1623-44, Innocent X 1644-55, Alexander VII 1655-67, Clement IX 1667-69,
Clement X 1670-76, Innocent XI 1676-89, Alexander VIII 1689-91, Innocent XII 1691-1700, Clement XI 1700-21, Innocent XIII 1721-24, Benedict XIII 1724-30, Clement XII 1730-40, Benedict XIV 1740-58,
Clement XIII 1758-69, Clement XIV 1769-74, Pius VI 1775-99, Pius VII 1800-23, Leo XII 1823-29, Pius VIII 1829-30, Gregory XVI 1831-46, Pius IX 1846-78, Leo XIII 1878-1903, Pius X 1903-14, Benedict XV 1914-22,
Pius XI 1922-39, Pius XII 1939-58, John XXIII 1958-63, Paul VI 1963-78, John Paul I 1978, John Paul II 1978-2005, Benedict XVI 2005-
BUWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
There are early records that before Peter and Paul were martyred in Rome they together chose Linus as Peter's successor.
He ruled the Church for about eleven years from 67. For the next twelve years Cletus was pope and then Clement from 90 to 100.
Peter d. 64 or 67, Linus 67-76, Anacletus I 76-88, Clement I 88-97, Evaristus 97-105,
Alexander I 105-15, Sixtus I 115-25, Telesphorus 125-36, Hyginus 136-40, Pius I 140-55, Anicetus 155-66,
Soter 166-75, Eleuterus 175-89, Victor I 189-99, Zephyrinus 199-217, Callistus I 217-22, Urban I 222-30, Pontain 230-35, Anterus 235-36, Fabian 236-50, Cornelius 251-53, Lucius I 253-54, Stephen I 254-57,
Sixtus II 257-58, Dionysius 260-68, Felix I 269-74, Eutychian 275-83, Caius 283-96, Marcellinus 296-304, Marcellus I 308-09, Eusebius 309-10, Miltiades 311-14, Sylvester I 314-35, Marcus 335-36,
Julius I 337-52, Liberius 352-66, Damasus I 366-83, Siricius 384-99, Anastasius I 399-401, Innocent I 401-17, Zosimus 417-18, Boniface I 418-22, Celestine I 422-32, Sixtus III 432-40, Leo I 440-61,
Hilarius 461-68, Simplicius 468-83, Felix III 483-92, Gelasius I 492-96, Anastasius II 496-98, Symmachus 498-514, Hormisdas 514-23, John I 523-26, Felix IV 526-30, Boniface II 530-32, John II 533-35,
Agapetus I 535-36, Silverius 536-37, Vigilius 537-55, Pelagius I 556-61, John III 561-74, Benedict I 575-79, Pelagius II 579-90, Gregory I 590-604, Sabinian 604-606, Boniface III 607, Boniface IV 608-15,
Deusdedit 615-18, Boniface V 619-25, Honorius I 625-38, Severinus 640, John IV 640-42, Theodore I 642-49, Martin I 649-55, Eugene I 655-57, Vitalian 657-72, Adeodatus 672-76, Donus 676-78,
Agatho 678-81, Leo II 681-83, Benedict II 684-85, John V 685-86, Conon 686-87, Sergius I 687-701, John VI 701-05, John VII 705-07, Sisinnius 708, Constantine 708-15, Gregory II 715-31,
Gregory III 731-41, Zacharias 741-52, Stephen II 752-57, Paul I 757-67, Stephen III 767-72, Adrian I 772-95, Leo III 795-816, Stephen IV 816-17, Paschal I 817-24, Eugene II 824-27, Valentine 827,
Gregory IV 827-44, Sergius II 844-47, Leo IV 847-55, Benedict III 855-58, Nicholas I 858-67, Adrian II 867-72, John VIII 872-82, Marinus I 882-84, Adrian III 884-85, Stephen V 885-91,
Formosus 891-96, Boniface VI 896, Stephen VI 896-97, Romanus 897, Theodore II 897, John IX 898-900, Benedict IV 900-03, Leo V 903, Chistopher 903-04, Sergius III 904-11, Anastasius III 911-13,
Lando 913-14, John X 914-28, Leo VI 928-29, Stephen VII 929-31, John XI 931-35, Leo VII 936-39, Stephen IX (VIII) 939-42, Marinus II 942-46, Agapetus II 946-55, John XII 955-63,
Leo VIII 963-64, Benedict V 964, John XIII 965-72, Benedict VI 973-74, Benedict VII 974-83, John XIV 983-84, Boniface VII 984-85, John XV 985-96, Gregory V 996-99, Sylvester II 999-1003,
John XVII 1003, John XVIII 1003-09, Sergius IV 1009-12, Benedict VIII 1012-24, John XIX 1024-33, Benedict IX 1033-45, Sylvester III 1045, Gregory VI 1045-46, Clement II 1046-47, Damasus II 1048,
Leo IX 1049-54, Victor II 1055-57, Stephen IX 1057-58, Benedidct X 1058, Nicholas II 1058-61, Alexander II 1061-73, Gregory VII 1073-85, Victor III 1086-87, Urban II 1088-99, Paschal II 1099-1118,
Gelasius II 1118-19, Callistus II 1119-24, Honorius II 1124-30, Innocent II 1130-43, Celestine II 1143-44, Lucius II 1144-45, Eugene III 1145-53, Anastasius IV 1153-54, Adrian IV 1154-59,
Alexander III 1159-81, Lucius III 1181-85, Urban III 1185-87, Gregory VIII 1187, Clement III 1187-91, Celestine III 1191-98, Innocent III 1198-1216, Honorius III 1216-27, Gregory IX 1227-41,
Celestine IV 1241, Innocent IV 1243-54, Alexander IV 1254-61, Urban IV 1261-64, Clement IV 1265-68, Gregory X 1271-76, Innocent V 1276, Adrian V 1276, John XXI 1276-77, Nicholas III 1277-80,
Martin IV 1281-85, Honorius IV 1285-87, Nicholas IV 1288-92, Celestine V 1294, Boniface VIII 1294-1303, Benedict XI 1303-04, Clement V 1305-14, John XXII 1316-34, Benedict XII 1334-42,
Clement VI 1342-52, Innocent VI 1352-62, Urban V 1362-70, Gregory XI 1370-78, Urban VI 1378-89, Boniface IX 1389-1404, Innocent VII 1406-06, Gregory XII 1406-15, Martin V 1417-31, Eugene IV 1431-47,
Nicholas V 1447-55, Callistus III 1445-58, Pius II 1458-64, Paul II 1464-71, Sixtus IV 1471-84, Innocent VIII 1484-92, Alexander VI 1492-1503, Pius III 1503, Julius II 1503-13, Leo X 1513-21,
Adrian VI 1522-23, Clement VII 1523-34, Paul III 1534-49, Julius III 1550-55, Marcellus II 1555, Paul IV 1555-59, Pius IV 1559-65, Pius V 1566-72, Gregory XIII 1572-85, Sixtus V 1585-90, Urban VII 1590,
Gregory XIV 1590-91, Innocent IX 1591, Clement VIII 1592-1605, Leo XI 1605, Paul V 1605-21, Gregory XV 1621-23, Urban VIII 1623-44, Innocent X 1644-55, Alexander VII 1655-67, Clement IX 1667-69,
Clement X 1670-76, Innocent XI 1676-89, Alexander VIII 1689-91, Innocent XII 1691-1700, Clement XI 1700-21, Innocent XIII 1721-24, Benedict XIII 1724-30, Clement XII 1730-40, Benedict XIV 1740-58,
Clement XIII 1758-69, Clement XIV 1769-74, Pius VI 1775-99, Pius VII 1800-23, Leo XII 1823-29, Pius VIII 1829-30, Gregory XVI 1831-46, Pius IX 1846-78, Leo XIII 1878-1903, Pius X 1903-14, Benedict XV 1914-22,
Pius XI 1922-39, Pius XII 1939-58, John XXIII 1958-63, Paul VI 1963-78, John Paul I 1978, John Paul II 1978-2005, Benedict XVI 2005-
BUWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
All I ask for is one example of someone in scripture asking a saint to intercede on their behalf.
Where is one example in scripture of Peter or Paul or any other apostle praying to the saints or mentioning prayer to a particular saint? (eg St John the Baptist etc)
where?
The problem is STDOMINIC when we search the scriptures we can't find much to support the Catholic claims. Which is why you must often refer to early church practices rather than what the apostles taught as recorded in Scripture. But when Jesus referred them to the scriptures, they could always find scriptures to back up Jesus's claims. Catholics on the other hand, usually can't. And even when they do refer to scripture, the scripture they quote mentions nothing of what Catholics claim it says:
Here is one example,
STDOMINIC claims that Rev 8:3-4 says this:
Here is what Rev 8:3-4 says
Rev 8:3 And another angel came and stood at the altar, having a golden censer; and there was given unto him much incense, that he should offer it with the prayers of all saints upon the golden altar which was before the throne.
Rev 8:4 And the smoke of the incense, which came with the prayers of the saints, ascended up before God out of the angel's hand.
It's clear that Rev 8:3-4 doesn't say anything about what STDOMINIC claims it is saying.
Note,
It doesn't mention saints in Heaven interceding for us. It is the angel delivering them not the saints in heaven. It states in verse 4 it goes directly from the angels hand to God. There is no saints in heaven mentioned.
The new testament does not have to be compiled for it to exist. It is well known that the individual books were circulated around and regarded as Scripture by the early church as quotations from early church writers alone is sufficient to prove this, before the NT was compiled.
Where is one example in scripture of Peter or Paul or any other apostle praying to the saints or mentioning prayer to a particular saint? (eg St John the Baptist etc)
where?
The problem is STDOMINIC when we search the scriptures we can't find much to support the Catholic claims. Which is why you must often refer to early church practices rather than what the apostles taught as recorded in Scripture. But when Jesus referred them to the scriptures, they could always find scriptures to back up Jesus's claims. Catholics on the other hand, usually can't. And even when they do refer to scripture, the scripture they quote mentions nothing of what Catholics claim it says:
Here is one example,
STDOMINIC claims that Rev 8:3-4 says this:
Here is what Rev 8:3-4 says
Rev 8:3 And another angel came and stood at the altar, having a golden censer; and there was given unto him much incense, that he should offer it with the prayers of all saints upon the golden altar which was before the throne.
Rev 8:4 And the smoke of the incense, which came with the prayers of the saints, ascended up before God out of the angel's hand.
It's clear that Rev 8:3-4 doesn't say anything about what STDOMINIC claims it is saying.
Note,
It doesn't mention saints in Heaven interceding for us. It is the angel delivering them not the saints in heaven. It states in verse 4 it goes directly from the angels hand to God. There is no saints in heaven mentioned.
The new testament does not have to be compiled for it to exist. It is well known that the individual books were circulated around and regarded as Scripture by the early church as quotations from early church writers alone is sufficient to prove this, before the NT was compiled.
- Status