"You are Peter, and upon this rock..."

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

That doesn't mean they travelled together to Emmaus. Middle Eastern cultures were much more homosocial than modern western societies, men did not necessarily feel the need to spend much time with their wives. If they wanted companionship, they often would be with other men as friends. Sexes were often very segregated.

Your degree doesn't give you the right to supercede what it there in the bible to fit into your interpretation today.

 

[Albion]

Your degree doesn't give you the right to supercede what it there in the bible to fit into your interpretation today.

"What is there" in the Bible does not include any indication of the identity or gender of the two people. Most likely it was two men.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

"What is there" in the Bible does not include any indication of the identity or gender of the two people. Most likely it was two men.

What is there is John speaking of the person mentioned as the wife being part of those at the cross...so we differ in what is tradition and what is scripture as to what is most likely the disciples that lived at the end of Emaus Road.

 

[prodromos]

So you DON'T have any other evidence that would indicate the gender of the two disciples on the road to Emmaus??

I'm posting from a hospital bed. I don't have my library and notes at hand.
You also didn't answer my question.
Edit: I now see you did in your later post to Cassia

 

[prodromos]

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Seventy_Apostles

Hippolytus of Rome (+235) had produced an early list of the Seventy Apostles, however it was regarded as dubious, and was put in the Appendix of his works in the voluminous collection of Early Church Fathers.

Dorotheus of Tyre (+362) traditionally is the one credited with recounting the names of the Seventy Apostles. These names were also given in the Chronicon Paschale,a 7th-century Byzantine universal chronicle of the world. However there were errors in the list attributed to Saint Dorotheus, including the repetition of four names, the omission of other names, and the inclusion of some men who were Apostles at first, but later fell from the faith and the dignity of their office.

It was St. Dimitri of Rostov (+1709) who consulted the Holy Scripture, the traditions passed down by the Fathers, and the accounts of trustworthy historians in attempting to correct the mistakes and uncertainties in the list when compiling his collection of Lives of the Saints. A widely accepted canon in the Orthodox Church is thus given in "The Great Collection of the Lives of the Saints, Volume 5: January",compiled by St. Demetrius of Rostov

 

[Standing Up]

As far as Ignatius, I didn't know that.

Then one would Irenaeus, who said that Mary is the "cause of our salvation" and the New Eve, and that the bread and wine become Christ's Body and Blood, and that rule of faith is the Succession of Bishops, and that the Catholic Church is the Church, and that all the Churches in the whole world must agree with the Roman Bishop, and that we are saved through Baptism.

Okay, so is Tertullian your best example of someone who agrees with you as to Biblical interpretation between 100 and 1200 A.D.?

Irenaeus also said agree with Polycarp and Ephesus, not just Rome. His point was the continuity of faith in various churches, not the establishing of an earthly pope. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.iv.html

He was also a believer in the normal human birth, rather than the ever-virgin myth. He also said, like Eve, Mary agreed "while yet a virgin". IOW, neither remained virgins.

Irenaeus also thought Christ remained on earth until He was 50.

So, you've got no one who thinks/represents RC pre 300ad.

IMO, Tertullian, Polycarp, Melito, martyrs of Lyons, and others come best to representing the faith once delivered at that stage.

 

[Root of Jesse]

OK. That's what I will refer to my "invisible church" as. We are ninjas. Lol we had a big parade through town and nobody noticed.

Except that we are very visible.

 

[Root of Jesse]

"BobRyan, post: 68099990, member: 235244"]Christ was the Rock of the NT - "NO OTHER foundation can anyone lay than has been laid - CHRIST" 1Cor 3
"They all drank from the same Spiritual ROCK and that ROCK was Christ" 1 Cor 10:1-4

The Catholic Church appears to have teaching that looks like the result of a mistaken direction that some Christians started taking as early as the mid-second century and more and more took it over time.

The Christian Church (Not catholicism) was started by Christ. That church is "surviving" a lot of bad ideas that come up here and there over the centuries. Lutherans, Calvinists etc were protesting-Catholics initially trying to reform the Catholic church so it would more closely match the Bible pattern dictated for the church by God.

Some complain that Luther and Calvin "did not go far enough" in undoing the dark ages load of error that had piled into the church over that many centuries of time. Certainly it would not be reasonable to expect them to have discovered every flaw that had come in. And many groups had opposed the Catholic method of piling in tradition long before Luther.
===========================================



So then you object to some part of my post??

Not to the red, at all. Only to the rest, which is without attribution. FYI, the Christian Church came to be known as Catholic, because it was instituted by Christ to be universal. The Church survives because it is of God. Many Protestant churches start, and fail. In your last paragraph, you speak of tradition, which, of course, is different than Tradition.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Eucharist as memorial (martyrs of Lyons) vs sacrifice of meat/blood.

Eucharist is not a sacrifice of meat/blood. It is the real body and blood of Christ, which is different.

Normal human birth (Tertullian) vs something akin to out the east gate (Mary's side).

This is not Church doctrine.

Normal marital relations (Cyril of Jerusalem) vs ever-virgin.

Got a source on this?

Pascha observance (floating) (Polycarp) vs divorced fixed Easter.

This is a practice, not a doctrine.

Priesthood of believer (various) vs sacerdotal priesthood.

False dichotomy. The ordained priesthood is different than the priesthood of believers.

Baptism of believer by believer (Firmilian) vs any dunking will do.

99.999999999999% of baptisms are done by believers. Only in extreme circumstances would a baptism by non-believer be acceptible, and then, if the baptized survives whatever extreme circumstance, must be properly baptized. Nitpicking.

 

[BobRyan]

So apparently neither of us knows anyone between 100 and 1200 who interprets the Bible like Protestants on even three issues.

Now I'm no patristics scholar at all, but I know that Ignatius testifies in the very early 100s to the threefold hierarchy of Bishop, Priest, Deacon; and that we should obey the Bishop as Christ and the presbytery as the Apostles; and that the true Church is called "Catholic"; and that the Roman Church "holds the presidency"; and that baptism is our "armament"; and that Rome's instructions should remain "in force"; and that the Eucharist is a Sacrifice; and that we actually consume Christ's Body and Blood; and that those who deny this are heretics.

Gal 1:6-9 "though WE (Apostles) or an Angel from heaven should preach to you a different Gospel - let him be accursed" -

Paul was not preaching the "just believe whatever we tell you to believe because after all - we are apostles" Gospel

 

[Root of Jesse]

Hmm, last I checked Tertulian was branded a heretic, as was Polycrates and his kind. Clement of Alexandria didn't believe in ever-virgin myth, hence per RC would be in hell as committing a mortal sin.

Tertullian, not St. Tertullian, did drift into heresy. But when he was right, he was right. Same with the others. We don't claim them infallible or perfect. I'm still waiting on the proof that any of them didn't believe in Mary's ever-virginity.

 

[Root of Jesse]

You seem to have decreed that the Catholic Church is de facto correct. You ignore that it has changed through history. It has split itself. It has had church leaders holding different theologies. This only confirms that no church holds the truth in entirety.

The Church never changed on faith and morals. It did deepen, and some thought it went too deep. As the disciples did in John 6. It happens.

Thank God that the doctrine test for salvation is very simple. Do you believe in Jesus as your Savior? One may argue that how you live your life as a follower of God is more important than a belief and understanding of an expansive doctrine system.

To those given plenty, plenty is expected. To those given little, little is expected.

 

[Root of Jesse]

I'd have to look more closely at each of their beliefs to answer your question, but let's reverse this. Give us some examples of folks in the first couple hundred years who adhered to what would become RC.

No can do, papa. The Church was already evident.

 

[BobRyan]

Christ was the Rock of the NT - "NO OTHER foundation can anyone lay than has been laid - CHRIST" 1Cor 3

"They all drank from the same Spiritual ROCK (Petra) and that ROCK(Petra) was Christ" 1 Cor 10:1-4

Not to the red, at all. Only to the rest, which is without attribution.

Well then - the red.

In your last paragraph, you speak of tradition, which, of course, is different than Tradition.

One has an upper case?

 

[Root of Jesse]

Well then - the red.

Question: Why must it be either/or? Also, Simon was re-named Kephas, not Petra. Peter is the Greek translation of Kephas.


One has an upper case?[/QUOTE]I thought you were well schooled on Catholicism!

 

[Standing Up]

No can do, papa. The Church was already evident.

Go ahead and name one person who in the first 300 years adhered to what would become RC's doctrines of today.

 

[Standing Up]

Tertullian, not St. Tertullian, did drift into heresy. But when he was right, he was right. Same with the others. We don't claim them infallible or perfect. I'm still waiting on the proof that any of them didn't believe in Mary's ever-virginity.

Have at it and you may see. If you have any questions afterwards, feel free to post again.

Tertullian
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.v.vii.i.html

Irenaeus, in comparing Mary and Eve said they both "were yet virgins". Which implies, as we know, they didn't remain virgins.

Cyril of Jerusalem, granted female virgin's the 9-months of Christ's development, not the life of Mary.

 

[Standing Up]

Eucharist is not a sacrifice of meat/blood.

Are you denying that Mass is a sacrifice?

 

[Rick Otto]

No can do, papa. The Church was already evident.

That would normally make it all the easier.
I don't get it, but I know I don't have to feel obligated to prove a negative re EV, but objection aside, I doubt you can source it apostolicaly.

 

[Rick Otto]

Are you denying that Mass is a sacrifice?

This is creating a forest of terminology to avoid getting hung up on one tree,... so to speak.

By using the term "real", he merely shifted the argument to defining reality.