The Early Church is the Catholic Church

[rakovsky]

Wow....so let me get this straight. Jesus is God because of the Trinity. Thus Mary is the mother of God. However the son is not eternal with the Father? The son was created with Mary? So much for the incarnation and the trinity....right? Please, just read what I wrote and stop throwing strawman arguments at me.

Sent from my SM-N915V using Tapatalk

Where did he say the son is not coeternal with God or say that Jesus being created IN THE SENSE OF BEING MADE INTO A MAN means that He did not exist before he became a man?

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

The Ecumenical councils are common sense and Biblical for EOs.

BTW FYI the Westminster confession teaches infant baptism.

I don't agree with the Presbyterian church and their acceptance of infant baptism. The Bible is abundantly clear of what baptism is, who it is for, and what it accomplishes. In the Bible, only believers who had placed their faith in Christ were baptized - as a public testimony of their faith and identification with Him (Acts 2:38; Romans 6:3-4). Water baptism by immersion is a step of obedience after faith in Christ. It is a proclamation of faith in Christ, a statement of submission to Him, and an identification with His death, burial, and resurrection.

With this in view, infant baptism is not a Biblical practice. An infant cannot place his or her faith in Christ. An infant cannot make a conscious decision to obey Christ. An infant cannot understand what water baptism symbolizes.

Many Christians who practice infant baptism do so because they understand infant baptism as the new covenant equivalent of circumcision. In this view, just as circumcision joined a Hebrew to the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants, so baptism joined a person to the New Covenant of salvation through Jesus Christ. This view is unbiblical. The New Testament nowhere describes baptism as the New Covenant replacement for Old Covenant circumcision. The New Testament nowhere describes baptism as a sign of the New Covenant. It is faith in Jesus Christ that enables a person to enjoy the blessings of the New Covenant (1 Corinthians 11:25; 2 Corinthians 3:6; Hebrews 9:15).

Baptism does not save a person. It does not matter if you were baptized by immersion, pouring, or sprinkling - if you have not first trusted in Christ for salvation, baptism (no matter the method) is meaningless and useless. Water baptism by immersion is a step of obedience to be done after salvation as a public profession of faith in Christ and identification with Him. Infant baptism does not fit the Biblical definition of baptism or the Biblical method of baptism. If Christian parents wish to dedicate their child to Christ, then a baby dedication service is entirely appropriate. However, even if infants are dedicated to the Lord, when they grow up they will still have to make a personal decision to believe in Jesus Christ in order to be saved.

Sent from my SM-N915V using Tapatalk

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Where did he say the son is not coeternal with God or say that Jesus being created IN THE SENSE OF BEING MADE INTO A MAN means that He did not exist before he became a man?

That was samir's arguement...not mine. Mary is not the Mother of God. She was the surrogate vessel that God used to turn His word into flesh. Big difference.

Sent from my SM-N915V using Tapatalk

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

The Trinitarian doctrines are all extra-biblical in nature and therefore "man-made."

Not exactly true. The trinity comes from John 1. Which is in the bible from what I remember.

Sent from my SM-N915V using Tapatalk

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

I mean that if Mary remained a virgin, it's just a biological fact and she did not have sex. Some people don't.
If it's a true fact, I don't know whether it is worth debating whether it's man made or not, kind of like the same thing with the earth being round or the apostles suffering persecution. Certainly in church tradition there are teachings that the apostles remained strong and Mary remained a virgin. Not sure about the form of the earth though.

Except Mary did not "remain" a virgin. She remained a virgin "until" she gave birth to Jesus.

Sent from my SM-N915V using Tapatalk

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Matthew 1New International Version (NIV)

The Genealogy of Jesus the Messiah
1 This is the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah the son of David, the son of Abraham:

2 Abraham was the father of Isaac,
Isaac the father of Jacob,
Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers,
3 Judah the father of Perez and Zerah, whose mother was Tamar,
Perez the father of Hezron,
Hezron the father of Ram,
4 Ram the father of Amminadab,
Amminadab the father of Nahshon,
Nahshon the father of Salmon,
5 Salmon the father of Boaz, whose mother was Rahab,
Boaz the father of Obed, whose mother was Ruth,
Obed the father of Jesse,
6 and Jesse the father of King David.
David was the father of Solomon, whose mother had been Uriah’s wife,
7 Solomon the father of Rehoboam,
Rehoboam the father of Abijah,
Abijah the father of Asa,
8 Asa the father of Jehoshaphat,
Jehoshaphat the father of Jehoram,
Jehoram the father of Uzziah,
9 Uzziah the father of Jotham,
Jotham the father of Ahaz,
Ahaz the father of Hezekiah,
10 Hezekiah the father of Manasseh,
Manasseh the father of Amon,
Amon the father of Josiah,
11 and Josiah the father of Jeconiah[c] and his brothers at the time of the exile to Babylon.
12 After the exile to Babylon:
Jeconiah was the father of Shealtiel,
Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel,
13 Zerubbabel the father of Abihud,
Abihud the father of Eliakim,
Eliakim the father of Azor,
14 Azor the father of Zadok,
Zadok the father of Akim,
Akim the father of Elihud,
15 Elihud the father of Eleazar,
Eleazar the father of Matthan,
Matthan the father of Jacob,
16 and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, and Mary was the mother of Jesus who is called the Messiah.

Notice that the lineage of Jesus Christ goes through Joseph and not Mary. Given the fact that Joseph's seed was not involved whatsoever, don't you think that is rather strange that the lineage of Mary is not even mentioned since she is the supposed "mother of God"? So why is Mary venerated as the "mother of God" and Joseph is not venerated as the "Father of God"?

 

[rakovsky]

Except Mary did not "remain" a virgin. She remained a virgin "until" she gave birth to Jesus.

Sent from my SM-N915V using Tapatalk

Doesn't virgin mean someone who didn't have sex? Isn't she still a virgin after birth?

 

[rakovsky]

Matthew 1New International Version (NIV)

The Genealogy of Jesus the Messiah
1 This is the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah the son of David, the son of Abraham:

2 Abraham was the father of Isaac,
Isaac the father of Jacob,
Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers,
3 Judah the father of Perez and Zerah, whose mother was Tamar,
Perez the father of Hezron,
Hezron the father of Ram,
4 Ram the father of Amminadab,
Amminadab the father of Nahshon,
Nahshon the father of Salmon,
5 Salmon the father of Boaz, whose mother was Rahab,
Boaz the father of Obed, whose mother was Ruth,
Obed the father of Jesse,
6 and Jesse the father of King David.
David was the father of Solomon, whose mother had been Uriah’s wife,
7 Solomon the father of Rehoboam,
Rehoboam the father of Abijah,
Abijah the father of Asa,
8 Asa the father of Jehoshaphat,
Jehoshaphat the father of Jehoram,
Jehoram the father of Uzziah,
9 Uzziah the father of Jotham,
Jotham the father of Ahaz,
Ahaz the father of Hezekiah,
10 Hezekiah the father of Manasseh,
Manasseh the father of Amon,
Amon the father of Josiah,
11 and Josiah the father of Jeconiah[c] and his brothers at the time of the exile to Babylon.
12 After the exile to Babylon:
Jeconiah was the father of Shealtiel,
Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel,
13 Zerubbabel the father of Abihud,
Abihud the father of Eliakim,
Eliakim the father of Azor,
14 Azor the father of Zadok,
Zadok the father of Akim,
Akim the father of Elihud,
15 Elihud the father of Eleazar,
Eleazar the father of Matthan,
Matthan the father of Jacob,
16 and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, and Mary was the mother of Jesus who is called the Messiah.

Notice that the lineage of Jesus Christ goes through Joseph and not Mary. Given the fact that Joseph's seed was not involved whatsoever, don't you think that is rather strange that the lineage of Mary is not even mentioned since she is the supposed "mother of God"? So why is Mary venerated as the "mother of God" and Joseph is not venerated as the "Father of God"?

Luke and Matthew give different geneologies, one for joseph and one for mary.

All you need to know is that Christ was preincarnate as God, and that the eternal Word took on flesh from a woman, said woman thereby being his mother. Hence in that sense she is God's mother.

Any more debating the topic is superfluous, or called "making hay". It's kind of like rabbis arguing that Jesus is not the anointed because the prophets never putting anointing oil on Jesus.

If you want to discuss this more with me, read up on the controversy on Theodore Mopsuestia and get back to me.

 

[rakovsky]

Not exactly true. The trinity comes from John 1. Which is in the bible from what I remember.

Sent from my SM-N915V using Tapatalk

Key words COMES FROM. It never calls God a trinity and non traditional like JWs reject it . Same thing with other teachings held sonce the first two centries ad. Some of them "come from" the Bible but the Bible never directly states them and some nontraditionals reject them.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Luke and Matthew give different geneologies, one for joseph and one for mary.

Luke 3:

The Baptism and Genealogy of Jesus
21 When all the people were being baptized, Jesus was baptized too. And as he was praying, heaven was opened 22 and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven: “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.”

23 Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,

the son of Heli, 24 the son of Matthat,

the son of Levi, the son of Melki,

the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph,

25 the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos,

the son of Nahum, the son of Esli,

the son of Naggai, 26 the son of Maath,

the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein,

the son of Josek, the son of Joda,

27 the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa,

the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel,

the son of Neri, 28 the son of Melki,

the son of Addi, the son of Cosam,

the son of Elmadam, the son of Er,

29 the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer,

the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat,

the son of Levi, 30 the son of Simeon,

the son of Judah, the son of Joseph,

the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim,

31 the son of Melea, the son of Menna,

the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan,

the son of David, 32 the son of Jesse,

the son of Obed, the son of Boaz,

the son of Salmon,[d] the son of Nahshon,

33 the son of Amminadab, the son of Ram,[e]

the son of Hezron, the son of Perez,

the son of Judah, 34 the son of Jacob,

the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham,

the son of Terah, the son of Nahor,

35 the son of Serug, the son of Reu,

the son of Peleg, the son of Eber,

the son of Shelah, 36 the son of Cainan,

the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem,

the son of Noah, the son of Lamech,

37 the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch,

the son of Jared, the son of Mahalalel,

the son of Kenan, 38 the son of Enosh,

the son of Seth, the son of Adam,

the son of God.



You want to try that one again? Both seem to go through Joseph.

 

[rakovsky]

Luke 3:

The Baptism and Genealogy of Jesus
21 When all the people were being baptized, Jesus was baptized too. And as he was praying, heaven was opened 22 and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven: “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.”

23 Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,

the son of Heli, 24 the son of Matthat,

the son of Levi, the son of Melki,

the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph,

25 the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos,

the son of Nahum, the son of Esli,

the son of Naggai, 26 the son of Maath,

the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein,

the son of Josek, the son of Joda,

27 the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa,

the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel,

the son of Neri, 28 the son of Melki,

the son of Addi, the son of Cosam,

the son of Elmadam, the son of Er,

29 the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer,

the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat,

the son of Levi, 30 the son of Simeon,

the son of Judah, the son of Joseph,

the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim,

31 the son of Melea, the son of Menna,

the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan,

the son of David, 32 the son of Jesse,

the son of Obed, the son of Boaz,

the son of Salmon,[d] the son of Nahshon,

33 the son of Amminadab, the son of Ram,[e]

the son of Hezron, the son of Perez,

the son of Judah, 34 the son of Jacob,

the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham,

the son of Terah, the son of Nahor,

35 the son of Serug, the son of Reu,

the son of Peleg, the son of Eber,

the son of Shelah, 36 the son of Cainan,

the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem,

the son of Noah, the son of Lamech,

37 the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch,

the son of Jared, the son of Mahalalel,

the son of Kenan, 38 the son of Enosh,

the son of Seth, the son of Adam,

the son of God.



You want to try that one again? Both seem to go through Joseph.

This site explains some issues with geneology
https://bible.org/question/mary’s-lineage-one-gospels

But anyway, like I said the argument is superfluous unless you wish to deny that The preincarnate Word, God, took on flesh from a woman, who gave birth to him someone who gives birth is a mother.

There is no deeper problem here or anything to wrack your brains over at all.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

This site explains some issues with geneology
https://bible.org/question/mary’s-lineage-one-gospels

But anyway, like I said the argument is superfluous unless you wish to deny that The preincarnate Word, God, took on flesh from a woman, who gave birth to him someone who gives birth is a mother.

There is no deeper problem here or anything to wrack your brains over at all.

I disagree with the commentary. With even the most rudimentary reading of both chapters one can obviously conclude that they both put Joseph at the center of focus. Matthew 1 is a long list of the ancestors of Joseph and finishes with a "Joseph who happens to be the husband of Mary who gave birth to Jesus.

In Luke 3, the lineage begins with Joseph . As a matter of fact, Mary is not even mentioned! So why is it assumed that the lineage found in Luke is that of Mary? I think it is just a desperate attempt to twist scripture in order to justify false doctrine.

What's my point for bringing these up? It's simple, Catholics (and EO) place a high value on extra-biblical "Sacred Tradition " to justify Mary's titles. However, even the writers of the gospels did not place a high value on her. Her lineage is not even given.

Edit: just so that we stay on topic with the OP I just wanted to make sure that it is understood that the purpose of these posts is not to debate the immaculate conception but rather how the early church was not the Roman Catholic Church by demonstrating that the true "early church" that is found in the NT (as well as the authors of the gospels that many extra-biblical writings and "sacred traditions" are based) did not even agree with the Catholic Church doctrine.

Sent from my SM-N915V using Tapatalk

 

[rakovsky]

I disagree with the commentary. With even the most rudimentary reading of both chapters one can obviously conclude that they both put Joseph at the center of focus. Matthew 1 is a long list of the ancestors of Joseph and finishes with a "Joseph who happens to be the husband of Mary who gave birth to Jesus.

In Luke 3, the lineage begins with Joseph . As a matter of fact, Mary is not even mentioned! So why is it assumed that the lineage found in Luke is that of Mary? I think it is just a desperate attempt to twist scripture in order to justify false doctrine.
k

you can read up on why protestate scholars are divided on this question.
Is Jesus being eternal God and being born of mary called his mother in the Bible "false doctrine"?

 

[rakovsky]

It's simple, Catholics (and EO) place a high value on extra-biblical "Sacred Tradition " to justify Mary's titles. However, even the writers of the gospels did not place a high value on her. H

Are you familiar with all the praise Gabriel heaped on Mary in the Annunciation in the Bible?

I think many Reformed Protestants 1500 years after the Bible was written didn't believe in many ancient ideas like holy oil or exorcisms and then concluded that the bible does not teach these supernatural things for today. Likewise, God being born of a woman sounds weird to more skeptical, naturalistic people today than it did in the ancient world. There are even some protestant ministers nowadays who teach that the virginal incarnation didn't actually happen.

 

[rakovsky]

the purpose of these posts is not to debate the immaculate conception but rather how the early church was not the Roman Catholic Church by demonstrating that the true "early church" that is found in the NT (as well as the authors of the gospels that many extra-biblical writings and "sacred traditions" are based) did not even agree with the Catholic Church doctrine.

If you actually want to do that, read up on the differences between the EO church and the RCs. The EO church teaches the things from 30 to 200 ad. The RC church's differences are the things and inventions you talked about above.

Other Reformed complaints like using pictures during worship have more to do with the Reformed mentality of 1600 AD.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

If you actually want to do that, read up on the differences between the EO church and the RCs. The EO church teaches the things from 30 to 200 ad. The RC church's differences are the things and inventions you talked about above.

Other Reformed complaints like using pictures during worship have more to do with the Reformed mentality of 1600 AD.

I am actually rather interested in the EO. I grew up Roman Catholic and was a Catholic for 22 years but I admit I am not so keen on Eastern Orthodoxy. I am actually rather fascinated by it. I think I am going to check out the EO forums.

Sent from my SM-N915V using Tapatalk

 

[rakovsky]

I am actually rather interested in the EO. I grew up Roman Catholic and was a Catholic for 22 years but I admit I am not so keen on Eastern Orthodoxy. I am actually rather fascinated by it. I think I am going to check out the EO forums.

Sent from my SM-N915V using Tapatalk

EO is like Lutheran and Anglican but the similarity to the RCS is they have the same supernatural mentality like people did in ad 50, believing in holy oil, exorcisms, holy objects that can be used in healings. We read about these things in the Bible, but Reformed Protestants , eg Evangelicals, stopped believing in them outside the times they happened in the Bible.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

EO is like Lutheran and Anglican but the similarity to the RCS is they have the same supernatural mentality like people did in ad 50, believing in holy oil, exorcisms, holy objects that can be used in healings. We read about these things in the Bible, but Reformed Protestants , eg Evangelicals, stopped believing in them outside the times they happened in the Bible.

As you have probably noticed, I am non-denominational. I dont necessarily believe in Sola Scriptura (if it is not in the bible its not true) mentality. Because, obviously there was no bible during the first century. However, I place very heavy emphasis on sacred scripture as a "standard" to determine false doctrine. More simply stated. If it is not in the bible it could be true. But if it does not agree with the bible, it absolutely cannot be true. So if there is any church doctrine that is not biblical (does not agree with the bible), I have to reject it as false.

I believe that everything we need for salvation is contained in the gospels. Specifically, everything in red font. I cannot for a second believe that God would allow His only begotten Son to die on the cross without having said and done everything needed to be saved.

Now this is not to discredit the rest of scripture! Because "all scripture is useful" (1 Timothy 3). However, not all scripture is essential to the process of salvation. Thus, infant baptism, confession of sins to a priest, transubstantiation of the Eucharist, or many of the sacraments are not necessary for salvation.

Sent from my SM-N915V using Tapatalk

 

[rakovsky]

As you have probably noticed, I am non-denominational. I dont necessarily believe in Sola Scriptura (if it is not in the bible its not true) mentality. Because, obviously there was no bible during the first century. However, I place very heavy emphasis on sacred scripture as a "standard" to determine false doctrine. More simply stated. If it is not in the bible it could be true. But if it does not agree with the bible, it absolutely cannot be true. So if there is any church doctrine that is not biblical (does not agree with the bible), I have to reject it as false.

I believe that everything we need for salvation is contained in the gospels. Specifically, everything in red font. I cannot for a second believe that God would allow His only begotten Son to die on the cross without having said and done everything needed to be saved.

Now this is not to discredit the rest of scripture! Because "all scripture is useful" (1 Timothy 3). However, not all scripture is essential to the process of salvation. Thus, infant baptism, confession of sins to a priest, transubstantiation of the Eucharist, or many of the sacraments are not necessary for salvation.

Sent from my SM-N915V using Tapatalk

How much is it worth rehashing these same issues?

Is baptism necessary?
Not absolutely bc some saints died before baptism.

is baptism commanded and important for salvation?
Yes, see mark 16 and Matthew 28.

Is infant baptism part of baptism?
The Mainstream teaching from our earliest records on the topic says Yes.

If you say no, then this is a lack of clarity on an issue strongly related to salvation in the Bible, because the Westminster confession teaches infant baptism as do other major protestant teachings, while a small fraction of christians reject it. And so if your answer is no, it means the Bible is not necessarily clear on issues strongly related to salvation.

If we can't see this stuff it will be hard to use simple logic to decide debates with RCs, not to mention other issues.

 

[Thursday]

I understand that this is the teaching of the Roman Catholic division, I have used it before.
Where I have trouble with all denominilationism is in the breaking apart of the body of Christ in a given location, whether it be the church in Rome or the church in Wagawaga, on the grounds other than Christ Jesus crucified and risen from the dead.
The breaking apart of the body is in itself a deepest heresy, has nothing to do with faith expressing itself in Love, and needs to be addressed in the hearts of all beleivers whether that be those who remain or those who depart.

Jesus started the Catholic Church(and Orthodox). Men started all the other denominations.