Doctrine that Adds to Scripture

[kepha31]

That is a real stretch. It would be equal to saying that Mary was an albino because she was sinless. The fact, according to Romans 6:23, is that the wages of sin is death. If Mary was sinless then she would not have suffered the wages of sin. However, your Oral Tradition maintains that, in fact, she did die. Thus, you are faced with a contradiction between the Bible and your Oral Tradition, are you not?

The Church has never formally defined whether she died or not, and the integrity of the doctrine of the Assumption would not be impaired if she did not in fact die, but the almost universal consensus is that she did die. Pope Pius XII, in Munificentissimus Deus (1950), defined that Mary, "after the completion of her earthly life" (note the silence regarding her death), "was assumed body and soul into the glory of heaven."Immaculate Conception and Assumption | Catholic Answers
Adam and Eve were created without sin, and remained so until The Fall. Angles were created without sin (until some rebelled) so why is sinlessness so unthinkable to Protestants?

Rom. 3:23 – Some Protestants use this verse “all have sinned” in an attempt to prove that Mary was also with sin. But “all have sinned ” only means that all are subject to original sin. Mary was spared from original sin by God, not herself. The popular analogy is God let us fall in the mud puddle, and cleaned us up afterward through baptism. In Mary’s case, God did not let her enter the mud puddle.

Rom. 3:23 – “all have sinned” also refers only to those able to commit sin. This is not everyone. For example, infants, the retarded, and the senile cannot sin.

Rom. 3:23 – finally, “all have sinned,” but Jesus must be an exception to this rule. This means that Mary can be an exception as well. Note that the Greek word for all is “pantes.”

1 Cor. 15:22 – in Adam all (“pantes”) have died, and in Christ all (“pantes”) shall live. This proves that “all” does not mean “every single one.” This is because not all have died (such as Enoch and Elijah who were taken up to heaven), and not all will go to heaven (because Jesus said so).

What makes it so difficult to explain is the rejection of the doctrine of original sin, a recent man made tradition. OS is detailed in Romans 5.

You can't be "Full of Grace" with sin on the side.

 

[kepha31]

Again, you have decided to join my discussion with Concretecamper and derail it. His assertion was that Jesus Christ Himself established the Catholic Church. I am waiting from him and, apparently now, you, to show exactly where in the Bible Jesus Christ established a religious family or bureaucracy or denomination or sect headquartered in Rome, Italy.

Jesus didn't establish His Church based on a distant city in the future, He established it on the personal leadership of Peter. There were no Christians in Rome at this time. fast forward> Jerusalem was the center of authority (Acts 15) until the death of James. After that, the center of authority shifted to Rome, where Peter wrote from 1 Peter 5:13
“Babylon” was a code name for Rome during these days of persecution. Peter had to be careful how he worded his letters because the Romans were hunting fort him. See, for example, Rev. 14:8, 16:19, 17:5, 18:2,10,21, which show that “Babylon” meant Rome. Rome was the “great city” of the New Testament period. Because Rome during this age was considered the center of the world, the Lord wanted His Church to be established in Rome to better facilitate the spread of the gospel.
One verse isn't much, but it's enough. We have documented evidence that the Church in Rome (not the church of Rome) from the Early Church Fathers it was the main Church of the 1st century. But historical evidence is not accepted by some because it doesn't fit their preconceptions.

Just as a matter of interest, our brothers in the Oriental Orthodox Churches and the Eastern Orthodox Churches assuredly disagree with your history and have their patriarchates in various other cities, none of which was specified by Jesus Christ in the Bible.

A patriarch is a bishop. It's in the Bible. They recognize the first 5-7 Ecumenical Councils which contradicts their anti-Roman animus. You should take it up with them.

What year did the gates of hades prevail against the Church He builds? Does Jesus build junk?

 

[kepha31]

bbbb, where did Jesus say the gates of Hades would prevail against the His Church and the 'bounce back' 15 centuries later would be centered in Germany?

 

[Major1]

Generally the churches don't add to the Scriptures, if anything they tend to neglect them. It's not uncommon for certain churches to require baptism for salvation, even one Pentecostal group (Apostolics/Jesus only) require tongues for salvation. This isn't really adding to the Scriptures, it's more like misapplying them. I don't think tithing applies to New Testament believers, however, some churches require it. The church wants the blessings associated with tithing so in well meaning enthusiasm the church insists on it for it's members.

To be clear, with regards to the gospel the church is either preaching the gospel or they are not. When it comes to hearing the gospel you either believe it or not, and you know your saved when the Holy Spirit confirms this fact to you personally, that you are a child of the living God. The grace that saves you also preserves you and equips you for service. Local bodies or denominations my have controversial or seemingly unbiblical doctrines, the Catholics believe in edicts from Popes and Councils. These extra-biblical proclamations can never carry the weight of Scripture with regards to doctrine and practice. The gospel will remain unaffected because the simplicity of the gospel the the testimony of Scripture cannot be broken.

Grace and peace,
Mark

I respect your position but I really have to disagree with..........
"Generally the churches don't add to the Scriptures, if anything they tend to neglect them".

My experience and observations are just the opposite. The problem I see is that may too many churches and Christian denominations ADD to the Scriptures.

Deut. 4:2 says...........
"Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the LORD your God that I give you'.

Take tongues as the example you used. The Bible nowhere says that tongues must be spoken in order to be saved.

Consider "slain in the spirit". There is actually NO Scripture in the Bible that says it is something that a Christian can do or should do.

The "alter call" we see in Baptist churches is not found in the Scriptures. They do it because someone did it 200 years ago and it was effective so they do it now as well.

Those things are ADDED by people because people WANT to do them so they ADD that to the Word of God.

Take the Catholic tradition of ones crossing themselves. That practice is NOT found in the Bible.

Consider the sinlessness of Mary and her assumption. That is ADDED by the Catholic church because they want to believe that is what happened but it is nowhere to be found in the Scriptures.

 

[bbbbbbb]

bbbb, where did Jesus say the gates of Hades would prevail against the His Church and the 'bounce back' 15 centuries later would be centered in Germany?

That is a peculiar question especially addressed to myself, who am not Lutheran. I am unaware of a religious bureaucracy existing today in any city in Germany which claims to be the ONE, TRUE, APOSTOLIC CHURCH. If there is one please let me know more details about it. Thank you.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Jesus didn't establish His Church based on a distant city in the future, He established it on the personal leadership of Peter. There were no Christians in Rome at this time. fast forward> Jerusalem was the center of authority (Acts 15) until the death of James. After that, the center of authority shifted to Rome, where Peter wrote from 1 Peter 5:13
“Babylon” was a code name for Rome during these days of persecution. Peter had to be careful how he worded his letters because the Romans were hunting fort him. See, for example, Rev. 14:8, 16:19, 17:5, 18:2,10,21, which show that “Babylon” meant Rome. Rome was the “great city” of the New Testament period. Because Rome during this age was considered the center of the world, the Lord wanted His Church to be established in Rome to better facilitate the spread of the gospel.
One verse isn't much, but it's enough. We have documented evidence that the Church in Rome (not the church of Rome) from the Early Church Fathers it was the main Church of the 1st century. But historical evidence is not accepted by some because it doesn't fit their preconceptions.


A patriarch is a bishop. It's in the Bible. They recognize the first 5-7 Ecumenical Councils which contradicts their anti-Roman animus. You should take it up with them.

What year did the gates of hades prevail against the Church He builds? Does Jesus build junk?

Well, I see that you have not yet provided the slightest indication that Jesus Christ Himself promised to create a religious bureaucracy/family/denomination/sect headquartered in Rome, Italy. Your narrative, although interesting, is no more or less valid than other, similar narratives such as those from the Eastern Orthodox or Coptic or Oriental Orthodox branches of Christianity.

 

[bbbbbbb]

The Church has never formally defined whether she died or not, and the integrity of the doctrine of the Assumption would not be impaired if she did not in fact die, but the almost universal consensus is that she did die. Pope Pius XII, in Munificentissimus Deus (1950), defined that Mary, "after the completion of her earthly life" (note the silence regarding her death), "was assumed body and soul into the glory of heaven."Immaculate Conception and Assumption | Catholic Answers
Adam and Eve were created without sin, and remained so until The Fall. Angles were created without sin (until some rebelled) so why is sinlessness so unthinkable to Protestants?

Rom. 3:23 – Some Protestants use this verse “all have sinned” in an attempt to prove that Mary was also with sin. But “all have sinned ” only means that all are subject to original sin. Mary was spared from original sin by God, not herself. The popular analogy is God let us fall in the mud puddle, and cleaned us up afterward through baptism. In Mary’s case, God did not let her enter the mud puddle.

Rom. 3:23 – “all have sinned” also refers only to those able to commit sin. This is not everyone. For example, infants, the retarded, and the senile cannot sin.

Rom. 3:23 – finally, “all have sinned,” but Jesus must be an exception to this rule. This means that Mary can be an exception as well. Note that the Greek word for all is “pantes.”

1 Cor. 15:22 – in Adam all (“pantes”) have died, and in Christ all (“pantes”) shall live. This proves that “all” does not mean “every single one.” This is because not all have died (such as Enoch and Elijah who were taken up to heaven), and not all will go to heaven (because Jesus said so).

What makes it so difficult to explain is the rejection of the doctrine of original sin, a recent man made tradition. OS is detailed in Romans 5.

You can't be "Full of Grace" with sin on the side.

Actually, Noah is described as being a righteous man, having found grace in the sight of the Lord. Does that mean that he was conceived without the stain of original sin? Does that mean that he was incapable of sin all the days of his life? Does that mean that he remains a perpetual virgin in heaven? Does that mean that he never died, but was assumed into heaven?

 

[bbbbbbb]

I respect your position but I really have to disagree with..........
"Generally the churches don't add to the Scriptures, if anything they tend to neglect them".

My experience and observations are just the opposite. The problem I see is that may too many churches and Christian denominations ADD to the Scriptures.

Deut. 4:2 says...........
"Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the LORD your God that I give you'.

Take tongues as the example you used. The Bible nowhere says that tongues must be spoken in order to be saved.

Consider "slain in the spirit". There is actually NO Scripture in the Bible that says it is something that a Christian can do or should do.

The "alter call" we see in Baptist churches is not found in the Scriptures. They do it because someone did it 200 years ago and it was effective so they do it now as well.

Those things are ADDED by people because people WANT to do them so they ADD that to the Word of God.

Take the Catholic tradition of ones crossing themselves. That practice is NOT found in the Bible.

Consider the sinless of Mary and her assumption. That is ADDED by the Catholic church because they want to believe that is what happened but it is nowhere to be found in the Scriptures.

Just an interesting side note to your otherwise fine post. The Catholic Church has been doing altar calls for many centuries. At their altar calls the sinner receives Jesus Christ in the form of a wafer and a sip of wine. However, having received Jesus Christ in this manner is not enough to secure their salvation, but they must continue on a treadmill of good works which includes responding to the weekly altar call, so that they might hope for salvation.

 

[Major1]

Tradition is what has combated heresy throughout the history of the Church. The Church Fathers continually refer to what has been handed down from the Apostles.

The Trinity, the Two Natures of Christ, The Virgin Mary, The Church are all Traditions passed down from the Apostles. It is just that protestants believe some of the Oral Traditions and not others. Are you really surprised by this?

Once again you are confusing "Traditions" with "Transmission".

The practices given to us by the Apostles were the same thing as if Jesus had given them to us. They taught what God gave them to teach and that is the process of "TRANSMISSION".

So then, when the Apostles wrote their Epistles, or spoke to churches, we are hearing Jesus, who empowered them to speak and write in His name. That is the process of "Transmitting the truth of God's Word." Their words and writings were authorized by the Lord Jesus Christ and are therefore rooted in the Word of God and not men.

However, when we read or hear that Mary was born without sin and was assumed to heaven with out dying, that my dear friend is a "Tradition" of men which is not found and is not grounded and rooted in the Word of God.

Your comment is once again in error. Protestants do in fact accept Traditions which are grounded in the Word of God as Transmitted by the Apostles whether it be oral or written.

 

[bbbbbbb]

The Church has never formally defined whether she died or not, and the integrity of the doctrine of the Assumption would not be impaired if she did not in fact die, but the almost universal consensus is that she did die. Pope Pius XII, in Munificentissimus Deus (1950), defined that Mary, "after the completion of her earthly life" (note the silence regarding her death), "was assumed body and soul into the glory of heaven."Immaculate Conception and Assumption | Catholic Answers
Adam and Eve were created without sin, and remained so until The Fall. Angles were created without sin (until some rebelled) so why is sinlessness so unthinkable to Protestants?

Rom. 3:23 – Some Protestants use this verse “all have sinned” in an attempt to prove that Mary was also with sin. But “all have sinned ” only means that all are subject to original sin. Mary was spared from original sin by God, not herself. The popular analogy is God let us fall in the mud puddle, and cleaned us up afterward through baptism. In Mary’s case, God did not let her enter the mud puddle.

Rom. 3:23 – “all have sinned” also refers only to those able to commit sin. This is not everyone. For example, infants, the retarded, and the senile cannot sin.

Rom. 3:23 – finally, “all have sinned,” but Jesus must be an exception to this rule. This means that Mary can be an exception as well. Note that the Greek word for all is “pantes.”

1 Cor. 15:22 – in Adam all (“pantes”) have died, and in Christ all (“pantes”) shall live. This proves that “all” does not mean “every single one.” This is because not all have died (such as Enoch and Elijah who were taken up to heaven), and not all will go to heaven (because Jesus said so).

What makes it so difficult to explain is the rejection of the doctrine of original sin, a recent man made tradition. OS is detailed in Romans 5.

You can't be "Full of Grace" with sin on the side.

You have put your finger on a significant area of theological disagreement within Catholicism - the death of the Virgin Mary. For the first millennium of Christian history there was no question that she died. Then along came the Mariologists who decided that death was not the end of Mary, nor was it enough that she is in heaven. Thus, the doctrine of the assumption was crafted so that Mary might have her resurrected body in heaven before the universal resurrection promised by Jesus Christ. Why she needs a body in heaven is open to debate since the other saints seem to be fine in heaven awaiting the universal resurrection.

As the Mariolators have evolved within the Catholic Church there has been a shift away from the nasty thought that Mary suffered death. As a result, the Pope has evaded the issue to the best of his ability, in an attempt to pacify both sides of the argument.

Here is a lovely painting by the Italian Renaissance master, Fra Angelico depicting the deposition of the dead body of the Virgin Mary.

 

[Major1]

Just an interesting side note to your otherwise fine post. The Catholic Church has been doing altar calls for many centuries. At their altar calls the sinner receives Jesus Christ in the form of a wafer and a sip of wine. However, having received Jesus Christ in this manner is not enough to secure their salvation, but they must continue on a treadmill of good works which includes responding to the weekly altar call, so that they might hope for salvation.

Excellent observation and thanks for improving my point.

 

[Fidelibus]

I believe that you have the same ability with a computer that I do so I will let you do the work and find out what you need to know.

Yes, you would be correct. However, the reason for my request to see the source of your timeline was to see why the discrepancy in what I have found in my studies of early church history and the chronology of the New Testament..... Thats all. As I stated in a different post, while the exact date and order in which the New Testament writings were produced is debated, it is agreed that the very first of the New Testament writings did not occur until after the Council of Jerusalem in 50AD. And my studies have shown chronology of the first writings of the New Testament are as follows:
51AD – Paul’s 1st Letter to the Thessalonians
52AD – Paul’s 2nd Letter to the Thessalonians
54AD – Paul’s Letter to the Galatians.

And not until 55AD that an early Aramaic version of The Gospel of Saint Matthew appears, but was not widely used or adopted and is missing a lot of parts that would end up in the final version. So it wouldn’t be until 67AD that the accepted version of St. Matthew’s Gospel would be written. So the chronology of the first writings continues:
57AD – Paul’s 1st Letter to the Corinthians
58AD – Paul’s 2nd Letter to the Corinthians and Paul’s Letter to the Romans
60AD – The Letter of James
62AD – The Gospel of Luke
62AD – Paul’s Letter to Philemon, Paul’s Letter to Colossians and Paul’s Letter to the Ephesians
63AD – The Acts of the Apostles
64AD – First and Second Letter of Peter.
65AD – Paul’s First Letter to Timothy, Paul’s Letter to Titus and The Letter to the Hebrews (Authentic author of Hebrews is unknown – yet another reason to trust the authority of the Church)
66AD – The Gospel of Mark (the final accepted one) and Paul’s Second Letter to Timothy
67AD – The Gospel of Matthew
70AD – The Letter of Jude

Before I go any futher, back on post #94 you state:

Mark is believed to have been written around AD 55

As shown above, my studies show that the final accepted Gospel of Mark was written in 66 a.d. along with St.Paul's 2nd letter to Timothy which in its self is a very significant date in reguards to the doctrine and belief of sola scriptura. (the bible alone) Why you may ask. Well, because it shows that 33 years after the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, St. Pauls finally give the passage (2Tim.3:16-17) that sola scripturists say "see....Paul IS teaching the bible alone is all we need for a sole rule of faith!"


Can you see the problem here Major1? The Gospel of Luke and the Acts would have been the only two pieces of literature that would have been widely accepted as New Testament “scripture” at this point. All of Paul’s letters would have been seen as important and having authority, but it’s unlikely that every church community had a copy. The Gospel of Mark was written the same year as Paul’s 2nd Letter to Timothy. The Gospel of Matthew would come the following year and John’s Revelation and His Gospel would not come yet for several years. So is Paul really saying that all the we need to know is in Scripture Alone? What about all those Christians who for 18 years had nothing of the New Testament writings, and the 33 years before Paul would even write these words?

Of course not. The New Test. was not even completed until approx. 95 AD by John's Revelation of Jesus Christ.

Here again is why I asked to see your source Major1, for my studies show It would be another 15 years before John’s Revelation would be written. But before that there is another Christian writing that appears around this time period (maybe even earlier), "The Didache" (50-80 a.d.) Ever hear of it? If so, I'd love to hear your views of it.

(with help from pintpipeandcross.com)

 

[Major1]

Yes, you would be correct. However, the reason for my request to see the source of your timeline was to see why the discrepancy in what I have found in my studies of early church history and the chronology of the New Testament..... Thats all. As I stated in a different post, while the exact date and order in which the New Testament writings were produced is debated, it is agreed that the very first of the New Testament writings did not occur until after the Council of Jerusalem in 50AD. And my studies have shown chronology of the first writings of the New Testament are as follows:
51AD – Paul’s 1st Letter to the Thessalonians
52AD – Paul’s 2nd Letter to the Thessalonians
54AD – Paul’s Letter to the Galatians.

And not until 55AD that an early Aramaic version of The Gospel of Saint Matthew appears, but was not widely used or adopted and is missing a lot of parts that would end up in the final version. So it wouldn’t be until 67AD that the accepted version of St. Matthew’s Gospel would be written. So the chronology of the first writings continues:
57AD – Paul’s 1st Letter to the Corinthians
58AD – Paul’s 2nd Letter to the Corinthians and Paul’s Letter to the Romans
60AD – The Letter of James
62AD – The Gospel of Luke
62AD – Paul’s Letter to Philemon, Paul’s Letter to Colossians and Paul’s Letter to the Ephesians
63AD – The Acts of the Apostles
64AD – First and Second Letter of Peter.
65AD – Paul’s First Letter to Timothy, Paul’s Letter to Titus and The Letter to the Hebrews (Authentic author of Hebrews is unknown – yet another reason to trust the authority of the Church)
66AD – The Gospel of Mark (the final accepted one) and Paul’s Second Letter to Timothy
67AD – The Gospel of Matthew
70AD – The Letter of Jude

Before I go any futher, back on post #94 you state:



As shown above, my studies show that the final accepted Gospel of Mark was written in 66 a.d. along with St.Paul's 2nd letter to Timothy which in its self is a very significant date in reguards to the doctrine and belief of sola scriptura. (the bible alone) Why you may ask. Well, because it shows that 33 years after the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, St. Pauls finally give the passage (2Tim.3:16-17) that sola scripturists say "see....Paul IS teaching the bible alone is all we need for a sole rule of faith!"


Can you see the problem here Major1? The Gospel of Luke and the Acts would have been the only two pieces of literature that would have been widely accepted as New Testament “scripture” at this point. All of Paul’s letters would have been seen as important and having authority, but it’s unlikely that every church community had a copy. The Gospel of Mark was written the same year as Paul’s 2nd Letter to Timothy. The Gospel of Matthew would come the following year and John’s Revelation and His Gospel would not come yet for several years. So is Paul really saying that all the we need to know is in Scripture Alone? What about all those Christians who for 18 years had nothing of the New Testament writings, and the 33 years before Paul would even write these words?




Here again is why I asked to see your source Major1, for my studies show It would be another 15 years before John’s Revelation would be written. But before that there is another Christian writing that appears around this time period (maybe even earlier), "The Didache" (50-80 a.d.) Ever hear of it? If so, I'd love to hear your views of it.

(with help from pintpipeandcross.com)

Excellent info. It has been my understanding that most scholars believe Mark was written with a date between 50 and 70 CE.

There are many who say that the version to survive in the Bible is Mark's Gospel. They say that it was probably written between AD 75 and 85, and it was used - together with other sources - as the basis for the Gospels of both Matthew and Luke, each written a few years later.

That being said, would you not agree that the epistles of Paul were in the hands of the churches he wrote to? They would have been circulated and read and understood and in time were placed in a canon.

Yes, the Didache is an instruction book. The date has been argued and most scholars sat that the Didache, which is a non-canonical book, is believed to have been written between A.D. 70 and A.D. 100.

It is said by some that it is to be the work of the twelve Apostles. The Greek “Apostolic Constitutions” has many references to the Didache, with additional Scriptures added. When you read it, the Didache seems to have been a sort of church manual for primitive Christians, probably in rural areas dependent mostly on itinerant ministers.

The present version of the ancient Didache is a reliable guide to help understand the conduct code of the early Christian community.

The Didache deals with the roads to life and death. According to the Didache, the path of life teaches to love only one God, love your neighbor as yourself, and a form of what we now know as the Golden Rule. The teachings continue to follow the Ten Commandments. Other chapters deal with seeing God as all-powerful, seeking Him day and night, and not doubting whether His Word is true, keeping the commandments of God, confessing our sins and coming into prayer with a clear conscience. This is seen as the path of life.

 

[kepha31]

Well, I see that you have not yet provided the slightest indication that Jesus Christ Himself promised to create a religious bureaucracy/family/denomination/sect headquartered in Rome, Italy. Your narrative, although interesting, is no more or less valid than other, similar narratives such as those from the Eastern Orthodox or Coptic or Oriental Orthodox branches of Christianity.

First, I showed you where Rome, code name Babylon, is in the Bible.
Second, Peter is the Chief Steward of the King, and did what Jesus told him to do, he went to Rome. Indirectly, it was Jesus' idea. Now you have to argue that Peter was never there, contrary to historical fact.
Third, I answered all your questions but you don't, or can't answer mine. Scroll up to post #123

Why do you constantly ignore my answers?? Why do you repeat the same questions?

I gave you a good answer concerning the orthodox, I'm not repeating it 15 times because you don't like my answer or have comprehension issues, and offer no rebuttal.

"religious bureaucracy/family/denomination/sect" is not a description of the CC. What you describe is a cartoon version, it does not exist.

 

[kepha31]

You have put your finger on a significant area of theological disagreement within Catholicism - the death of the Virgin Mary. For the first millennium of Christian history there was no question that she died. Then along came the Mariologists who decided that death was not the end of Mary, nor was it enough that she is in heaven.

Cite sources please.

Thus, the doctrine of the assumption was crafted so that Mary might have her resurrected body in heaven before the universal resurrection promised by Jesus Christ.

No doctrine is crafted, unlike "Bible alone" and "faith alone"..

Why she needs a body in heaven is open to debate since the other saints seem to be fine in heaven awaiting the universal resurrection.

I don't think Jesus would let His mother rot in a grave, but you seem to think so.
Here is the same answer I gave before:
The Church has never formally defined whether she died or not, and the integrity of the doctrine of the Assumption would not be impaired if she did not in fact die, but the almost universal consensus is that she did die. Pope Pius XII, in Munificentissimus Deus (1950), defined that Mary, "after the completion of her earthly life" (note the silence regarding her death), "was assumed body and soul into the glory of heaven."
Immaculate Conception and Assumption | Catholic Answers.
Catholics are not bound one way or the other.
You will not get the truth about anything Catholic from hostile sources.

As the Mariolators have evolved within the Catholic Church there has been a shift away from the nasty thought that Mary suffered death. As a result, the Pope has evaded the issue to the best of his ability, in an attempt to pacify both sides of the argument.

Horsemuffins. "Mariolators" is an insult invented by ignorant Protestant bigots, and Popes don't pacify, they teach.

At a time when bodies of saints were revered and relics prized, no body of Mary was ever found. Why don't you anti-Catholics get together and form an archaeological team and dig her up.

Here is a lovely painting by the Italian Renaissance master, Fra Angelico depicting the deposition of the dead body of the Virgin Mary.

Yes, it's lovely. You re trying to prove what we already believe.

 

[Fidelibus]

Excellent info. It has been my understanding that most scholars believe Mark was written with a date between 50 and 70 CE.

This is why Major1 I asked for your source, to compare them.

There are many who say that the version to survive in the Bible is Mark's Gospel. They say that it was probably written between AD 75 and 85, and it was used - together with other sources - as the basis for the Gospels of both Matthew and Luke, each written a few years later.

Again..... Who are "the many" and the "they" you speak of?

That being said, would you not agree that the epistles of Paul were in the hands of the churches he wrote to?

The Pauline Epistles form a collection which was formerly called ho apostolos. They are called "epistles", though that addressed to the Hebrews hardly deserves the name, being really a theological homily. The Epistles mentioned in I Cor., v, 9, and Col., iv, 16, have not been preserved to us; their accidental loss makes us suspect that other Epistles may have perished. The peculiar form and style of the Pauline Epistles are studied in their respective introductions and commentaries; but we may add here that I Tim., II Tim., and Tit. are called Pastoral Epistles; owing to its peculiar style and form, it is supposed by some writers that the Epistle to the Hebrews was not even dictated by the Apostle, but only expresses his doctrine. Only the three Pastoral Epistles and Philemon are addressed to individuals; all the others are directed to churches, most of which, however, were well known to the writer. They exhibit more of their author's personal character than most profane letters do.
(Catholic answers.com)

They would have been circulated and read and understood and in time were placed in a canon.

Not so sure about that Major1. It’s important to remember that as Paul is writing these letters, they are NOT being mass copied and sent throughout the known Christian Church communities of the time. By 54AD it is estimated that the Church had communities in Israel, Tarsus, Asia Minor and several cities on the way to Greece where it is known that Paul was taking his ministry to spread the Gospel and eventually to end up in Rome. Also, it would have been prohibitively expensive for his letters to be copied and mass mailed. His letters were quite long and it would have taken a lot of papyrus or parchment, which was hand-made and very costly. So, when Paul wrote his letters to the Christians in Thessalonica, those letters weren’t also immediately sent to Jerusalem, Antioch, Asia Minor, etc. In addition, the cost of someone to copy them, to prepare drafts and final copies to be delivered, as well as a copy of the letter for Paul to keep himself would have been really expensive and time consuming. So, that being said, it’s highly unlikely that his letters are being copied and sent to the known Christian world for even a few years after he sent them to their original destination. The letters stayed in Thessalonica for awhile. Essentially he is writing instructions for the communities he addressed them to. So when Paul writes in 1 Thessalonians 5:21 to “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.” There was not even any New Testament Scripture written yet! His 1st Letter to the Thessalonians would take many years before it would be officially recognised as authoritative and divinely inspired as Scripture. More and more written accounts and testimonies materialized as the Church grew, but contrary to today’s popular belief, it was not immediately obvious to the early Christians which of these writings were truly God-inspired.





I was also hoping Major1 that you would have commented on the timeline of St.Paul's 2nd letter to Timothy (2 Tim.3:16-17 in particular) and the significancy it has in reguards to the doctrine and belief of sola scriptura, (the bible alone) and how the Gospel of Luke/ the Acts would have been the only two pieces of literature that would have been widely accepted as New Testament “scripture” at this point. As well on what about all those Christians who for 18 years had nothing of the New Testament writings, and the 33 years before St.Paul would even write these words?

(with help from Catholicanswers/pintpipeandcross.com)

 

[Fidelibus]

Yes, the Didache is an instruction book. The date has been argued and most scholars sat that the Didache, which is a non-canonical book, is believed to have been written between A.D. 70 and A.D. 100.

It is said by some that it is to be the work of the twelve Apostles. The Greek “Apostolic Constitutions” has many references to the Didache, with additional Scriptures added. When you read it, the Didache seems to have been a sort of church manual for primitive Christians, probably in rural areas dependent mostly on itinerant ministers.

The present version of the ancient Didache is a reliable guide to help understand the conduct code of the early Christian community.

The Didache deals with the roads to life and death. According to the Didache, the path of life teaches to love only one God, love your neighbor as yourself, and a form of what we now know as the Golden Rule. The teachings continue to follow the Ten Commandments. Other chapters deal with seeing God as all-powerful, seeking Him day and night, and not doubting whether His Word is true, keeping the commandments of God, confessing our sins and coming into prayer with a clear conscience. This is seen as the path of life.

I think that Kenneth Henderson a historian of early church history....The PipePintandtheCross gives an excellent explanation of The Didache:

On the road of the development of the New Testament, 70AD was the year that the Romans burned the Jewish Temple to the ground. It would be another 15 years before John’s Revelation would be written. But before that there is another Christian writing that appears around this time period (maybe even earlier).

50 to 80AD – The Didache (The Lord’s Teaching through the Twelve Apostles to the Nations)

The Didache also known as “The Lord’s Teaching through the Twelve Apostles to the Nations,” is one of the earliest written documents of the Church outside of the accepted writings of the Apostles . It was written, in it’s initial form, sometime between 50 and 80 AD. It may not have had a single author but may have been compiled from the Apostolic Teaching as a kind of early catechism and a summary of the essential moral tenets of the Faith. It’s existence demonstrates that many current teachings of the faith, often under attack by modernity, are in fact very ancient, going right back to the beginning. The text, parts of which constitute the oldest extant written catechism, has three main sections dealing with Christian ethics, liturgical rituals such as baptism and Eucharist, and Church organization. It concludes with a chapter on the parousia, the second coming of Christ. Essentially, it was the first Catechism and it contains some teachings that are very Catholic.

Lost for over a thousand years, this anonymous Greek writing appears to have taken its final form around AD 125 in Alexandria Egypt, but is composed of two earlier documents that could date back to the time of the apostles themselves. It was known to and quoted by the Early Church Fathers Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and St. Athanasius, the latter of whom recommended it for the instruction of catechumens. Indeed, the importance of the Didache is such that some of the Fathers considered it part of the New Testament, though ultimately it was not included in the canon. It was left out NOT because of anything inauthentic, but because it didn’t contain anything that was considered inspired and necessary for our salvation. It basically served as one of the earliest catechisms of the Christian Church. It is more of a procedural document on how to run a Christian community than anything.

Here are some excerpts that show some very Catholic practices. Practices that are definitely not protestant.

Concerning the clergy…

Chapter 4. My child, him that speaks to you the word of God remember night and day; and you shall honour him as the Lord; for in the place whence lordly rule is uttered, there is the Lord. And you shall seek out day by day the faces of the saints, in order that you may rest upon their words. You shall not long for division, but shall bring those who contend to peace.

We are to honor those who are our teachers, the ones who speak the word of God to us, our pastors, and we are to honor them just as we do the Lord. In other words, they are in the person of Christ,in persona christi, they have His authority. …for in the place whence lordly rule is uttered, there is the Lord. We are also not to be divided by have union and peace.

Chapter 15. Therefore, appoint for yourselves bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, men meek, and not lovers of money, and truthful and proven; for they also render to you the service of prophets and teachers. Despise them not therefore, for they are your honoured ones…

So, we are to have bishops and deacons and we are supposed to honor them. This is a very Catholic teaching.

Concerning confessing sins…

Chapter 4. In the church you shall acknowledge your transgressions, and you shall not come near for your prayer with an evil conscience. This is the way of life.

We can see it is a long standing practice of the Church that one ought to confess serious sin prior to attending Mass and surely prior to receiving Holy Communion. In the early church, you were to stand up and confess in front of the entire congregation. Glad that practice was changed. Yikes…

(to be continued)

 

[Fidelibus]

Kenneth Henderson on the Didache continued:

"
Concerning Baptism…

Chapter 7. And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have not living water, baptize into other water; and if you can not in cold, in warm. But if you have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit.

So, that seems to fly in the face of the thought that Baptism can only be immersion as some Protestants consider to be the only valid form. This text shows that in the ancient practice, simply pouring water over the head is sufficient. Living water (i.e. moving water such as in a stream) is preferred. Cold water is preferred over warm but warm water is allowed (perhaps in winter to avoid colds?). And yet, in the end, if such arrangements are not possible a simple infusion of water over the head suffices.

Concerning the Eucharist…

Chapter 9. Now concerning the Eucharist, thus give thanks. First, concerning the cup: We thank you, our Father, for the holy vine of David Your servant, which You made known to us through Jesus Your Servant; to You be the glory for ever. And concerning the broken bread: We thank You, our Father, for the life and knowledge which You made known to us through Jesus Your Servant; to You be the glory for ever. Even as this broken bread was scattered over the hills, and was gathered together and became one, so let Your Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Your kingdom; for Yours is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever. But let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist, but they who have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord has said, Give not that which is holy to the dogs.

Though the contents of this prayer do not include the words of Institution (This is my Body….This is my Blood….). There is another more detailed description by Justin Martyr (whom I will talk about later) who did write around the same time that does include these words. Note too that there was a restriction of the Eucharist to fully initiated Catholics is an ancient practice. So you had to have faith in the sacraments and be initiated in the Church before you could receive the Eucharist.

Concerning the Mass…

Chapter 14. But every Lord’s day gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. But let no one that is at variance with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned. For this is that which was spoken by the Lord: In every place and time offer to me a pure sacrifice; for I am a great King, says the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the nations.

Yes, that sure sounds like Mass to me, and sounds nothing like a typical Protestant service. Especially of the Reformed type. Notice also the repeated words concerning a pure sacrifice. This is completely in line with the teaching that the Mass is a representation of the Bloody Sacrifice of Jesus in an Unbloody manner, holy and pure. Also notice, how attendance is mandatory. It also places an emphasis on being reconciled before attending. I like how it also shows that there is already this universal, or Catholic understanding…In every place and time offer to me a pure sacrifice; for I am a great King, says the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the nations. This is a universal faith, to be practiced a certain way among all believers throughout the entire world."

(to be continued)

 

[Fidelibus]

Kenneth Henderson on the Didache continued:

It even has a teaching against Sexual Sins and Abortion…

Chapter 2. You shall not commit murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not commit pederasty, you shall not commit fornication, you shall not steal, you shall not practice magic, you shall not practice witchcraft, you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is begotten.

We can see that the teaching against abortion is not recent as some have tried to suggest. It was not invented in the 1950s, or in the Middle Ages. It goes right back to the very beginning of the Church. “Pederasty” refers to a homosexual relationship between an older man and a post pubescent adolescent boy, which was a common practice in pagan Greek culture. In the Greek world Homosexual activity was a widespread moral evil and the Didache’s specific mention of it (as also with Paul) indicates this.

So you can see that many of the current practices and teachings of the Church go right back to the beginning. Our Tradition is thus intact and ancient, reaching back to the Apostles and Jesus Christ. Again, this was written between 50AD and 80AD. Just 20 to 50 years after the resurrection."

 

[Major1]

This is why Major1 I asked for your source, to compare them.





Again..... Who are "the many" and the "they" you speak of?






The Pauline Epistles form a collection which was formerly called ho apostolos. They are called "epistles", though that addressed to the Hebrews hardly deserves the name, being really a theological homily. The Epistles mentioned in I Cor., v, 9, and Col., iv, 16, have not been preserved to us; their accidental loss makes us suspect that other Epistles may have perished. The peculiar form and style of the Pauline Epistles are studied in their respective introductions and commentaries; but we may add here that I Tim., II Tim., and Tit. are called Pastoral Epistles; owing to its peculiar style and form, it is supposed by some writers that the Epistle to the Hebrews was not even dictated by the Apostle, but only expresses his doctrine. Only the three Pastoral Epistles and Philemon are addressed to individuals; all the others are directed to churches, most of which, however, were well known to the writer. They exhibit more of their author's personal character than most profane letters do.
(Catholic answers.com)





Not so sure about that Major1. It’s important to remember that as Paul is writing these letters, they are NOT being mass copied and sent throughout the known Christian Church communities of the time. By 54AD it is estimated that the Church had communities in Israel, Tarsus, Asia Minor and several cities on the way to Greece where it is known that Paul was taking his ministry to spread the Gospel and eventually to end up in Rome. Also, it would have been prohibitively expensive for his letters to be copied and mass mailed. His letters were quite long and it would have taken a lot of papyrus or parchment, which was hand-made and very costly. So, when Paul wrote his letters to the Christians in Thessalonica, those letters weren’t also immediately sent to Jerusalem, Antioch, Asia Minor, etc. In addition, the cost of someone to copy them, to prepare drafts and final copies to be delivered, as well as a copy of the letter for Paul to keep himself would have been really expensive and time consuming. So, that being said, it’s highly unlikely that his letters are being copied and sent to the known Christian world for even a few years after he sent them to their original destination. The letters stayed in Thessalonica for awhile. Essentially he is writing instructions for the communities he addressed them to. So when Paul writes in 1 Thessalonians 5:21 to “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.” There was not even any New Testament Scripture written yet! His 1st Letter to the Thessalonians would take many years before it would be officially recognised as authoritative and divinely inspired as Scripture. More and more written accounts and testimonies materialized as the Church grew, but contrary to today’s popular belief, it was not immediately obvious to the early Christians which of these writings were truly God-inspired.





I was also hoping Major1 that you would have commented on the timeline of St.Paul's 2nd letter to Timothy (2 Tim.3:16-17 in particular) and the significancy it has in reguards to the doctrine and belief of sola scriptura, (the bible alone) and how the Gospel of Luke/ the Acts would have been the only two pieces of literature that would have been widely accepted as New Testament “scripture” at this point. As well on what about all those Christians who for 18 years had nothing of the New Testament writings, and the 33 years before St.Paul would even write these words?

(with help from Catholicanswers/pintpipeandcross.com)

Craig L. Blomberg, Jesus and the Gospels: An Introduction and Survey
James D.G. Dunn, "Messianic Ideas and Their Influence on the Jesus of History" The Messiah, ed. James H. Charlesworth.
James D.G. Dunn, Jesus Remembered

It is clear from secular records and the Book of Acts that, shortly after the early church was established on the Day of Pentecost in 30 A.D., the apostles established a council of apostles and elders at Jerusalem under the presidency of James. Would you agree that the early church almost disappeared in the years between 50 Ad and 125 AD? This council exercised authority, responsibility, accountability, and jurisdiction over all the members.

After the martyrdom of James, the brother of Jesus, and the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., secular history shows that the true Christians were in Pella with Simeon as president of their governing body. According to Hegesippus, the blood relatives of Christ continued in the presidency of the Nazorean council until the time of Tarjan Caesar. Although there are historical references about true Christians after this time, with the death of the apostle John, the Father's royal family and holy nation of ambassadors, kings, and priests began to disappear as an organized entity under a centralized leadership.

Clearly, the church that Jesus Christ established through the apostles does not exist in its original form today. But, what caused the early church to cease to exist as a powerful entity? The answer to this question is the foundation on which to build an understanding of the conditions that exist within the Christian Community today and the prophecies about the third church age that will exist just before Christ's return, today's church.