The Early Church is the Catholic Church

[rakovsky]

It gained traction in the OT, Saul called up Samuel and got into trouble for it. Look it up if you don't believe me 1 Samuel 28.
Deuteronomy 34
"34 Now Moses went up from the plains of Moab to Mount Nebo, to the top of Pisgah, which is opposite Jericho. And the Lord showed him all the land, Gilead as far as Dan,
2 and all Naphtali and the land of Ephraim and Manasseh, and all the land of Judah as far as the western sea,
3 and the Negev and the plain in the valley of Jericho, the city of palm trees, as far as Zoar.
4 Then the Lord said to him, “This is the land which I swore to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, saying, ‘I will give it to your descendants’; I have let you see it with your eyes, but you shall not go over there.”
5 So Moses the servant of the Lord died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of the Lord.
6 And He buried him in the valley in the land of Moab, opposite Beth-peor; but no man knows his burial place to this day. 7 Although Moses was one hundred and twenty years old when he died, his eye was not dim, nor his vigor abated.
8 So the sons of Israel wept for Moses in the plains of Moab thirty days; then the days of weeping and mourning for Moses came to an end."
Do you think God himself may have buried his body but taken his soul to Heaven because of his service to God?
You do know what a parable is don't you? It is a story to teach a message.
What is truth to you is not truth to others, you shouldn't suggest what you believe is truth unless you can prove it.

I think mainstream Protestants do not teach soul sleep feel free to disprove me on that. It is a bit interesting for me to talk with someone who teaches soul sleep because this doctrine is so rare.

Nothing you cited above teaches soul sleep, which is a good example of how trends and movements started among men many centuries after Jesus. It doesn't just happen with papal infallibility and with John Calvin.

I think Jesus would not teach a parable of the conscious dead if conscious dead was a false teaching.

 

[keltoi]

I think mainstream Protestants do not teach soul sleep feel free to disprove me on that. It is a bit interesting for me to talk with someone who teaches soul sleep because this doctrine is so rare.

Nothing you cited above teaches soul sleep, which is a good example of how trends and movements started among men many centuries after Jesus. It doesn't just happen with papal infallibility and with John Calvin.

I think Jesus would not teach a parable of the conscious dead if conscious dead was a false teaching.

What do you believe will happen in the end times? Do you believe you will be raised from the grave or do you believe you will be in Heaven the moment you die?

 

[reasonpri]

Why does it matter it is an opinion to believe that catholic was the first church I was born and catholic and now I am non denominational we are the church. The people didn't get together and say let's make a church and name it catholic people joined together in there home the people was the church jesus is the high priest not a pope and making an image of jesus status etc. Simplify's god. and the crusafix shows jesus on the cross jesus is not on the cross anymore he died and rose again showing him on a crusafix gives the impression that he didn't I believe that Jesus is the christ he said that he is the way the truth and the life through him and only him

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk

 

[rakovsky]

What do you believe will happen in the end times? Do you believe you will be raised from the grave or do you believe you will be in Heaven the moment you die?

Those might not be mutually exclusive.

But anyway I think the common opinion in Ancient Judaism and early Christianity was that the soul stays at the body for a few days after death. In the Old Testament it basically says a few times that the corpse breathed out the ghost and he went to his ancestors.

But anyway, the soul sleep thing is not in the Bible where did you think of the idea first, from reading the Bible directly like the verses on Moses you quoted, or from hearing it mentioned before?

 

[rakovsky]

Why does it matter it is an opinion to believe that catholic was the first church I was born and catholic and now I am non denominational we are the church. The people didn't get together and say let's make a church and name it catholic

Well actually they did, once you understand what they meant by the Catholic And Apostolic Church back in those days.

 

[samir]

Why does it matter it is an opinion to believe that catholic was the first church

It matters because if Jesus instituted a visible church with a visible hierarchy to preserve the apostolic teaching unchanged so that Christians may be united as one then it is God's will for everyone to be part of the church. To leave that church would be acting contrary to God's will and as well as contrary to the love of one's neighbor because all the divisions and denominations (including independent denominations of one) turn unbelievers away from Christ and therefore hinder the spread of the gospel.

I was born and catholic and now I am non denominational we are the church. The people didn't get together and say let's make a church and name it catholic people joined together in there home the people was the church jesus is the high priest not a pope and making an image of jesus status etc. Simplify's god. and the crusafix shows jesus on the cross jesus is not on the cross anymore he died and rose again showing him on a crusafix gives the impression that he didn't I believe that Jesus is the christ he said that he is the way the truth and the life through him and only him

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk

In the book of Acts and other New Testament books it can be seen that Jesus appointed disciples who then appointed bishops and deacons of various churches they founded to manage the church and pass along the faith to future generations. After Judas died, the apostles appointed Linus as a successor. That wouldn't be necessary if Jesus preached a simple religion where everyone just believed and celebrated their simple beliefs in private homes. It was the successors of the apostles who determined which books were scripture in the 4th century. Prior to that, there was disagreement as to whether some books (like James, Jude, Barnadas, Hebrews, Hermas, and Revelations) were scripture. The lack of a bible for the first 300 years of Christianity wasn't a problem because Jesus founded a church whereby people could go to learn the faith and most people didn't know how to read anyway.

I should mention I'm writing this as someone studying Catholicism and Orthodoxy trying to decide which church Jesus founded so I'm not writing in favor of a particular church. Just posting what I found from reading scripture and church history. Hope it helps.

 

[keltoi]

But anyway I think the common opinion in Ancient Judaism and early Christianity was that the soul stays at the body for a few days after death.

You think? What you have no evidence for it?

But anyway, the soul sleep thing is not in the Bible where did you think of the idea first, from reading the Bible directly like the verses on Moses you quoted, or from hearing it mentioned before?

You call it soul sleep I don't so whatever terminology you use may not fit with what the Bible says.I didn't get an idea about it, it is written in the Bible and I even told you where it is written Samuel was brought back by a medium because Saul asked her to call Samuel. Samuel wasn't a happy chappy and he said to Saul why did you disturb me?

I am amazed that people read the Bible and don't see the words in front of them but rather rely on others to tell them what's there. We aren't in the dark ages or medieval Europe anymore you are allowed to read the Bible for yourself.

 

[rakovsky]

You think? What you have no evidence for it?

You call it soul sleep I don't so whatever terminology you use may not fit with what the Bible says.I didn't get an idea about it, it is written in the Bible and I even told you where it is written Samuel was brought back by a medium because Saul asked her to call Samuel. Samuel wasn't a happy chappy and he said to Saul why did you disturb me?

I am amazed that people read the Bible and don't see the words in front of them but rather rely on others to tell them what's there. We aren't in the dark ages or medieval Europe anymore you are allowed to read the Bible for yourself.

Feel free to read up on soul sleep and let me know how what you teach is different from that.

Did Samuel say that he was sleeping? Maybe he was doing something else like praying and didn't want occult channels using his voice.

 

[keltoi]

Feel free to read up on soul sleep and let me know how what you teach is different from that.

I'd rather read the authoritative Word of God thanks.

Did Samuel say that he was sleeping? Maybe he was doing something else like praying and didn't want occult channels using his voice.

Did you read the actual scripture before you come up with this reply? I doubt it. The medium saw him coming up out of the ground. When something comes from Heaven it comes from the sky as has been shown numerous times in the Bible. Samuel come from the ground where he had been buried. The Bible say's the dead are asleep, Samuel was brought up out of the ground and complained about being disturbed but you say its not real. I'll trust the Bible against you everyday.

 

[rakovsky]

The Bible say's the dead are asleep, Samuel was brought up out of the ground and complained about being disturbed but you say its not real.

Yes, it's not real that the Bible teaches that the dead are permanently asleep until the second coming. Even if Samuel was awakened, whether he liked it or not, it means he was not permanently unconscious.

And then you have the parable of the rich man and the Transfiguration as we discussed.

 

[rakovsky]

I'd rather read the authoritative Word of God thanks.
.

Have you heard of CARM?
They have a Web page debunking soul sleep. They say it's a teaching of the JWS and adventists:
https://carm.org/soul-sleep

 

[keltoi]

Yes, it's not real that the Bible teaches that the dead are permanently asleep until the second coming. Even if Samuel was awakened, whether he liked it or not, it means he was not permanently unconscious.

Did I say they were? Wasn't it me who said Saul had Samuel called from the grave? are you really having that difficult a time with this that you now have to make up more things? If Saul had not had Samuel called Samuel would not have been woken unless of course some other idiot tried to call Samuel.

And then you have the parable of the rich man and the Transfiguration as we discussed.

And as pointed out in the parable case I had to tell you a parable is a story. What part of "a story" is difficult for you? A parable is something that is used to teach a lesson and that lesson wasn't about people who are dead talking over a river.

Have you heard of CARM?
They have a Web page debunking soul sleep. They say it's a teaching of the JWS and adventists:
https://carm.org/soul-sleep

Sorry I don't spend my life on the internet, I have things to do in the real world as well.
I just read that and you do realise what I am talking about is different to what that site is talking about don't you? If you don't then you have blinkers on are are ignoring what I am saying.

Another point that page says "Besides, it's a mistake to use the Old Testament to interpret the New Testament. It is the New Testament that sheds light on the Old Testament." At no stage have I interpreted the NT using the OT. What I have done is point you to instances in the OT where the dead have not been in Heaven but instead have been called out of the ground and was not happy because he was disturbed.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

It's not really an issue I think. The Bible generally narrates things that happened before her death. It doesn't talk about St James ' stoning for example or Paul's death, which could have happened about the same time.

However, St. James and St.Paul did not assume into heaven. How do we know she assumed into heaven? Who was there to witness it and record it?

Sent from my SM-N915V using Tapatalk

 

[rakovsky]

However, St. James and St.Paul did not assume into heaven. How do we know she assumed into heaven? Who was there to witness it and record it?

Sent from my SM-N915V using Tapatalk

A difference with James is that Mary had borne God, and Rev 12 alludes to Mary being in heaven with Jesus.

It's an early extrabiblblical tradition written in at least the 3rd century ad, and one of the narrives said that apostles saw it. It's kind of like asking how we know that all the 11 faithful apostles, ie not John, stayed loyal after the resurrection and got martyred, thus helping to prove the truth of their message. It's just something that comes from Christian traditions written within 200 years after the biblical times. I think alot of non EOS and non RCs have more trouble with the Assumption because it's supernatural.

It's kind of like that with the Bible. Non Christians have alot more trouble thinking Jesus ascended than that he got killed because Ascension is supernatural.

 

[rakovsky]

Did I say they were? Wasn't it me who said Saul had Samuel called from the grave? are you really having that difficult a time with this that you now have to make up more things? If Saul had not had Samuel called Samuel would not have been woken unless of course some other idiot tried to call Samuel.

And as pointed out in the parable case I had to tell you a parable is a story. What part of "a story" is difficult for you? A parable is something that is used to teach a lesson and that lesson wasn't about people who are dead talking over a river.

Sorry I don't spend my life on the internet, I have things to do in the real world as well.
I just read that and you do realise what I am talking about is different to what that site is talking about don't you? If you don't then you have blinkers on are are ignoring what I am saying.

Another point that page says "Besides, it's a mistake to use the Old Testament to interpret the New Testament. It is the New Testament that sheds light on the Old Testament." At no stage have I interpreted the NT using the OT. What I have done is point you to instances in the OT where the dead have not been in Heaven but instead have been called out of the ground and was not happy because he was disturbed.

Please explain how what you believe is different from soul sleep defined on the CARM page.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

So after doing some research, the ONLY evidence that the RCC has to justify the assumption of Mary is that no earthly remains have been found of her. So...is it logical to assume that if a body cannot be found, it must have assumed into heaven? Why can't that logic also be applied to anyone who is believed to have died and no remains were found?

Sent from my SM-N915V using Tapatalk

 

[rakovsky]

So after doing some research, the ONLY evidence that the RCC has to justify the assumption of Mary is that no earthly remains have been found of her. So...is it logical to assume that if a body cannot be found, it must have assumed into heaven? Why can't that logic also be applied to anyone who is believed to have died and no remains were found?

Sent from my SM-N915V using Tapatalk

You can keep researching it. Read about its relation to Rev 12 and the alleged witnesses in some narratives.

It's kind of like the question of whether the apostles stayed true to their faith and suffered martyrdom, except it is more supernatural. They are the narratives we have from the Christians of 50 to 300 ad, Jason. Back in those years people believed those kind if things happened. Nowadays peoples mentality is less supernatural than before on average.

I could go on. Back in those days like in 1500 bc to 300 ad God taking Elijah on a chariot was more believable. Nowadays if that wasn't in the bible, far less people would believe even that story.

If a story isn't in the Bible or is supernatural, people are more likely to be skeptical. And Mary's assumption is a miracle after the bible narrative ended, so there is more skepticism common.

 

[Thursday]

You said this epistle was written by Pope Clement in AD 90 yet Clement refers to daily sacrifices in Jerusalem. These sacrifices stopped after Jerusalem was destroyed in AD 70 which suggests Clement wrote this letter prior to that date, long before he became the bishop of Rome so it doesn't demonstrate the pope having any authority.

It clearly demonstrates that he was using authority. For one thing, the Christians in Corinth consulted him for guidance and a decision. For another, he clearly says that he is speaking for God and that they will be in grave danger if they disobey his instructions. Can't get much more clear than that.

 

[Thursday]

The word catholic as used by the church fathers has the following meaning:
Catholic 1.including a wide variety of things; all-embracing.

Of course the Church was catholic under the headship of Christ Jesus. But then intolerent and egotistical men decided that they could do better and the body of Christ has been divided and anything other than catholic ever since.

Jesus only started ONE Church, and it was all embracing. All the apostles and their successors belonged to this one, Catholic Church. That Church still exists and it is still led by the successors of the apostles.

When do you think the Catholic Church changed into something else?

 

[Thursday]

Because they, along with all other parts of the body, are part of the body of Christ.

That is the teaching of the Catholic Church. It teaches that all baptized Christians(baptized in the Trinitarian formula) are members of the body of Christ. However, some are not in full communion with the Church.

Here's the relevant passage in the Catechsim:

Wounds to unity

817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame."269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ's Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism270 - do not occur without human sin:
Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.271
818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272

819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276