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

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Who, would you say, best represents the true faith between 200 and 1200 A.D.?

Those who were willing to die rather than compromise. That whole time there were those who protested the ruling forces, and died doing so. It wasn't until the numbers grew so great and killing them wasn't an option that the power that had been to do so was no more.

 

[Standing Up]

Who, would you say, best represents the true faith between 200 and 1200 A.D.?

Good question and good answers. True faith is agreeing with Peter and Paul about believing that Jesus is the Son of God, confessing with your mouth. Beyond that is politics, power, and temporal wealth.

 

[patricius79]

Good question and good answers. True faith is agreeing with Peter and Paul about believing that Jesus is the Son of God, confessing with your mouth. Beyond that is politics, power, and temporal wealth.

I agree with you as far as believing that Jesus is the Son of God.

Why aren't you naming a particular historical person who represents your faith between 100 and 1200 A.D.?

 

[Meowzltov]

Christ was the Rock of the NT

It depends on which verse. Just because Christ is the rock in one metaphor doesn't make him the rock in all of them.

 

[patricius79]

Jesus.
Who are you looking toward?

Jesus. Are you saying there were no historic and true followers of Christ between 100 and 1200 A.D.?

 

[Standing Up]

I agree with you as far as believing that Jesus is the Son of God.

Why aren't you naming a particular historical person who represents your faith between 100 and 1200 A.D.?

There are numerous ones. Here's a few early ones: Polycarp, Melito, Polycrates, the martyrs of Lyons, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, etc.

 

[Root of Jesse]

There are numerous ones. Here's a few early ones: Polycarp, Melito, Polycrates, the martyrs of Lyons, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, etc.

Essentially, the Catholic ECFs. You'd think you were Catholic! Just sayin'...Actually, I believe you are part of the Universal Church.

 

[patricius79]

There are numerous ones. Here's a few early ones: Polycarp, Melito, Polycrates, the martyrs of Lyons, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, etc.

Could you pick your best example and show that this person shared your interpretation--as opposed to the Catholic interpretation-- on three issues of Biblical interpretation?

 

[Rick Otto]

Jesus. Are you saying there were no historic and true followers of Christ between 100 and 1200 A.D.?

No, that would be a logical extreme, don't you agree?
"Historic and true" ... why set the bar so low?

 

[Rick Otto]

Essentially, the Catholic ECFs. You'd think you were Catholic! Just sayin'...Actually, I believe you are part of the Universal Church.

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

 

[Rick Otto]

Good question and good answers. True faith is agreeing with Peter and Paul about believing that Jesus is the Son of God, confessing with your mouth. Beyond that is politics, power, and temporal wealth.

Victory under this sign.

 

[Rick Otto]

I agree with you as far as believing that Jesus is the Son of God.

Why aren't you naming a particular historical person who represents your faith between 100 and 1200 A.D.?

Why need one?
Each historical period and geographic location has its heroes of the faith.
Heroes come in different categories, like martyrs, and desert monks, for instance.

 

[BobRyan]

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

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

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

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

So you say, without any attribution.

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

 

[Standing Up]

Could you pick your best example and show that this person shared your interpretation--as opposed to the Catholic interpretation-- on three issues of Biblical interpretation?

Eucharist as memorial (martyrs of Lyons) vs sacrifice of meat/blood.
Normal human birth (Tertullian) vs something akin to out the east gate (Mary's side).
Normal marital relations (Cyril of Jerusalem) vs ever-virgin.
Pascha observance (floating) (Polycarp) vs divorced fixed Easter.
Priesthood of believer (various) vs sacerdotal priesthood.
Baptism of believer by believer (Firmilian) vs any dunking will do.

 

[Standing Up]

Essentially, the Catholic ECFs. You'd think you were Catholic! Just sayin'...Actually, I believe you are part of the Universal Church.

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

 

[patricius79]

Eucharist as memorial (martyrs of Lyons) vs sacrifice of meat/blood.
Normal human birth (Tertullian) vs something akin to out the east gate (Mary's side).
Normal marital relations (Cyril of Jerusalem) vs ever-virgin.
Pascha observance (floating) (Polycarp) vs divorced fixed Easter.
Priesthood of believer (various) vs sacerdotal priesthood.
Baptism of believer by believer (Firmilian) vs any dunking will do.

Did any one of these people hold to three of your interpretations--as opposed to the Catholic positions--on three issues?

Please give your best example. For example, you could say "John Doe lived in the 100s and held that Mary was not ever-virgin, and that the Church is not built on Peter, and that the Eucharist is not a sacrifice"

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

Did any one of these people hold to three of your interpretations--as opposed to the Catholic positions--on three issues?

Please give your best example. For example, you could say "John Doe lived in the 100s and held that Mary was not ever-virgin, and that the Church is not built on Peter, and that the Eucharist is not a sacrifice"

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

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

 

[Standing Up]

Did any one of these people hold to three of your interpretations--as opposed to the Catholic positions--on three issues?

Please give your best example. For example, you could say "John Doe lived in the 100s and held that Mary was not ever-virgin, and that the Church is not built on Peter, and that the Eucharist is not a sacrifice"

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

 

[patricius79]

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

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

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

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

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

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

The bible says overseer as one person, the bible says obey leaders, the bible calls the church the children of God, the bible places the church of Rome as part of the church, the armament of the bible consists of Christ's righteousness, truth, gospel, and the word of God as defence, there is no power of 'force' used in the bible, and remembrance of Him is to be honored in an honorable way and those who deny Christ are to be considered Gentiles......