Archaeologists unearthed in Jordan what they believe to be the world’s first church, according to a report Monday.
-
(Photo: AP Images / Mohammad abu Ghosh)Ruins of Saint Georgeous Church in Rihab, Mafraq, Jordan (70 km to the east of Amman) are seen on Wednesday June 11, 2008. Archaeologists in Jordan have discovered a cave underneath Saint Georgeous Church, one of the world's oldest churches, and say it may have been an even more ancient site of Christian worship. But outside experts expressed caution about the claim.
"We have uncovered what we believe to be the first church in the world, dating from 33 AD to 70 AD," said Abdul Qader al-Hussan, the head of Jordan's Rihab Center for Archaeological Studies, to The Jordan Times.
He added that the discovery was “amazing.”
The nearly 2,000-year-old church was discovered underneath Saint Georgeous Church in Rihab, Mafraq, in northern Jordan near the Syrian border. St. Georgeous dates back to 230 A.D., and is considered the oldest “proper” church in the world.
Hussan said his team has evidence to believe “this church sheltered the early Christians – the 70 disciples of Jesus Christ.”
These 70 early Christians are said to have fled persecution in Jerusalem, particularly to Rihab, and founded churches in northern Jordan. Historical sources, according to Hussan, suggest the 70 Christians lived and practiced their faith in the underground church and only left when Christianity was embraced by Roman rulers.
“It was then when St. Georgeous was built,” said Hussan noted.
The underground church has been described as a cave with several stone seats believed to have been for the clergy and a circular shaped area, thought to be the apse – an area which usually contains the altar.
“A wall with an entrance is the only partition separating the altar from the living area,” Hussan reported.
There is also a deep tunnel in the cave thought to have led to a water source, he noted.
Bishop Deputy of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese Archimandrite Nektarious described the discovery as an “important milestone for Christians all around the world.”
"The only other cave in the world similar in shape and purpose is in Thessalonika, Greece," the bishop said, according to The Jordan Times.
Officials at the Jordanian Ministry of Tourism said they plan to use the discovery to promote tourism in the area in the near future.
Some 30 churches have been discovered in Rihab, according to Hussan, and Jesus and Mary are believed to have passed through the area.
Popes are not infallible in their interpretation of the scriptures. Otherwise, every Pope that has ever been would have agreed 100% with each other. As history has proven otherwise.
Peter, an apostle (1Pe 1:1), an elder (1Pe 5:1), and a servant (2Pe 1:1).
The above is a far cry from what we see below:
Pope
Patriarch of the West
Primate of Italy
Metropolitan of the Province of Rome
Sovereign Pontiff
Our Holy Father
Your Holiness
Most Blessed Father
Servant of the Servants of God
Bishop of Rome
Vicar of Jesus Christ
Successor of the Prince of the Apostles
Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church
Patriarch of the West
Primate of Italy
Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman Province
Sovereign of the State of Vatican City
Such things happen when we stray from the word of God and start digging in unbiblical soil.
Sources: The Externals of the Catholic Church, The Externals of the Catholic Church Completely Revised A Handbook of Catholic Usage.
msnchris,
You may have gotten off your high horse, but there are many other Catholics (a lot on CP) that like to boast and brag on the RCC and belittle and demean Protestants. I don't have a problem with a Catholic telling me that I am wrong, as long as he/she shows scripture to back it. I do the same with Catholics. But it is another when a catholic resorts to mudslinging because he is losing the argument. I know that not all Catholics are that way. Most of them that I know personally are really cool and fun to be with. They know my beliefs about the RCC and I know their beliefs about Protestants.
And also, the way I am on here is completely different than in person. I think of this site as a controlled (or at least I like to think it is) arena to debate theology and doctrines. Most of the Catholics that I rub raw on here, if they met me on the street and had no idea who I was...we'd probably hit it off.
The problem with your thinking is that I have access to the same grace and santicfication as the Catholics do. Why would God give more grace to the Catholics and not his own son? That is a really bad doctrine you speak. Unscriptural.
And I hope you don't tell other catholics that Peter wasn't a Pope. They all listen to the "Church" in that respect. And they'll excommunitcate you for that blasphemous statement. I have yet to know a Catholic that doesn't believe that Peter was the first Pope.
And I have more than a bacic understanding of who Christ is, the Scriptures, the Trinity, and much other Truth presented in the Bible.
The Word of God has presidence over the Catholic Church, not the other way around. And the Word of God says that "All scripture is and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousnes...
So, the Scripture, not "oral traditions" (which Jesus condemned) is profitable for correction and instruction.
Prophet,
A Protestant can be saved just as much as a Catholic. We got off our high horse years ago. Don't let theological language of true church or only church from understanding there is a huge difference in saying that and what a Christian is. Some Christian groups have a valid and biblically set up hiearchy, some do not. Those that do are formally real Churches. Those that do not are informally called Churches. That does not mean their congregants are any less Christian, it just means there are less points of Grace the further you get away from the Church that Christ founded through His Apostles is all we are saying.
The Closer to the source, the more elements of Grace and Sanctification are available to you. You can be saved and sanctified outside the Catholic Church with no problem. However, you must accept some basic understanding on who Christ is, the Trinity, atonement and being baptized into this body to be a Christian.
We Catholics do not, and I repeat do not look down upon Protestants at all. We love our fellow Christians very much and pray for you as I hope you pray for us that we can bring Christ to everyone.
While you and I might disagree on some doctrines that are rather important, nothing you or I believe negates the core tenants of the Christian faith and how were are saved by Grace through faith.
Pope only means Father, Prophet. They were only called Pope in the 2nd century, which helped designate the ultimate father of all the spiritual fathers. The Coptics have had a Bishop named Pope too. He is the head of the Coptics.
Papal Supremacy was not official, as was very little official in the beginnings of the Church. However, only the Bishop of Rome exercised universal authority because of his position within all the Bishops. Only the Bishop of Rome disciplined other dioceses, because although unofficial in the beggining he had every right too because he held the "Keys" from Peter and everyone knew this See had primacy.
Peter was never called Pope, but he was called a fellow presbyter and Bishop. Peter, like Paul, was referred to as a Father in Christ and calling your Bishops "Father" became common place in the late 100's, but started with Paul and many others using the term "Spiritual Father" in Christ. Timothy would call Paul his father in Christ and this is where it all started. Stephen even called the Jewish authorities Fathers in faith and Abraham a Father to many peoples. The spiritual term Father is an accepted term and name for a clergy person.
We are all the Church of Christ, some more specifically than others based on doctrine, but all in the Body. Whether you are called a BAptist, Methodist or Catholic as your descriptive name you are the Church of Christ.
The first doctrines were decided and created by Peter and we have historical proof that without the Bishop of Rome's agreement on doctrine you could not make doctrine. This is why the Orthodox have not made a doctrine in 1000 years, because they need the Bishop of Rome for validation.
Prophet
You have brought out some very important truths about the RCC and the Popes. This is something I think the RCC hides from its people.
Peter was, at best, a bishop of a church in Rome.
The "primacy" of the Catholic church was not asserted until 189 AD. There is no historical evidence to show that such a claim was ever accepted by the eastern churches. (Meaning that the Roman Catholic primacy is self-imposed and not agreed upon by all the "catholics" at that time.)
The power of the Bishop of Rome increased as the imperial power of the Emperor declined. Edicts of the Emperor Theodosius II and of Valentinian III proclaimed the Roman bishop "as Rector of the whole Church. So we see that it was a government who promoted the idea of a Pope, not the church.
The office of Pope, didn't appear until the 3rd or 4th century.
The "Church" of the first century was nothing close to what the Catholic church is today.
The Catholic Church has spent most of it's history in trying to control government. Though it was pretty much created and controled by the government.
The "Assumption of Mary" became a tenet in the 1950's. (If the Popes were indeed "infallible" in their interpretation of the scriptures, this would have been taught from day one, but as we see...they are not infallible.)
In all actuallity, the Catholic Church isn't the true church...the Jewish Christian church is. Catholics aren't Jewish.
mi corazon,
That is true about the Protestant faith, but you are wrong in your presumption that we "blame all of the problems of Christianity on it [The Catholic Church]" Nowhere have I said that the problems of Christianity were the RCC's fault. I hope it's not your habit of assuming. I only said that the RCC teaches inaccurate doctrines.
Now, as far as your speculation that the Catholic faith is the only true church is strange. Since I am saved, blessed by God, anointed of God, used of God, basically I have all the same priveleges, blessings, future and hope as the catholics do. And I'm not even Catholic. And nor do I profess that the church I attend is "the" church. But I am still part of the Body of Christ. I am a son of God (which I'd rather be a son of God than a Catholic, Protestant, SDA, etc because there's a lot more power and blessings in being a son of God than there is in any of these man-made institutions). That is a Truth that cannot be changed. So if the Catholics would get off their self-righteous camels and learn that they're not the only church or way or path, and that Protestants are just as saved, blessed, used, called, etc, etc as they are...50% of our arguments would cease.
"And if Popes are the final authority on the scriptures, God must be schizophrenic. Because I am fairly certain (around 100% certain) that ALL the Popes did not believe the same thing. And means every dot and tittle. God never changes, but Popes do. The scripture never changes, but each Pope's interpretation do. "
That could be said about some Protestant leaders and televangelists as well. The truth is that every denomination has had some level of corruption so it is not fair to point fingers at the Catholic Church and blame all of the problems of Christianity on it. It is quite unfortunate that many Protestants have many misconceptions and errors of the Catholic Church and the Pope causing a lot of slander to their Catholic bretheren.
Even though I am not Catholic I admit the fact that it is only the Catholic, Coptic, and Orthodox Churches that can in all honesty claim to be the original Churches founded by Jesus Christ himself when he gave his authority to his 12 disciples. It is possible to look at the list of those who have held the office of Bishop in the oldest and most ancient Sees of Christianity and go from the current Bishop today down the list to one of the Apostles, the best example being the Bishop of Rome.
Apostolic succession in these communities is a real fact that cannot be changed although many Protestants seem to ignore it.
Someday I hope this changes and I hope that someday all those Protestants that have not fallen by the wayside to immorality, homosexuality, and theologicle perversion will someday be united again to the actual successor to the Apostle Peter. I wish the same for my fellow Pentecostals and the Evangelicles.
I flagged myself for typos.
And if Popes are the final authority on the scriptures, God must be schizophrenic. Because I am fairly certain (around 100% certain) that ALL the Popes did not believe the same thing. And means every dot and tittle. God never changes, but Popes do. The scripture never changes, but each Pope's interpretation do.
In 1947, the Vatican made changes regarding 74 popes. It removed "the little man who never was." Poor "pope" Donus had been listed as a pope in 973. But in 1947 the Vatican dropped him from its "unbroken line" - its glorious "Title Deed." Why? Because they found he had never even existed! In addition, the Vatican dropped six "popes," and removed the "sainthood" of four others!
The Jan. 18, 1947 news report from the Vatican states that "Pope Donus" was found to be "a person who never existed!" In addition, designation of sainthood was removed from Felix II, Liberius, Anastasio, Stephen III, Stephen V! And poor, unsuspecting Roman Catholic people had been praying to these non-existent "saints" for centuries with the official approval of the same Roman Catholic Church that now says it was all a mistake!
A copy of the Jan. 18, 1947 news article from Vatican City can be obtained from any Public Library. It was carried on the front page of the Phila. Inquirer, and in the New York Times. It was titled, "VATICAN DROPS 6 NAMES FROM LIST OF POPES."
Hmmm. . . . so much for an “unbroken line” of papal leaders.
CONCLUSION:
The RCC claim that it is the only church, and the the Pope has final say in what the scriptures mean is anti-God and anti-scriptural.
Jesus never talked about a Pope as part of His church. The apostles (includining Peter) never talk about the Pope, nor a "one person being head and dictate over the "Church". But they do talk a lot about Jesus as the head of the Church and Body. Interesting.
We see that Peter may have started the church, but it was more than just the Roman church that was started. It spread throughout the world. The church encompasses the whole world.
The church bears no name other than the name of Jesus Christ. Any other claim is of an antichrist spirit.
Papal supremacy didn't come into existence until approx A.D. 381 (over 100 years after the term "pope" came into existence) at the Council of Constantinople. But "it should be noted that, because of the controversy of this claim, the Pope did not personally attend this ecumencial council...."
"It was not until 440 that Leo the Great more clearly articulated the extension of papal authority as doctrine, promulgating in edicts and in councils his right to exert "the full range of apostolic powers that Jesus had first bestowed on the apostle Peter". Why did Leo the Great call Peter "the apostle Peter"....and not "Pope Peter"? Afterall, he claimed papal authority as doctrine. Maybe because he knew something that msnchris doesn't. That Peter wasn't a pope.
msnchris70
2 Timothy 3:16-17
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
John 14:26 - "But the Comforter, which is the HOLY GHOST, whom the Father will send in my name, he SHALL TEACH YOU ALL THINGS, and bring all things unto your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you."
John 16:13 - "Howbeit when he, the SPIRIT OF TRUTH, is come, he WILL GUIDE YOU INTO ALL TRUTH: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come."
1 John 2:27 - "But the anointing (Holy Ghost) which ye have received of him abideth in you, and YE NEED NOT THAT ANY MAN TEACH YOU: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him."
Why do you continue to reject the Word of God?
So, we see that real evidence of Papal existence (not papal supremacy) did not occur until the thrid century. Until then bishops where in charge over each church. And that Peter's "papal position" was one put upon him without his blessing. If that were the case, how easy it would be for Billy Graham to say that Martin Luther was an apostle, and to start a whole new sect of Christianity.
The Catholics history before the third century is muddled at best. Any claims to papal existence before then is merely conjecture, and to claim it as truth is simply inane.
msnchris
The Catholic Church does not go back to the time of the Apostles. It has it beginnings around 325 AD. Peter was not the first Pope. No where in the NT will you find Peter having a special headship that ruled over all the churches, Apostles, and spiritual leaders. He was treated no differently in imporatnce than any of the other apostles in the Word of God. As far as that goes, Paul was greater in a sense than Peter was. Paul wrote 13 epistles and Peter only 2. The Churches Paul started Peter had no authority over. Peter was publically rebuked by Paul. If Peter was the supreme head of the Universal Church Paul would have respected that authority and not publically rebuked him.
The whole idea of a Pope is contrary to the Word of God. Peter was not a Pope.
"According to James L. Barker, the position of the bishop of Rome was not regarded as significantly different from the bishops of Antioch or Jerusalem [9]. He contends that, insofar as the bishop of Rome was accorded any special status, it was more as a mediator than as a ruler; and that people appealed to the bishop of Rome to help mediate disputes arising over issues like Gnosticism, not to deliver a definitive statement of Christian orthodoxy."
So the BISHOP of Rome was no different than any other bishop, and had no power to dictate doctrine and tenets.
"In the early history of Christianity, five cities emerged as important centers of Christianity: Rome, Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantinople. Although the Roman church was always highly respected, the churches in the East generally had more numbers and more authority than those of the West."
"Irenaeus compiled a list of apostolic succession, including the immediate successors of Peter and Paul: Linus, Anacleutus, Clement, Evaristus, Alexander, and Sixtus.[6] The Catholic Church currently considers these the successors of Peter, whom they consider the first pope, and through whom following popes would claim authority"
Now why would an unbiased source call them apostolic succesion, and the RCC (who wants to boast about it's great (but embellished) history) calls it Papal succession?
"In the second century (AD 189), the assertion of the primacy of the Church of Rome may be indicated in St. Irenaeus of Lyon's Against Heresies (3:3:2): "With [the Church of Rome], because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree... and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition." Although this may be the first clear instance of the church in Rome asserting its primacy (depending on how one reads this passage), there is no historical evidence to show that such a claim was ever accepted by the eastern churches, particularly since the seat of government of the Roman Empire was moved to Constantinople soon after the First Council of Nicaea."
So, the claims of Roman Catholic primacy were self imposed and not agree upon by the Church as a whole. Sound to me like the RCC is an offshoot of a more Biblical-based Christianity. Seems that the RCC is the first denomination to be created.
"The first bishop to claim primacy in writing was Pope Stephen I (254-257)."
So up until then, Papal status is merely a matter of speculation and folklore.
"Pope Damasus I (366-384) was first to claim that Rome's primacy rested solely on Peter..."
If Peter was truly a Pope, he would have said so himself. I'm sure if Peter can see what's going on down here with the Catholic Church he's got his shaking his head and pullin out his hair saying "Where did I go wrong?"
Instead of going to a pro-Catholic church to find biased information on the Popes, I went to wikipedia, which is neutral and unbiased.
Here are some interesting FACTS about the history of Popes.
"The origin of the Papacy is unclear. It is generally accepted amongst most Catholic and non-Catholic historians that the institution of the papacy as it exists today developed through the centuries." So, we know that IF Peter was truly a Pope, he would be nothing like the Popes today. (He would no doubt not be teaching any of the trash that the RCC teaches today. If he did, then he would be going against the Bible)
"Despite the special status of the church of Rome, there are only a few 1st century references to the recognition of the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff of the Holy See outside of Rome. The fact that Clement of Rome's letter to the Corinthians (written c. 96) adopted a pastoral tone, and also the fact that St. Ignatius of Antioch once spoke of the church of Rome "presiding in love" in his letter to the Romans (written c. 105) are seen by some historians to present proof of the existence of a certain early Papal primacy. Others argue that these documents refer only to a primacy of honor. The doctrines of Papal authority and Primacy of the Roman Pontiff continue to be sources of controversy between the Catholic Church and other Christian Churches."
So this shows how the Catholics can take something so vague, and make a doctrine out of it.
"Before a strict hierarchy was in place, an increasing number of people had conflicting views over what they felt was true about Christianity. The position of bishop came about as a part of efforts to establish what Christianity was believed to be, and to ensure that it was preserved. By the end of the first century AD, single bishops were appearing in major cities; these bishops were supported by colleges of "elders."
So bishops (which are mentioned in the Bible, unlike Popes, were in existence...not the Pope)
"Not until a couple of decades into the second century do letters from Ignatius of Antioch describe churches led by a single bishop who was merely assisted by the presbyters and deacons. Even when a single bishop can definitively be identified as "the bishop of Rome," his powers were nothing like the powers of the pope today. In the early days of the church[when?], the bishop of Rome didn’t call councils, didn’t issue encyclicals, and wasn’t sought after to resolve disputes about the nature of Christian faith."
Nope...still no Pope.
continued.....
msnchris70
For some reason this post was flagged. It was the first part of my Fri 11:53pm post. So I am reposting it
"Mt 18:17-18 If he refuses to listen even to the Church.....You certainly don't listen to the Church."
This passage is dealing with Believer A who has trespassed against Believer B. If Believer A refuses to hear his fault in his relationship with Believer B after Believer B has confronted him alone and then in the presence of 2 or 3 witnesses, then Believer A's offense is to be presented to the Church. If Believer A still refuse to hear that he has trespassed against Believer B then Believer A is to be treated as a heathen.
What is my trespass? Who have I trespassed against? When was my trespass brought before the Church? What did I not hear?
"Lk 10:16-Whoever hears you, hears me, whoever rejects you rejects me....YOU REJECT this teaching since this authority was passed down to the Bishops and you reject God's authority on Earth which are the Bishops so you REJECT JESUS CHRIST."
I do not have to blindly accept everything a Pastor says. If what he says is of God then I will know it, for it will bear witness with my spirit.
"Jn16:13-The Spirit of Truth will guide you into ALL TRUTH...He was speaking to a select group...not you."
The Apostle John disagrees with you (1 John 2:27)
1 John 2:27 - "But the anointing (Holy Ghost) which ye have received of him abideth in you, and YE NEED NOT THAT ANY MAN TEACH YOU: but as the the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him."
chris,
Then you contradict yourself. You say the Catholic church has the final say on the scriptures, but yet you say we should study the scriptures for ourselves. Why study? Do what most Catholics do..ask their church what they believe.
St. Peter (32-67)
St. Linus (67-76)
St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88)
St. Clement I (88-97)
St. Evaristus (97-105)
St. Alexander I (105-115)
St. Sixtus I (115-125) Also called Xystus I
St. Telesphorus (125-136)
St. Hyginus (136-140)
St. Pius I (140-155)
St. Anicetus (155-166)
St. Soter (166-175)
St. Eleutherius (175-189)
St. Victor I (189-199)
St. Zephyrinus (199-217)
St. Callistus I (217-22)
St. Urban I (222-30)
St. Pontain (230-35)
St. Anterus (235-36)
St. Fabian (236-50)
St. Cornelius (251-53)
St. Lucius I (253-54)
St. Stephen I (254-257)
St. Sixtus II (257-258)
St. Dionysius (260-268)
St. Felix I (269-274)
St. Eutychian (275-283)
St. Caius (283-296) Also called Gaius
St. Marcellinus (296-304)
St. Marcellus I (308-309)
St. Eusebius (309 or 310)
St. Miltiades (311-14)
St. Sylvester I (314-35)
St. Marcus (336)
St. Julius I (337-52)
Liberius (352-66)
St. Damasus I (366-83)
All of the above list were officially elected through the formal process of election. So, just picking a date out of the sky doesn't help. During this time of 300 years there were also around 3 or 4 illicitly elected Popes. Since they were illicit, they were called anti-popes. IN the end all the duly elected Popes had authority and exercised it. If you choose to read any of the writings of these Popes before Constantine you will find their beliefs match mine. They were Catholic and called themselves Catholic; We believe in One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
The Catholic Church is not a Denomination in the formal sense. We are the first and only church founded by Christ through the Apostles. This is supported by both the Bible, secular historians, Christian historians. While some call us a Christian denomination in the familiar sense, that is fine. However, since we didn't break off from someone and have continuity to the beginning we would not be considered a denomination in the formal sense. We are the original.
Star2,
You really need to open up a book rather than getting all your info on the Discovery Channel or on the internet.
The Catholic Church was founded by Christ. The Catholic Church has 21 Rites within it. Roman being the largest. There are Coptics, Chaldeans, Melkites, Byzantines, Maronites, Greeks, Ukranians, Armenians and quite a few more. So, at least call my church by the correct name.
I am a Catholic. The Catholic Church was founded on the Apostles, so that would be around 33 ad not 325. While Constantine did one huge thing for Christians...By not killing us and making us a legal entity. Constatine did not make us official. Christ did. Before Constantine you can look up all the Bishops before Constantine. They are all well documented. Specifically, the Church of Rome had special primacy because of Peter and Paul. Both were martyred in Rome and Peter had a special primacy because of the spritual Keys given to him by Christ as a Davidic sign of his authority for Christ over the flock. There has always been a Bishop of Rome since Peter, so therefore the Catholic church has always existed.
I know you hate logic and history, but I will give you a listing. Look it up for yourself. To say the Roman Catholic Religion began because of Constantine is not only inacurate, but cannot be academically supported by any compelling evidence that the date you picked was the official start date.
Star2,
Agreed you have a massive ego. Agreed others have had massive ego's too and said that the Holy Spirit guided them too.
Here is a list of some of your friends.
Mormons
Jehovah Witnesses
7th Day Adventists
Pentecostals who reject the Trinity
Monophysites
Donatists
Arians
Nestorians
Man, you really keep good company!
These are just a few. Also, how many Baptists and Pentecostals have predicted the end of the world and said that they were guided by the Holy Spirit. Quite a few! Oh, and they were all wrong.
You say you are guided by the Holy Spirit. Ok. I'll put 40 other Protestants in a room with you and you can all go through the Bible and ofcourse you guys are all led by the HS right, then let's see if you come up with the same exact interpretation ok? You won't and proof of that is that you can just open a phone book and you will find thousands of different types of Protestants all claiming they go by the Bible and yet only ONE CAN BE CORRECT.
Enjoy your confusion and division. This is exactly why after I was an anti-Catholic Protestant Pastor for many years, today I am passionate evangelical Catholic who realized without the authority of the Bishops in union with the Bishop of Rome you cannot have unity of the correct faith.
Cont'd.
The Protestant doctrine of going by the bible alone, or Sola Scriptura is completely unbiblical. It has never been, "Let's just read the bible and have the holy spirit guide us." The Holy Spirit was promised to all of us, but certain gifts were given to some and not others. The Spirit of Truth came only to those who had authority. Christ chose specific people to carry out this task. Only the Catholic Church is the final interpreter of the Bible and this authority was from God directly.
There are many Protestants today that are doing all the research as I've described above, and many of them are converting to the Catholic Church and some to the Orthodox. Without the benefit of knowing exactly what the Scriptures meant in the context they were said, then you basically have to guess. Guessing is what Protestants call being led by the Holy Spirit into all Truth, but practically speaking that so called guiding of the HS has produced nothing but confusion and division. The Question is should you have a right to interpret scripture by yourself, or should you have to interpret scripture with all these research methods and with historical and Sacred Tradition of 2000 years of Christianity?
Prophet,
We should study scripture. We should also realize that we being humans of the 21st Century we must rely on a wide variety of analysis to make sure we get it correct. Most people can read the Bible and get the gist in some areas, but some parts are very difficult so you must use other resources to make sure you correctly interpret the passage. Unlike a fundamentalist who just opens up the Bible, much like Star2, and says..."The Holy Spirit guides me" and this is what scripture says. An individual Catholic like myself would never approach the Holy Word of God like that or with that kind of Ego. We would first pray for the Holy Spirit to be our guide, then next we would try to understand the context of how it was written, why it was written, what is the lesson to be learned, is it literal or figurative and is there importance to the exact language it was spoken and would that produce a different interpretation. Were there any allusions from the OT that would help interpret the NT. We would also do all that and then we would compare our own interpretations with what the earliest Christians said on the Topic. Origin was a great writer of the first few centuries and he gave analysis for almost every line in the Bible. There are many others like the early church fathers and the didache book written in the year 80ad circa. A Catholic would take that all in to account. A lot of work, eh?
Then we would see if any of our interpretations after all that analysis has been done is at variance with Church teaching. In fact, what I've found out is that the Church gives quite a lot of liberal freedom of interpretation and basically only has a dozen or so verses, which says you can not think differently on these verses. I agree with all the doctrines, dogmas and beliefs of the Catholic Church.
Authority is what it all comes down to. Jesus gave the Apostles special authority and power to discern Truth, to remember everthing he said, to Speak for Him in faith and morals, to have a teaching authority over his flock that was binding and all christians must be obedient to the apostles on these faith and doctrine issues. They had the power to discipline and the power to legislate and forgive sins. These powers of authority were passed down to their successors and it has been passed down in an unbroken line of succession for 2000 years circa. God promised that His Church would never fail and it hasn't.
msnchris70
Chris70 said :"Here is what STAR2 Wrote just so all of you can see her MASSIVE EGO!
"Those Christians who lived closer to the time of Christ have nothing on me. Jesus Christ manifests His presence in me (John 14:21). He teaches me through the Holy Ghost what I need to know."
The early Christians may have lived closer in time to Jesus Christ but I live even closer than that because Jesus lives inside of me. I have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. He manifests His presence in me in my inner being.
Massive Ego because the Word of God is a living reality in my life?
John 14:21 - "He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him."
msnchris70
continued
"Mt. 28:18-20 Jesus delegates power to His Apostles"
Jesus said He was the one who had all power in heaven and earth. These verses make no mention of delegaing His power to the Apostles.
"Jn 20:23-Jesus gives power to forgive sins."
What commands Jesus spoke to the disciples when He appeared before them after He rose from the dead applies to all believers.
Jesus said in John 20:23, "Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them: and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained."
If someone sins against me personally I have the power to forgive them of their sin without them asking me for it or I have the power to hold it against them until they do.
"The Holy Catholic Church has the final say on what Scripture says, not you Star2."
The RCC does not have final say over what Scripture says. God has final say over what His Word says.
"The Holy Catholic Church has received authority by Christ through the Apostles so that when they speak you must be obediant...you are not."
The RCC Institution did not come into existence until around 325 AD. It did not receive its authority from the Apostles.
I am not a memeber of the RCC Institution. It has no authority over me since I am not a member of it.
The only church Institution that has authority over me is the Church I belong to, and that authority is very limited.
"The Bishops have the power of Christ on earth to be a steward of Christ flock."
Yes, on the surface of your statement this is true. The Bishop (Pastor) of the Church I attend is the steward of the body of believers that God has given him.
"All this being said, you can read and interpret the bible all you want but your interpretation may not go against any doctrine of the Church. All our doctrines conform to Scripture either implicitly or explicitly and may never contradict Scripture. The Church has teaching authority from Christ so you must be obediant. "
The doctrines of the RCC do not conform to the Word of God.
I do not look to man for understanding of the Word of God. I look to God. He teaches me doctrine and it is He and He alone that I am required to be obedient to.
(I flagged myself)
Or does the Bible mean that we are to study the scriptures only if we come to the same conclusion in our interpretation that the RCC does?
I'm still trying to figure out why Chirs says "Also, so you don't need anything other than to read the word of God for yourself?" ...infering that we are not to interpret the Scriptures for ourselves...yet the Scriptures themselves command us to study the scriptures for ourselves. That's the contradiction of the Catholic belief system
I've got to take my dog to the vet, I'll be back later to chat some more.
You see, I am a son of God, which trumps apostles, prophets, and the Catholic Church. I am a joint heir with Jesus which, again, trumps apostles, prophets, and the Catholic Church. So, as a son of God, I speak with the authority of God. Not because some "Pope" said I could. Not because some man-made, fallible institution said I could, but because the Word of God (which I hope you agree is much more powerful and worthy than the RCC) says I do.
I agree with jester. I think its gross that Jesus cut off his flesh and fed it to the disciples. He must have. He said "This (as in this thing that He was holding in His hands) is my flesh...." How much clearer can it be?
Paul did correct Peter on doctrine.
And I think it's amusing that I'm part of the Church, but yet not a Catholic.
Catholics do take great pride in their chuch. You proved it in your post.
I've decided to be non-Catholic because of the lies and mis-leading that the RCC promotes.
I give you my "interpretation" of the Scriptures the same way the Catholics church does. My interpretation agrees with the Word of God, not a church.
I have the authority of Jesus Christ himself and the Holy Spirit.
Every belief I have can be traced back to before the Catholic Church was founded.
Jester and Prophet,
Jester, first of all do not blaspheme the Word of God by saying anything derogative about the bread and wine become his flesh and blood. This is sacrilege even if it is only a symbol to you.
Have some respect. Paul didn't correct Peter on Doctrine or faith, only on setting a bad example and being a hypocrite of saying one thing and doing another. We Catholics take all the teaching of the Apostles and the New Testament. We are the Church of Christ, not Peter. Christ put Peter in Charge and gave him a dynastic office. If you don't like it, then take it up with Jesus.
We Catholics do not take pride in our Church, we are rather humble and obediant. The Bible does not interpret itself, so God gave us a hiearchy to do this; Bishop, Priest and Deacon. Priest is the anglo version of Presbyter which means elder and can by synonomous with Overseer Bishop. Today Bishops are Priests dually, but a Priest isn't always a Bishop unless they received the laying of hands for this office.
You are right about one thing. If you ask me a theological question then I will give you the official Church teaching. I became a Catholic because of the divisiion within my own Protestant denomination and because there is no true authority. Yes, if I ask you a theological question you won't tell me just what the Bible says...you will give me your interpretation. My interpretation agrees with the official teaching of the CHURCH. Yours is just your own opinion and while you are entitled to it, you have no biblical authority to make an official statement on what it means. You have no authority because unless you were taught by someone who was taught by another who was originally taught by an apostle then you have little to no credibility.
Every single Catholic doctrine you can find the beginnings of it in the 1st and 2nd Century. They are all Apostolic and come from the original deposit of faith. So, yes that should be considered far superior to what you have to say since you have no connection to the original Apostles and you don't know exactly what they meant, while we did because we were there.
chris..
Ewww...Jesus cut his own flesh off and fed it to His disciples? And made them drink his blood?
By the way...there are 50,001 denominations. Catholics are merely just another denomination in the mix. I know that just ruffles your feathers, but its true. And Prophet was right on. When the Roman Catholic Church is so bent on saying "We're the way" instead of "Jesus is the way" then you show your true colors as a heretic.
It's funny how you say that "some things" pertain only to you, while "other things" pertain to all. It really the same issue that Peter had with with the discussion of the Jews and Gentiles.
How funny that you would follow in his footsteps. Where's Paul to correct you?
The Word of God is to all his children. Not just a few. I wonder where Prophet got his calling from? Certainly not from the catholics (which in your mind would make him a false prophet, eh?).
Catholics are more proud of their Church than they are of God. Ask a Catholic a theological question and they reply with "Well, our Church believes...." or "Our priest says...."
Ask me a theological question and I reply with "Well, the Bilble says..." or "God says...."
Anyone else see the difference?
chris,
That's funny...I received the same authority to interpret the scriptures that the RCC claims to have the corner on. Amazing.
When God asks me to speak, I speak as if God were speaking.
I listen to the Church. The churches name? Jesus Christ.
Who ever hears me when I speak the words of God...hears God. Whoever rejects me for speaking the word of God rejects God.
The Holy Spirit guides me into all truth....as well as any others who are filled with His Spirit.
Jesus delegates power to whomever He chooses.
The RCC says "We are the determiner of the Canon"
The Truth is "they are the discoverer of the Canon"
The RCC says "We are the mother of the Canon"
The Truth is they are the child of the Canon
The RCC says "We are the magistrate of the Canon"
The Truth is they are a minister of the Canon
The RCC says "We are the regulator of the Canon."
The Truth is they are the recognizer of the Canon
The RCC says "We are the judge of the Canon"
The Truth is they are a witness of the Canon
The RCC says "We are the master of the Canon"
The Truth is they are the servant to the Canon
Here is what STAR2 Wrote just so all of you can see her MASSIVE EGO!
"Those Christians who lived closer to the time of Christ have nothing on me. Jesus Christ manifests His presence in me (John 14:21). He teaches me through the Holy Ghost what I need to know."
Also, so you don't need anything other than to read the word of God for yourself?
No prophesy of Scripture to be interpreted by yourself sound familiar?
Lk 10:16 The Apostles speak with Christ own voice
1Tim 3:15 The Church is called the pillar and foundation of Truth.....NOT YOU>
Acts 15:28 -Apostles speak with the voice of the Holy Spirit.....Not You.
Mt 18:17-18 If he refuses to listen even to the Church.....You certainly don't listen to the Church.
Lk 10:16-Whoever hears you, hears me, whoever rejects you rejects me....YOU REJECT this teaching since this authority was passed down to the Bishops and you reject God's authority on Earth which are the Bishops so you REJECT JESUS CHRIST.
Jn16:13-The Spirit of Truth will guide you into ALL TRUTH...He was speaking to a select group...not you.
Mt. 28:18-20 Jesus delegates power to His Apostles
Jn 20:23-Jesus gives power to forgive sins.
In Luke and Mathew Christ gives his power to the Apostles to legislate, power to discipline and in 1 Cor 11 the power to offer the Eucharist as a Sacrifice.
The Holy Catholic Church has the final say on what Scripture says, not you Star2. The Holy Catholic Church has received authority by Christ through the Apostles so that when they speak you must be obediant...you are not. The Bishops have the power of Christ on earth to be a steward of Christ flock.
All this being said, you can read and interpret the bible all you want but your interpretation may not go against any doctrine of the Church. All our doctrines conform to Scripture either implicitly or explicitly and may never contradict Scripture. The Church has teaching authority from Christ so you must be obediant.
msnchris70
Re:You will find that Scripture does not interpret itself. So you do need others as well as yourself to properly interpret.
Those thoughts are not scriptural. All I need is the Word of God (2 Tim 3:16-17) and the Holy Ghost to understand scripture (John 14:26, John 16:13, 1 John 2:27). I do not need any other source outside of Holy Scrip unless God tell me to look elsewhere for some kind of information.
Re:The hiearchy of the Church speaks for the Body of Christ.
They don't speak for me.
Re: To not consider those Christian martyrs who actually knew the Apostles and what they wrote,
If they actually knew the Apostles and wrote about what they learned from them then their teachings would be reflected in the Word of God. Therefore, I do not need to know about anything they wrote because anything I need to know is in the Word of God.
Re: is to reject those who were closest to the fountain of Truth.
You are closest to the fountain of Truth when you make Jesus Christ the Lord of your life and walk in obedience to Him.
Re:It is also illogical from a philosophical standpoint not to consider opinions or statements made by those who lived closer to the time of Christ than you did.
Those Christians who lived closer to the time of Christ have nothing on me. Jesus Christ manifests His presence in me (John 14:21). He teaches me through the Holy Ghost what I need to know.
Star2,
Unfortunately for you, your personal interpretation doesn't amount to much. You don't back it up with any evidence from the Bible that would contradict what I wrote. I mean you coudn't even find something implicity. The 24 elders in Heaven are humans, the cloud of Witnesses are humans and those beneath the altar are human. They bring cupfulls of prayers before the Holy Altar of God and that is intercession if I ever heard it. Also, you believe unbiblically that death separates us from other Christians. We are all connected as the one body of Christ.
Again, praying for others and worshipping God is not work! Isn't it funny how you can never bring up any supporting evidence to your own interpretation? Show me anything in the first 1000 years of Christianity that matches up with your beliefs? You won't.
This is your endemic problem. Your beliefs don't match even close to what the early Christians believed and that should scare the HELL out of you that you could be so far off. Thank God you still believe we are saved by Grace through faith in Christ, or otherwise you would have no chance. Please whatever you do, don't water down the belief in the trinity too, Ok? Many Pentecostals have already done this.
msnchris70
RE:First you say that they in Heaven are not aware or care what we are doing on Earth.
The martyrs are aware of the fact that God has not yet avenged their blood by bring judgment on those who dwell on the Earth. Do they know what is actually happening? I don't know. I dare say neither do you.
Re:You also say that they are doing nothing in Heaven.
I never said that. Rev 14:13 says that the saints labor is over and their works do follow them. The saints in heaven no longer labor for those on the Earth but they do serve God in Heaven.
Re: You also say they don't intercede at all for us. I pointed out that humans(saints) and angels constantly intercede for us. They intercede by bringing the prayers of the Saints before God.
The Angels do but not the saints.
Re: The dead rich man still tried to intercede with Lazarus by asking(praying) to God to help his brothers.
The rich man who died and went to hell only asked God to send Lazarus back from the dead to tell his unrepented brothers to repent so they would not end up in hell like him. The dead rich man did not request that God meet the daily needs of his family who were still on the Earth. God's response to him was "No" because his brothers had the wtiness of Moses and the Prophets.
The Angles in Heaven do God's work on the Earth as He sends them out not man.
Jester,
The spirit of Truth guides all 50,000 different denominations. Wow! What kind of Spirit would guide people to disagree about the basics of Christianity and fight with each other? You Protestants fight enough with each other for us Catholics to stay out of it. All of you claim to go by the Bible alone and yet you disagree with each other on a massive scale.
There is only one Truth who is Jesus Christ. He founded one Church on Peter and the other Apostles. Jesus gave special primacy to Peter to be his Key Master or Prime Ministe. God only promised one Church to be lead into all Truth. The more you hold to an unscriptural and unhistorical doctrine of Sola Scriptura the more divided you become and the more weak you are, while the Catholic Church remains steadfast in her Apostolic teachings and not the traditions of men.
Star2,
First you say that they in Heaven are not aware or care what we are doing on Earth. You also say that they are doing nothing in Heaven. You also say they don't intercede at all for us. I pointed out that humans(saints) and angels constantly intercede for us. They intercede by bringing the prayers of the Saints before God. Both angels and the twelve elders bring prayers of the Saints on Earth before God. The martyrs are petitioning God for their own vindication which proves they know what's going on with us and they want something done to them to vindicate. The dead rich man still tried to intercede with Lazarus by asking(praying) to God to help his brothers. So if a dead man in Hell tries to intercede for us who are alive how much more benefit will it be if someone who goes to Heaven and prays for us?
You will find that Scripture does not interpret itself. So you do need others as well as yourself to properly interpret. The Scriptures were always in the Old and New Testament studied by the laity, but the hiearchy had the power to bind and loose. The hiearchy of the Church speaks for the Body of Christ. To not consider those Christian martyrs who actually knew the Apostles and what they wrote, is to reject those who were closest to the fountain of Truth. It is also illogical from a philosophical standpoint not to consider opinions or statements made by those who lived closer to the time of Christ than you did.
Wow so much info.
Wilderness, The official teaching of the Church in the Catechism says NOTHING about ABIDING IN MARY! This quote is not an official Church teaching. We abide in Christ, not Mary. Nice spin.
Jester,
Some of us have a job and a family and can't answer so quickly. Yes, I do believe after consecration that the bread and wine become for us the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ while the accidentals remain to the senses bread and wine. "For my flesh is real food indeed" We don't ask how it happens. The early church always had enough faith to believe it, and so do we. It is only new sects of Christians of the last 200 years who don't have enough faith to believe it. John 16 does talk about the Spirit of Truth, but God was speaking to a select group of followers. He wasn't speaking to you! Christ gave this power to discern Truth to his selected followers which were the Apostles and some disciples. Those selected followers passed it down by the laying of hands to others who will have the Authority of Jesus. Protestants have no authority or have the promise to be lead into all Truth. This isn't to say the Holy Spirit doesn't work at all with you, but that He works in His fullness only with the Church that was present when this was promised-The Catholic Church. Later in John 20 Jesus gives these same people the power to forgive sins too....sounds pretty Catholic to me.
Star2 my dear sister. Scripture is not fully self-interpreting. As 2 Peter 3:16 notes, "some things are hard to understand....and can lead to our own destruction". Please do not be so proud. Our Lord opposes those who are proud!
Do you have a local pastor, or do you just make things up as you go? Your mantra makes me think that you don’t really think for yourself, but that you are listening to a pastor or maybe your group of friends. This is not to be insulting, only an observation. So, who do you think the early church fathers were? Well, let’s just suppose they were the pastors of a church. Well, guess what, they actually WERE the pastors of a church. What were you thinking? Did you think they were a group of men who sat there plotting of ways to trick and deceive Star2 in the year 2008? So, if you were born in that era, they would have been your pastor.
So, why do you think there is no need for the teachings of the early church fathers? Were they not allowed (in your humble opinion) to pastor their church? To publish their works? Just think, these were the early day equivalents of a “Purpose Driven Life”, only with substance and written by men more holy and learned then Rick Warren! Have you actually read any single one of the early church father’s writings? Some of these sermons / messages / essays / papers / books are incredible, please don’t flippantly discredit them. Should society have thrown these out because Star2 thinks the are useless? I don’t think so. Star2, if you actually care to take time to research before you flippantly speak, you can check out www.earlychristianwritings.com as just one of many websites on this subject. May God bless you my sister in Christ….<><..
Scritpure teaches that Christians do not need any man to teach them what the Word of God says (1 John 2:27). The Holy Ghost whom the Father will send in His Son Jesus' name will teach you all things (John 14:26) and will guide you into all truth (John 16:13).
There is no need for the teachings of the early Church Fathers.
John 14:26 - "But the Comforter, which is the HOLY GHOST, whom the Father will send in my name, he SHALL TEACH YOU ALL THINGS, and bring all things unto your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you."
John 16:13 - "Howbeit when he, the SPIRIT OF TRUTH, is come, he WILL GUIDE YOU INTO ALL TRUTH: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come."
1 John 2:27 - "But the anointing (Holy Ghost) which ye have received of him abideth in you, and YE NEED NOT THAT ANY MAN TEACH YOU: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him."
msnchris70
"Tob 12:12-Angel presents Tobit and Saray's prayer to God-Heavenly intercession.."
This verse is refering to an Angel named Raphael taking the prayers of Tobit and Saray's who were alive on the Earth to God. There is no mention here of dead saints in Heaven interceding for the people on the Earth.
"Rev 6:9-11-martyrs under altar want earthly vindication-They are well aware of us."
Rev 6:10 - "And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge OUR blood on them that dwell on the earth?"
Yes, the martyrs are aware that God has not yet avenged THEIR blood upon those who dwell on the Earth. However, these verses do not speak of the martyrs knowledge of individuals saints on the Earth and receiving their prayers and offering them to God.
"Lk 16:19-30 departed Rich man tries to intercede for brothers- He is dead and yet wants to
pray for the living."
First of all the rich man is in hell not heaven. Secondly,the rich man in hell wasn't praying for his unrepentent family members daily needs to be met by God, he was only asking that God would send Lazarus, who was comforted in Abraham's bosom, to go back from the dead to tell them what it is like in hell and to repent. The rich man knew that if they didn't repent they would go to hell. He also knew that his brothers lived an unrepented life and that they needed to repent. The rich man's request was based on what he knew about them when he was alive on the Earth.
"Not only do those in heaven pray with us, they also pray for us. "
No they don't msnchris70. There is no scriptual basis for this statement. All the references you gave do not support your statement that the saints in heaven pray for us. There is no scripture to back up the RCC's claim that dead saints in heaven pray for us or with us.
I forgot 2 Timothy 3:16-17
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." Again...that there says that scripture is sufficient for bringing us into perfection. Can the RCC do any better?
Meditations On The Blessed Virgin
By Most Hon. Brother Philippe
Finally, the Church herself teaches this truth, by saying to Mary: “All those who abide in you, shall be in happiness, O holy Mother of God…”1 [End quote]
1 Little Office of the Blessed Virgin.
Do not be deceived. If you believe that abiding in Mary will bring you happiness, please repent and remember that our abiding should be in Jesus Christ: “Abide in me, and I in you” (Jn 15:4) and that “…happy is that people, whose God is the LORD” (Ps 144:15).