Glenster Registered User
I thought he was reasonably fair throughout the series. It's good to see a critical programme on Christianity that talks to the mainstream christians rather than focusing on the crazy fundamentalists.
I particularly like the reverend from St. Martin in the Fields and his response to the homosexual question, he made an interesting point, one that makes a lot of the anti-gay stuff in the old testament not as relevant to the modern world.
Eccelsia also means a religious congregation, a people called into one fold, not a denomination of 30,000 protestants loosely connected to one another through Sola scriptura and sola Fide. Jesus said may they be one not a denomination of 30,000.
But regardless of your horrible rendering of the greek, you missed the point Stephen was trying to make, which I believe is, if St.Paul believed in Bible alone theology, then he would of told us that the Bible is the pillar and bulwark of the truth, but instead he tells us that the Church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth.
its a powerful passage from the Bible that destroys the Bible alone theology.
Which fundamentalist Christians claim they didn't have to listen to since Christ revoked almost all the laws in them.
Some of their LEADERS had. I would reckon even noblemen ( particularly not Greco Romans
of orthodox tradition but those of The Roman western Church and later frqanks and Germans and the like) dint even read.
Your evidence is?
Not all together in a single New Testament! That didn't exist for another century or three.
Also a lot of epistles and books which were NOT PART OF THE NEW TESTAMENT were also in circulation. Including heretical ones! So given these books didn't say what was in the New Testament and what was not in it and given the New Testament itself didnt say what books should go into it they relied as I have claimed on the PEOPLE and not the books to make up their own minds what books went in and the inspiration of God to guide them.
So you have about FOUR CENTURIES of "No Bible" as far as the fundamentalist Christians of today would say. Which of course does not mean most of it could not be recovered from earlier remote later first and early second century sources. They went by a separate oral tradition and magisterium and what their leaders taught and prayed for the hand of God on those clergy. Just as they do today!
I did I cited YOU contradicting someone else for citing someone in supported of their argument and then i explained that is what citation is!
I did I cited YOU contradicting someone else for citing someone in supported of their argument!
So you accept the Early Church fathers as sources equivalent to and to be considered in tandem with the Bible? You accept that a group of "leaders" in the church should inform others about Christian teaching?
That The Pre Nicean fathers also write about other things NOT in the Bible or about their interpretation of things that are in the Bible.
Not ALL of them they didn't. Yu can't claim that the Ephisians for example or the Corinthians who only had access to Paul's letter to them and no or few other New testament writings had the New Testament. So they were Christians without a whole copy of the New Testament! That means the book alone is not paramount!
Where is your evidence that most Christians were literate. Maybe greek ones but many were peasants and later on the Roman civilization was muss less learned and the learning aspect of Western Roman christians only came about when Charles the Great learned to read and asked monks to teach Europeans. Even then they lagged the Byzentines who in turn probably lagged the much more educated Arabs.
That the New Testament is not the only thing that matters. It isn't all about what is written in the Book.
But he points out the elements of the main branches of the Catholic church those of the Book/word - protestants and fundamentalists , those of the Spirit - Orthodox and those of the Church as a body in Christ with a magesterium - Romans.
Actually I found one of his earlier progs on protestantism ironic. He pointed out how what became fundamentalist rule ridden Protestants started out by contradicting the rule ridden church on whether one could eat a sausage during lent.
Fundamentalist Christians (of which I am not one) see the Old Testament as being the inspired and inerrant Word of God, which must be listened to and interpreted in the light of the New Testament.
Churches had 'readers' who would read the Scriptures to the rest of the congregation.
One powerful piece of evidence is that they were quoted by early Church fathers, from various geographical areas, as Scripture and as authoritative in settling disputes.
So what? No-one is pretending that the only books going the rounds were the 27 we now have in our New Testament.
The fact that people had other books as well as Scriptural books doesn't alter the fact that they had the Scriptural books.
No. You have 400 years during which some Christians only had access to parts of the Bible.
antiskeptic Registered User
I thought he was being fair too. But as an unbeliever, he displayed blindness, conflating Christendom (or cultural Christianity if you like) with Christianity.
Did his point cover the "anti-gay" stuff in the New Testament?
Oddly when I asked a fundamentalist creationist about old testament passages over in another thread (the longest on boards) about passages from the Bible
the reply was
...as a Saved Christian, the Laws of Leviticus don't apply to me.
Readers are not leaders. A NON mathAMATICIAN COULD READ equations which the audience does not understand.
Yes but not all in one place or time! Early faters cover a time period of centuries!
so given the early Christians didn't have all the books in the same place at the same time
It took CENTURIES for any one place to have the entire Bible!
The fact that people had other books as well as Scriptural books doesn't alter the fact that they had the Scriptural books.
You have 400 years during which some Christians only had access to parts of the Bible.
You seem to be confusing two very different issues.
The laws of Leviticus don't apply to him. But Leviticus is still part of his Bible and is viewed as part of the inerrant and inspired Word of God.
Paul's instruction in the New Testament to say hello on his behalf to the church that meets in Phoebe's house doesn't apply to me - but it's still part of my Bible.
What do you mean by "inerrant" ?
Are these passages inerrant?:
"For everyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother. His blood shall be upon him." (Leviticus 20:9)
"Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property." (Leviticus 25:44-45)
"Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard." (Leviticus 19:27)
"...do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear material woven of two kinds of material." (Leviticus 19:19)
By 'inerrant' I mean 'without error'.
Yes, those passages are inerrant, IMHO, in that they accurately represent the instructions that God gave the Israelites to live by once they took possession of Canaan.
The fact that they don't apply to non-Israelites living in Ireland thousands of years later does not affect the issue of inerrancy.
You do seem to be conflating different concepts to an alarming degree. I hope you don't do this in every area of life, and in this case your confusion is simply caused by unfamiliarity with the subject matter.
So you agree that it was right in Cana in ancient times for anyone cursing their father to be killed or for slaves to be taken and that God saw this as something very important and told them so? And that God was highly interested in garments not being of two different materials , so much so he had it written into inerrant law?
I only picked out a few "hard passages" here.
Then you come back to "they don't apply today"
Well that is just a contradicting yourself!
But first it is saying that they DID apply then. I have just pointed out the problems with that.
Second of all you are just echoing the point I originally raised about fundamentalists saying "laws of the Old Testament don't apply today"!
to which i stated
and your direct reply was
how is that totally untrue and yet
i point out fundamentalists claim they dont apply today. You claim that is totally untrue. I show you some laws from the Old Testament. You then state "they don't apply today"!
Soul Winner Registered User
Strawman argument. When did I say anything about a denomination of 30,000????
Hello? You translated it practically the same as me???? I said it means out-called-one and you said that it translate a religious congregation. Mine is closer to the what the word actually means, yet you call it a horrible rendering? Weird??
The point he was trying to make was that Catholics are right and everyone else is wrong. Simple really.
Man shall not live by bread alone but by EVERY WORD THAT PROCEEDETH FORTH FROM THE MOUTH OF GOD. Only a church that is nourished by God's Word can be called a real church. Churches that dine on paganism and idolatry will go into perdition. The Protestant reformation put God's Word center stage after centuries of concealment by the RCC.
I just demolished your argument with the words of Jesus who quoted from the Old Testament. Man shall not live by bread alone but by EVERY word that comes from the mouth of God. That is all we ever will need. We don't need any BS traditions brought in via idolatry and paganism to pollute the pure stream of God's Word.
When the phrases "word of God" or "word of the Lord" appear in Acts and the epistles, they almost always refer to oral preaching, not to Scripture. For example:
"When you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God" (1 Thess. 2:13).
If we compare this passage with another, written to the same church, Paul appears to regard oral teaching and the word of God as synonymous:
"Keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us" (2 Thess. 3:6).
a. The reference to "He shall be called a Nazarene" cannot be found in the Old Testament, yet it was "spoken by the prophets" (Matt. 2:23). Therefore, this prophecy, which is considered to be "God’s word," was passed down orally rather than through Scripture.
b. In Matthew 23:2–3, Jesus teaches that the scribes and Pharisees have a legitimate, binding authority based "on Moses’ seat," but this phrase or idea cannot be found anywhere in the Old Testament. It is found in the (originally oral) Mishnah, which teaches a sort of "teaching succession" from Moses on down.
c. In 1 Corinthians 10:4, Paul refers to a rock that "followed" the Jews through the Sinai wilderness. The Old Testament says nothing about such miraculous movement. But rabbinic tradition does.
d. "As Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses" (2 Tim. 3:8). These two men cannot be found in the related Old Testament passage (Ex. 7:8ff.) or anywhere else in the Old Testament.
In the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:6–30), we see Peter and James speaking with authority. This Council makes an authoritative pronouncement (citing the Holy Spirit) that was binding on all Christians:
"For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity" (Acts 15:28–29).
In the next chapter, we read that Paul, Timothy, and Silas were traveling around "through the cities," and Scripture says that "they delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem" (Acts 16:4).
No I didnt, here it is from my greek dictionary, you just hoovered up the words ''called out ones'' and forgot to add the rest hmmm
1) a gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place, an assembly
a) an assembly of the people convened at the public place of the council for the purpose of deliberating
b) the assembly of the Israelites
c) any gathering or throng of men assembled by chance, tumultuously
d) in a Christian sense
Of course Catholics believe this piece of scripture also and we live by the word of God but the problem you have is showing me where the verse says that we should listen to the Bible aloneee, because it does not say that. Stephens quote still stands that if St.Paul believed in Bible alone theology he would of used it and called the Bible the pillar and bulwark of the truth, but he doesnt he calls the Church the pillar and bulwark of the truth, any other quote from the Bible to say otherwise would be calling St.paul a liar and since the words out of his mouth are the word of God, you'd be ultimately calling the Holy Spirit a liar and not living by every word that proceedeth from the mouth of the Lord yourself. this shows that Catholics do actually live by every word that proceedeth from the mouth of the Lord, whilst people such as yourself do not.
JimiTime Registered User
As a non-catholic I believe you are correct. However, like the Boreans did, and were commended by Paul for doing, we use the bible as the yardstick. If we believe the bible is from those closest to God, and an accurate record of his statutes and teachings, then it is of absolute benefit to our spiritual health to use it to decipher truth from lies, or bad teaching from good. If a prphet is sent to us in this age, we don't just say, 'Feck off, I have me bible'. Rather, the bible is what we would use to verify the prophet is from God. If the prophet taught in contradiction to biblical principals, we would likely turn from this prophet etc.
And herein lies the issue with the RCC. The RCC are simply Usurpers of the word 'Church'. They hijack it to mean the organisation of the RCC. The Church is indeed the bulwark and pillar of the truth. It declares Jesus. It gives the good news of the kingdom. It wrote and then preserved the writings of the apostles and the prophets. The Church is NOT the organisation known as the RCC, though there are, have been, and will be Roman Catholic members of the Church.
The very unfortunate truth, is that the RCC put THEMSELVES, as the only true vessel of truth. They seized power, and placed themselves as mediator between God and man. Like most, if not all denominiations, they have bad teachings, abuses of power, corruption etc, within their walls. The great thing is though, that no man, no religious organisation, no world power, nor death nor hades shall prevail against the Church, which God has taken out of all the nations of the world. The Church is those faithful to God, simple. They can be Catholics, Lutherans, baptists, non-denominational etc. By their fruits yee shall know them.