Posted on 06/29/2016 4:03:52 PM PDT by NYer
Is This Cave in Turkey the Place Where the reptilian power base resides?
Makes just as much sense.
Guess who just got tossed under the bus...
A snippet here; a chunk from there, a few more words from over there and VIOLA!! You've got TRADITION!
I WHOLE lot of folks will believe ANYthing unwritten in the Bible; as long as Rome affirms that it is true.
And it ALL can be found; right HERE!!!
5 Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, "The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses."
6 The apostles and elders met to consider this question. 7 After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: "Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8 God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9 He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10 Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? 11 No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are."
12 The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them. 13 When they finished, James spoke up. "Brothers," he said, "listen to me. 14 Simon has described to us how God first intervened to choose a people for his name from the Gentiles. 15 The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:
16 "'After this I will return
and rebuild David's fallen tent.
Its ruins I will rebuild,
and I will restore it,
17 that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord,
even all the Gentiles who bear my name,
says the Lord, who does these things'
18 things known from long ago.
19 "It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20 Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21 For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath."
The apostles and elders, your brothers,
To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia:
Greetings.
24 We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. 25 So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul— 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. 28 It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29 You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.
Farewell.
30 So the men were sent off and went down to Antioch, where they gathered the church together and delivered the letter. 31 The people read it and were glad for its encouraging message. 32 Judas and Silas, who themselves were prophets, said much to encourage and strengthen the believers. 33 After spending some time there, they were sent off by the believers with the blessing of peace to return to those who had sent them. [34] 35 But Paul and Barnabas remained in Antioch, where they and many others taught and preached the word of the Lord.
Likewise; I'm sure.
:D
Hoss
Oh...
Right.
Christianity.
:D
Hoss
So I go thru the life of the NT church showing the absolute absence of that mere assertion, and you simply invoke an error that manifestly developed later? Thank God the NT did not have that for its basis. The very ideas of presbuteros and episkopos being separate offices, and a distinct class of sacerdotal priests due to the Lord's supper coming to be seen as a sacrifice for sins requiring this priesthood, were all later developments in contrast to the NT church.
The fourth century Roman Catholic scholar Jerome (347-420) himself confirms,
“The presbyter is the same as the bishop, and before parties had been raised up in religion by the provocations of Satan, the churches were governed by the Senate of the presbyters....If you doubt that bishop and presbyter are the same, that the first word is one of function, and the second one of age, read the epistle of the Apostle to the Philippians. - (Commentary on Tit. 1.7, quoted. in “Religions of authority and the religion of the spirit," pp. 77,78. 1904, by AUGUSTE SABATIER. A similar translated version of this is provided by "Catholic World," Volume 32, by the Paulist Fathers, 1881, pp. 73,74).
Catholic writer Greg Dues in "Catholic Customs & Traditions, a popular guide," states
Beginning in the late 5th century, priests began wearing a long tunic to distinguish them from the laity, who wore a short one...As Christianity swept through the Germanic lands, the church adopted the feudalistic structures of culture and politics that had evolved in Europe. Precise ranking, with exact privileges and responsibilities, was determined for kings, lords, knights, and, on the bottom, the peasants. A parallel ranking made clear distinction among bishops, abbots, priests, monks, and the laity on the bottom.
"Priesthood as we know it in the Catholic church was unheard of during the first generation of Christianity, because at that time priesthood was still associated with animal sacrifices in both the Jewish and pagan religions." "When the Eucharist came to be regarded as a sacrifice [after Rome's theology], the role of the bishop took on a priestly dimension. By the third century bishops were considered priests. Presbyters or elders sometimes substituted for the bishop at the Eucharist. By the end of the third century people all over were using the title 'priest' (hierus in Greek and sacerdos in Latin) for whoever presided at the Eucharist." Soon all presbyters were considered priests because they offered the Eucharistic sacrifice. (http://books.google.com/books?id=ajZ_aR-VXn8C&source=gbs_navlinks_s)
The "Historical Dictionary of Anglicanism" provides additional confirmation:
In the New Testament. the Greek word that is usually translated into English as "priest" is the word 'hiereus'. The use of it and of its cognates in the New Testament is threefold: it is used, first, of Old Testament (Levitical) priests (e.g., Luke 1:5; Heb. 7:5); second, of Jesus Christ as "priest after the order of Melchizedek" (e.g., Heb. 7:17); and third, derivatively, of all believers as together holding a "priesthood" (l Pet. 2:5, 2:9; cf. Rev. 1:6. 5:10). It is never used in the New Testament to denote ordained ministers of the church.
Despite this consistent New Testament usage, from the 2nd century onward the hiereus terminology began to be applied to the ordained ministers - initially only to bishops. but later to presbyters also. The growth in church history of this misapplication of the New Testament usage matched a comparable growth in the understanding of the Eucharist as a distinct ritual offering of a sacrifice to God. (Colin Buchanan, Historical Dictionary of Anglicanism, p. 483)
And for the Lord's supper becoming the Catholic corruption, see here by the grace of God.
The Lord's Supper: solemn symbolism or real flesh and blood?
(Note: allow scripts for pop up Bible verses
Read the Didache.
The knee jerk reaction of the intellectually challenged.
Who says the early Mass had a formally declared Liturgy of the Word?
>>>”So I go thru the life of the NT church ..”
I read your opinion of history and scripture and I think it’s a hard stretch to avoid the Holy Eucharist in both. And you’ve gone off topic in this post.
I think it a much harder task to frame Holy Scripture and history of the Church into Evangelicalism that began in the 17th Century.
I have no doubt you and others do so, I just see it as a pretzel path. I read Holy Scripture, the early Christian documents, the history of Roman catacombs, etc, etc. and it’s quite plain that the Holy Eucharist is the central worship of Christians from the beginning up to the current day.
It’s there, very plainly, and the basic concept, the Real Presence in Holy Eucharist, was there until Zwingli over 1400 years after Christ.
This history is very plain; if not, there is nothing for Zwingli - and those who took it farther afield - to have changed. And it was a very big change from all before it; to deny that it was, is to ignore history.
Anyone can put together proof texts and partial snippets to prove whatever they wish, but the Holy Eucharist is overwhelmingly there from the beginning and forever, whatever effort one makes to try to make it not so.
thanks for your reply.
Johniegrad,
Just an FYI, the post you replied to had, at the end:
“The above said in total sarcasm directed to the line of arguments that developed about it.”
In reality, it’s a hard stretch, as shown, to place the Eucharist in the life of the NT church in Scripture, which is the judge of post Scriptural history, the latter of which testifies to the promise of perverse things being taught from within the church. (Acts 20:20)
I think it a much harder task to frame Holy Scripture and history of the Church into Evangelicalism that began in the 17th Century.
Rather, it a much harder task to frame Holy Scripture into Catholicism that began in the 2nd century. while evangelicalism began in the 1st, and the partial recovery of its became more manifest in the 17th. Thanks be to God.
I read Holy Scripture, the early Christian documents, the history of Roman catacombs, etc, etc. and it’s quite plain that the Holy Eucharist is the central worship of Christians from the beginning up to the current day.
That you see it in the history and teaching of life of the NT church in Scripture testifies to the deception that is Catholicism, as it simply is not there. Nonetheless, as the Lord saves those who are a broken (of pride) and contrite heart (Ps. 34:18) who cast all their faith on the risen Lord Jesus to save them by His sinless shed blood, some can be Christian despite holding to the Eucharistic error. I was one.
It’s there, very plainly, and the basic concept, the Real Presence in Holy Eucharist, was there until Zwingli over 1400 years after Christ.
No, it was not in the NT church, but it was in paganism from of old. Note also that according to one of your own "Real Presence" was originally an Anglican term for a different concept.
This history is very plain;
That the Eucharistic error did develop is indeed plain in post Scriptural history, in contrast to the life of the NT church in Scripture. That God latter corrected this error after Scripture regained its Scriptural primacy and was freely accessed (which Rome much hindered) is a testimony to its power, and God's mercy and grace.
Anyone can put together proof texts and partial snippets to prove whatever they wish
As Caths abundantly evidence.
but the Holy Eucharist is overwhelmingly there from the beginning and forever, whatever effort one makes to try to make it not so.
That assertion remains absurd, and once again i challenge you to show in the life of the NT church in Scripture, interpretive of the gospels, this central sacrament of sacrifice for sin at the hands of priest prelates whose primary active function is that of changing bread and wine into the "real" body and blood of Christ, to be consumed in order to obtain spiritual life. And that instead of RCs having to do this, that i put together proof texts and partial snippets to prove what is not the reality.
The response of those with no evidentury documentation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.