- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Israel / Hamas in a biblical context - any content recs?
Posted on 10/16/23 at 9:09 am to CorchJay
Posted on 10/16/23 at 9:09 am to CorchJay
quote:
Ya'll enjoy the conversation. I've been hateful enough for a few months.
The Apostles handed down teaching to men that we call the Early Church Fathers, and, in the writings of those men, one can discern that the very early Christian Church regarded Baptism and the Holy Eucharist in the same theological terms as do today's Roman Catholics.
We also have fragments of writings that support this conclusion.
So much of what was once written down and clear was lost over the centuries. I'm talking in terms of general history, not just history of the Roman Catholic Church. If all of what was lost were to be found, I'm sure that it would be much more clear that the Early Church was the Catholic Church.
But, as it is, the writings are there, and they are very clear. The evidence supports the conclusion to a great degree of probability - the Early Church was the Catholic Church.
It's not an issue to be discussed out of angst, hate or anger. It's just what is objectively the Truth.
1
Posted on 10/16/23 at 9:13 am to CorchJay
Your answer for where Truth was to be encountered by men prior to the establishment of the Bible is as follows:
So then, if there was just a trading of Truth by word of mouth who was divinely inspired to teach? Who was safeguarded from human error? Since the Scripture is not self binding and doesn't have a table of contents issued by Jesus or the authors, why did the Church have divine guidance to teach and bind at one point, just to loose the mandate later?
If everything was transmitted by word of mouth for hundreds of years how are the consistent practices of the Sacraments squared with your rejection of Baptismal regeneration and the Eucharist?
quote:
Word of mouth same as it was up until the printing press was developed.
So then, if there was just a trading of Truth by word of mouth who was divinely inspired to teach? Who was safeguarded from human error? Since the Scripture is not self binding and doesn't have a table of contents issued by Jesus or the authors, why did the Church have divine guidance to teach and bind at one point, just to loose the mandate later?
If everything was transmitted by word of mouth for hundreds of years how are the consistent practices of the Sacraments squared with your rejection of Baptismal regeneration and the Eucharist?
Posted on 10/16/23 at 9:15 am to LetTheTigerOut
quote:
Scripture clearly says she undertook the purification rituals for a SIN OFFERING and ATONEMENT.
The offering Mary participated in falls under the purity law category of Leviticus 11-15, not the purification offerings for sin category in Leviticus 4-5. Leviticus 11-15 is not about forgiveness for moral faults, so the topic of Mary’s sinlessness is being read into Luke 2:24.
Posted on 10/16/23 at 9:17 am to CorchJay
quote:
It was 300 years after Christ before any Catholic organization and fell completely under pagan Rome.
The Edict of Milan did not create the Catholic church. It simply made Christianity legal to practice, and then, the form of Christianity that was already in existence flourished and grew in leaps and bounds.
This post was edited on 10/16/23 at 9:17 am
Posted on 10/16/23 at 9:22 am to CorchJay
quote:
It was 300 years after Christ before any Catholic organization and fell completely under pagan Rome. Obviously you're not dumb.
Others are challenging your black legend about the coopting if the RCC by Pagan Rome.
Remove the labels. How do you find any evidence for the early Church rejecting the Eucharist? How about the man-made rejection of Baptismal regeneration?
Posted on 10/16/23 at 9:30 am to Foch
The Pagan Roman Empire was the first entity to produce historical writings denying the Truth about the Eucharist.
We have found a document generated by an administrative official reporting to the Emperor's office that accuses the Christian practice of consuming the Eucharist as Cannibalism. Pure Cannibalism, he reported, proved from the very testimony of the Christians themselves as they described the Eucharist as eating the literal flesh of Jesus and drinking the literal blood of Jesus.
This important document demonstrates that the earliest Christians believed then what Catholics believe today about the Eucharist.
We have found a document generated by an administrative official reporting to the Emperor's office that accuses the Christian practice of consuming the Eucharist as Cannibalism. Pure Cannibalism, he reported, proved from the very testimony of the Christians themselves as they described the Eucharist as eating the literal flesh of Jesus and drinking the literal blood of Jesus.
This important document demonstrates that the earliest Christians believed then what Catholics believe today about the Eucharist.
Posted on 10/16/23 at 10:21 am to Foch
I said I was out of this discussion. I made my case you guys made yours.
I’ve made zero statements about the Eucharist because I believe anything is possible through Christ. However if I did partake in a Eucharistic ritual I believe any believer could perform that not just a priest. Since we clearly all called to be Priest in the order of Melchizedek.
But this is my last response in this thread regardless of questions. We know each others stance. I know your arguments and you know mine. Hopefully we all find out the truth in heaven if it even matters at that point. God bless you all.
I’ve made zero statements about the Eucharist because I believe anything is possible through Christ. However if I did partake in a Eucharistic ritual I believe any believer could perform that not just a priest. Since we clearly all called to be Priest in the order of Melchizedek.
But this is my last response in this thread regardless of questions. We know each others stance. I know your arguments and you know mine. Hopefully we all find out the truth in heaven if it even matters at that point. God bless you all.
Posted on 10/16/23 at 10:29 am to Champagne
quote:
But, as it is, the writings are there, and they are very clear. The evidence supports the conclusion to a great degree of probability - the Early Church was the Catholic Church.
This is like saying the Early Church was the Early Church.
No one disputes that the Early Church was the Catholic Church. Not Martin Luther, not me, not anyone.
The only possible dispute is, Did the Roman Catholic Church veer from some of the most essential elements of the early church, or what they once were.
It seems that "yes" is most accurate.
I just can't prove it to you becuase we look at it two different ways.
Posted on 10/16/23 at 11:37 am to CorchJay
quote:
I said I was out of this discussion. I made my case you guys made yours.
Consider my questions as something other than an attack. I genuinely am concerned for those caught up in the rise of "non-denominational" churches because of the tendency for their members to move into a perilously personal view of faith that invites moral relativism, indifference towards the salvation of their fellow man, lacking formation in bedrock principles such as the Trinity, and hostility to any sort of Church hierarchy (be it mainline Protestant or Catholic/Orthodox).
I think the next few decades will see the enlightenment already bitter fruit grow more sour. Everyone claims expertise and we will next see hostility towards anything held to be expert (or sacred). The moral relativism that is wrecking the western world will reach further as nondenominational churches don't have any confession of faith or synod process to gird it against the world. We are already seeing this play out in the SBC as confederation fracture and individuals discern what they want vs what is righteous (see divorce and birth control, contributions made by the almost extinct Anglicans).
I know the Reformed share similar appraisals of the American evangelical and nondenominational churches. I believe Foo would share in many of my beliefs and would similarly warn you off from the path towards decentralization and "personal might making right" (to interpret on your own with no govenrnace).
This post was edited on 10/16/23 at 11:48 am
Posted on 10/16/23 at 12:11 pm to Foch
Thanks I understand the sentiment but I’m nondenominational because of doctrinal churches. Every church believes they are the church. I’m not a young Christian. I’ve been a Christian for over 40 years. I’ve studied my religion from many viewpoints. I’m grounded in my faith.
I have studied many religions and why they believe what they believe. Hindu and Buddhism are very complicated.
I’ve broken down over the years what I refer to as the vast majority of the ancient anti-trinity. That would come from the Biblical Nimrod, Semiramis, and Tammuz. And how these 3 characters became gods in other mythology. From Acadia to the Mayans. I’ve studied the flood story and who is Noah in many of the cultures in other beliefs systems.
I was a 20 year Catholic and actually worked for on the most dedicated to Rome organization in the US to the RCC. I was a young engineer for Eternal Word Television Network and when Mother Angelica was still alive and I was there I was the only male allowed in the cloister to help the nuns with technical and computer issues.
You know why most Protestant’s don’t follow the church. Because the Catholic Church claims to be the “true” church. I believe the true church to be all Christians and clearly stated in the Bible by a higher authority then any early church Father. The last apostle and writer of 2/3rd s of the New Testament. The priestly authority. The infallibility of the Pope. The veneration of Mary and canonizing of Saints. Just like my parents outwardly great Christian people that have past on. I was close to them and observed them every day. I think they are in heaven but not certain I’m not the judge of that. But all indications is they are so he needs to be canonized as Saint Dad. You know I’m joking and I know some “miracles” have to be taken into account with that but the miracles can also be claimed not witnessed. I’ve been down the Marian apparitions. And yes only a few are recognized but many are false. Caritas is like 4 miles from where I grew up. They are some super strange Catholics.
Anyway all that to say I’m very secure in my Christian faith.
I have studied many religions and why they believe what they believe. Hindu and Buddhism are very complicated.
I’ve broken down over the years what I refer to as the vast majority of the ancient anti-trinity. That would come from the Biblical Nimrod, Semiramis, and Tammuz. And how these 3 characters became gods in other mythology. From Acadia to the Mayans. I’ve studied the flood story and who is Noah in many of the cultures in other beliefs systems.
I was a 20 year Catholic and actually worked for on the most dedicated to Rome organization in the US to the RCC. I was a young engineer for Eternal Word Television Network and when Mother Angelica was still alive and I was there I was the only male allowed in the cloister to help the nuns with technical and computer issues.
You know why most Protestant’s don’t follow the church. Because the Catholic Church claims to be the “true” church. I believe the true church to be all Christians and clearly stated in the Bible by a higher authority then any early church Father. The last apostle and writer of 2/3rd s of the New Testament. The priestly authority. The infallibility of the Pope. The veneration of Mary and canonizing of Saints. Just like my parents outwardly great Christian people that have past on. I was close to them and observed them every day. I think they are in heaven but not certain I’m not the judge of that. But all indications is they are so he needs to be canonized as Saint Dad. You know I’m joking and I know some “miracles” have to be taken into account with that but the miracles can also be claimed not witnessed. I’ve been down the Marian apparitions. And yes only a few are recognized but many are false. Caritas is like 4 miles from where I grew up. They are some super strange Catholics.
Anyway all that to say I’m very secure in my Christian faith.
Posted on 10/16/23 at 12:16 pm to CorchJay
quote:
I’ve broken down over the years what I refer to as the vast majority of the ancient anti-trinity. That would come from the Biblical Nimrod, Semiramis, and Tammuz. And how these 3 characters became gods in other mythology. From Acadia to the Mayans.
Did you mean Akkad? Also, I'd love to hear how middle eastern mythologies were incorporated into the Mayan civilization. Can you explain?
Posted on 10/16/23 at 12:38 pm to Mo Jeaux
Same as the flood story was. You do know most native Americans Mexican and Eskimos come from the line of Shem correct?
Yes Akkadian. I’m typing on an iPhone it autocorrects some of the strangest things.
Hebrew Nimrod - Mayan K'iche'
Hebrew Semiramis - Mayan Ix Chel
Hebrew Tammuz - Mayan Kukulkan
Hebrew Noah - Mayan Itzamná
Yes Akkadian. I’m typing on an iPhone it autocorrects some of the strangest things.
Hebrew Nimrod - Mayan K'iche'
Hebrew Semiramis - Mayan Ix Chel
Hebrew Tammuz - Mayan Kukulkan
Hebrew Noah - Mayan Itzamná
Posted on 10/16/23 at 12:45 pm to CorchJay
It’s goes through all mythology…
Sun God normally male entity
Moon Good normally female entity
Child- normally male entity
Whether it be Zeus, Hera, and Apollo or be it the Nordic Odin, Freida, and Balder.
All the same type characters just told from a different perspective. Like Osiris, Isis, Horus.. same story told in different form
Sun God normally male entity
Moon Good normally female entity
Child- normally male entity
Whether it be Zeus, Hera, and Apollo or be it the Nordic Odin, Freida, and Balder.
All the same type characters just told from a different perspective. Like Osiris, Isis, Horus.. same story told in different form
Posted on 10/16/23 at 12:54 pm to CorchJay
I can go through most ancient cultures with the anti-trinity of Nimrod, Semiramis, and Tammuz. Same with Noah’s equivalent… only one I think gets it incorrect the most is the Chinese ancient culture and I think they have the name of Noah as the women in the flood story Nu-wa. Phonetically sounds a lot like Noah.
Any young guy I meet that their name is Noah I call them Utnapishtim. They are like huh? So I tell them to look up the name.
Any young guy I meet that their name is Noah I call them Utnapishtim. They are like huh? So I tell them to look up the name.
Posted on 10/16/23 at 2:02 pm to Foch
quote:
Consider my questions as something other than an attack. I genuinely am concerned for those caught up in the rise of "non-denominational" churches because of the tendency for their members to move into a perilously personal view of faith that invites moral relativism, indifference towards the salvation of their fellow man, lacking formation in bedrock principles such as the Trinity, and hostility to any sort of Church hierarchy (be it mainline Protestant or Catholic/Orthodox).
Posted on 10/16/23 at 2:05 pm to Foch
quote:
Consider my questions as something other than an attack. I genuinely am concerned for those caught up in the rise of "non-denominational" churches because of the tendency for their members to move into a perilously personal view of faith that invites moral relativism, indifference towards the salvation of their fellow man, lacking formation in bedrock principles such as the Trinity, and hostility to any sort of Church hierarchy (be it mainline Protestant or Catholic/Orthodox).
"My flavor of religion is the right flavor. Drink it and forget about those others."
Posted on 10/16/23 at 2:51 pm to bayoubengals88
quote:
Did the Roman Catholic Church veer from some of the most essential elements of the early church, or what they once were.
The historical record shows that the answer is that the Early Catholic Church and today's Catholic Church believed the same with regard to Baptism and the Eucharist.
Those are two of the "most essential elements" of this Church.
Posted on 10/16/23 at 2:58 pm to Champagne
quote:You went fairly conservative with this answer, but still, there was a huge debate about the nature of communion in the tenth century.
The historical record shows that the answer is that the Early Catholic Church and today's Catholic Church believed the same with regard to Baptism and the Eucharist.
Those are two of the "most essential elements" of this Church.
And, where does it say that a modern Roman Catholic belief about these things is required for salvation?
Posted on 10/16/23 at 4:10 pm to bayoubengals88
quote:
but still, there was a huge debate about the nature of communion in the tenth century.
Not to my knowledge there wasn't.
Eucharist required for Salvation? Take Jesus at His Word when he said that if you don't drink His blood and eat His flesh you have no life in you.
But, you do you.
Posted on 10/16/23 at 5:16 pm to Stitches
quote:
The offering Mary participated in falls under the purity law category of Leviticus 11-15
The context is clear and shows the sin offering and atonement is relating to childbirth, not morals.
Leviticus 12:2–8
2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean. 3 And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. 4 And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days; she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled. 5 But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days. 6 And when the days of her purifying are fulfilled, for a son, or for a daughter, she shall bring a lamb of the first year for a burnt offering, and a young pigeon, or a turtledove, for a SIN OFFERING, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, unto the priest: 7 Who shall offer it before the Lord, and make an ATONEMENT for her; and she shall be cleansed from the issue of her blood. This is the law for her that hath born a male or a female. 8 And if she be not able to bring a lamb, then she shall bring two turtles, or two young pigeons; the one for the burnt offering, and the other for a SIN OFFERING: and the priest shall make an ATONEMENT for her, and she shall be clean.
You can be as stiff-necked and obdurate as you wish to be, and continue to deify her with unsubstantiated assumptions that she was sinless, but it is not debatable that Scripture doesn't support it and does nothing to change:
1) Catholic Church acknowledges there is no scriptural basis for claiming Mary was sinless.
2) If Mary was born without sin, then she would not undergo this purification ritual to be made clean, and for her atonement.
Page 10 of 16
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News