Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Original apostolic authorship/origin, original first hand eyewitness testimony. If authorship was unknown/disputed in the early church, it was not considered. Whether they were read or not at "Mass" (there wasn't a Roman Catholic Mass in the first century church) would only be a distant secondary issue at most, maybe even tertiary, and not at all unless the criterion of original apostolic authorship was met.

---

Well, there was certainly mass in the second century. As I stated in another post, Justin Martyr (155 AD) described the exact same elements in the mass that are still celebrated today and in the same order.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The first Christians had already been circulating the four Gospels as Scripture, as well as Paul's letters. All based on their authority as orginal apostles. This authority exists on its own merit, completely independent from any proclamation by a church council.

---

How do we KNOW that they are scripture? None of the NT letters explicitly claim to be scripture.

Why didn't we choose the other letters (1 Clement, the Didache, etc.) that were both read at mass and written those in the apostolic age?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The question for you I've asked before, but didn't get an answer to, is: when is a writing the word of God - right at the moment it's written, or only after it is recognized as such, whether formally or informally?

---

It is the Word of God when it is cosigned by the Holy Spirit. Why does it matter? I've never stated that the Church "makes" those letters the Word of God. The HS does that.

It took someone (the Church) to recognized them as such.

You can run from reality, but it was the Church that determined what was the actual Word of God?

---

Right, so the church of the first century did not have Mass, just as I said.

The first christians knew the Gospels and the letters of Paul to be Scripture because of original apostolic authorship. The apostles considered the writings of each other as Scripture - Paul considered the Gospel of Luke to be Scripture (1 Timothy 5:18) and Peter considered Paul's writings as Scripture (2 Peter 3:16).

The Roman Catholic Church did not recognize what was Scripture, God's people did. And they would recognize what God's word is even if the Roman Catholic Church wasn't there to tel them. That's what you're not grasping. If God's word is God's word the moment it was written, then the Roman Catholic Church didn't "determine" anything. It was already God's word, i.e. Scripture, and God's people recognize it as such.

The Didache contained a lot of redundancy with the other books, and its authorship was unknown. Plus, it contained specific instructions, for example with fasting, that was not taught in original apostolic tradition. It was rightfully considered a spurious book and not inspired, thus rightfully rejected.

Clement was a convert and follower of the apostles, but not an apostle himself. Though his letters were very biblical, they too contained redundancy with original apostolic tradition. He also believed in Phoenix, the Greek mythological bird. So he obviously was not inspired.

The people of God, whether they are in the Roman Catholic Church, or outside of it, would have known what came from God and what didn't. No one is saying that God didn't use the Roman Catholic Church to aid in the process; there were true believers in the early RCC (though not infallible, not in the least). Again, with or without the RCC, God's word was God's word the moment it was written, and His people would have recognized it and received it, with or without a church council to tell them.

Realitybites said:

---

Quote:

---

Okay, baby steps -

What is the source of light, when God says "Let there be light" in Genesis 1:3?

---

(1) It Wasn't the sun.
(2) It might have been God himself.
(3) It might have been something else God created, the mechanism of which isn't specifically described.
(4) It doesn't matter in the least.

---

Baby step #2:

If the light source was not the sun, but rather some unknown light source, then could it not have been this particular unknown light source that was the determinant of the "morning" and "evening" of the first day?

And if so, isn't it entirely possible that the first day, then, did not have to be a 24 hour period?

Realitybites said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Did man and animals eat the plants in God's creation before the Fall?

---

Yes.

Quote:

---

Were the plants "alive" before eating them?
After eating them, are the plants still alive, or do they die?

---

Both biological and agricultural sciences have dealt with plants as if they are biological machines.

Discussing the "life and death" of a plant in the same way you would discuss that of an animal or non-Christian human has no meaning whatsoever. It's like saying your car "died". Its states are funcitonal, and non functional.

Obviously God created them to be foodstuffs for the rest of creation - that is to say, all animals were herbivores prior to the fall, and the people of God were vegetarians until they exited Noah's Ark.

---

Okay, so we agree that death existed before the Fall.

Baby step #2: does Genesis, or Scripture for that matter, state anywhere, anywhere at all, that the animals did not die before the Fall?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Okay, so we agree that death existed before the Fall.

---

No we don't. Your argument that people and animals ate fruit before the fall and so the cells of the fruit were destroyed and death therefore existed before the fall is made from a position of ignorance. If you knew the first thing about cell biology, you'd know that plant cells resemble biological bricks and are very different from the eukaryotic cells that make up animals and humans.

Quote:

---

And if so, isn't it entirely possible that the first day, then, did not have to be a 24 hour period?

---

No. The length of the earth day is determined by the speed of earth's rotation on its own axis, not the sun. The speed of that rotation affects sensed gravity. So that rotation had to begin very early in creation. We use the rising and setting of the sun as signs of morning and evening as Genesis clearly states we are to. But the earth day is defined by the planet's rotation.

If you didn't have such faith in scientism, you'd clearly see that the plain testimony of Genesis is true. Seriously, just throw this day-age 1960s hippie seminary thinking crafted by boomers who cowered in the face of the Scopes Monkey Trial into the bonfire and *believe* the plain testimony of scripture.

Quote:

---

Right, so the church of the first century did not have Mass, just as I said.

---

Baby Steps: Read this book and learn the actual history of Christian worship as the early church was expelled from the Synagogues. The church of the first century most certainly had a liturgy.

Orthodox Worship: A Living Continuity with the Synagogue, the Temple, and the Early Church

Realitybites said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Okay, so we agree that death existed before the Fall.

---

No we don't. Your argument that people and animals ate fruit before the fall and so the cells of the fruit were destroyed and death therefore existed before the fall is made from a position of ignorance. If you knew the first thing about cell biology, you'd know that plant cells resemble biological bricks and are very different from the eukaryotic cells that make up animals and humans.

Quote:

---

And if so, isn't it entirely possible that the first day, then, did not have to be a 24 hour period?

---

No. The length of the earth day is determined by the speed of earth's rotation on its own axis, not the sun. The speed of that rotation affects sensed gravity. So that rotation had to begin very early in creation. We use the rising and setting of the sun as signs of morning and evening as Genesis clearly states we are to. But the earth day is defined by the planet's rotation.

If you didn't have such faith in scientism, you'd clearly see that the plain testimony of Genesis is true. Seriously, just throw this day-age 1960s hippie seminary thinking crafted by boomers who cowered in the face of the Scopes Monkey Trial into the bonfire and *believe* the plain testimony of scripture.

---

If YOU knew anything about cell biology, you'd know that plant cells are living. There isn't a single cell biologist that would say otherwise. Your completely arbitrary delineation between what makes animals "alive" but not plants is what is coming from a position of ignorance, as well as intellectual dishonesty.

No, the length of the "day" in Genesis was determined by the "morning" and the "evening" as it says right in the text. It says absolutely nothing about the day being determined by the earth's position during rotation, especially since there was no light from the sun until day four, as you yourself admitted. You are making a complete non sequitur assumption that is NOWHERE in the text in order to make your beliefs work, and to accuse others of not believing the Bible because they don't believe in your assumptions.

Realitybites said:

---

Quote:

---

Right, so the church of the first century did not have Mass, just as I said.

---

Baby Steps: Read this book and learn the actual history of Christian worship as the early church was expelled from the Synagogues. The church of the first century most certainly had a liturgy.

Orthodox Worship: A Living Continuity with the Synagogue, the Temple, and the Early Church

---

The question wasn't whether the first century church had a "liturgy". The question was whether they had "Mass".

Please understand the actual argument before you think someone needs baby steps. Because that's like asking for baby steps when you're barely crawling.

Great Lent is coming, a 40 day fast we undertake as a remembrance of Christ's time in the wilderness, to honor our Lord in the days leading up to the time we remember his crucifixion and resurrection, and to discipline ourselves so that we can more faithfully follow him.

It begins March 3rd.

Holy Orthodox Church: The Great Lent Ultimate Fasting Guide

I'd encourage all of you to be more focused in your prayers in this leadup to Pascha, and to read the scriptures daily. When you read them, take them - all of them - at face value. Remember that Satan is the prince of "yea, hath God said?" and will use anything and everything (human reason, intellect, our passions, scientism, seminary professors) to twist that plain meaning in your mind.

If you are part of a church that abandoned the ancient Christian practice of fasting, I'd encourage you to try it. If this is your first time attempting to fast, you may try something simple like the fast prescribed in the Teaching of the Twelve, abstaining from meat, dairy, and oil on Wednesdays (as we commemorate the betrayal of Christ) and Friday (as we commemorate his crucifixion).

Remember, the purpose of fasting is not to "give up" something for Lent, nor to do something "sacrificial", nor to "earn" anything. Recall the words of Matthew's gospel:

When [not if] you fast, do not look somber as the hypocrites do, for they disfigure their faces to show others they are fasting. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. 17 But when you fast, put oil on your head and wash your face, 18 so that it will not be obvious to others that you are fasting, but only to your Father, who is unseen; and your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. (Matthew 6:16-18)

The purpose of fasting is to learn discipline, to gain control of those things that are indeed within our control but that we so often allow to control us. In our culture especially, food dominates the lives of many people. We collect cookbooks. We have an entire TV network devoted to food [the "Food Channel"]. We have eating disorders, diets galore, weight loss pills, liposuction treatments, stomach staplingall sorts of things that proceed out of the fact that we often allow food, which in an of itself cannot possible control us, to control us.

We fast in order to gain control, to discipline ourselves, to gain control of those things that we have allowed to get out of control. Giving up candy unless one is controlled by candy is not fasting. It is giving up candy, or it is done with the idea that we fast in order to suffer. But we do not fast in order to suffer. We fast in order to get a grip on our lives and to regain control of those things that have gotten out of control.

Of course, if you have a medical condition (for example diabetes) that precludes fasting, God does not want us to harm our temples of the spirit in the exercise of Christian discipline.

I will be taking these next weeks to step away from combating heresy to focus on carrying my own cross as I work out my salvation with fear and trembling. Have a blessed Lent.

Oldbear83 said:

---

And there it is: that claim to Superior Authority that Coke Bear keeps saying he isn't pushing.

Older is no claim to authority, and no, pretending Peter was a Roman Catholic because you want him on your team, does not make it so.

It's enough to make Jesus face palm!

---

I am looking at history. If you want to call that "Superior Authority", then so be it.

Peter wasn't Roman Catholic. That's a pejorative term that originated with Anglicans trying to differentiate themselves from the Catholic Church in the 16th century.

He was certainly Catholic. Saint Ignatius of Antioch first to use the term Catholic in his Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Ch 8 in 110 AD.

See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is administered either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude of the people also be; even as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.

Peter was the first Bishop of Rome. If you don't believe me, ask Google, Wiki, or Britannica.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

SMH. We already went through the Jewish canon. I had already debunked the claim that the Jewish canon wasn't settled by the time of Jesus. In one ear, and out the other.

---

No, you used a scholar or two that made that claim. Multiple sources state that the Jewish canon wasn't closed until well after the time of Christ.

Scholar Timothy H. Lim says about the Pharisaic canon close "probably between 150 and 250 C.E. But this 'closing' did not end all debates."

The Jewish Encyclopedia states concerning the "Inclusion and Exclusion of Apocrypha", "While this criticism still continued in the second century of the common era, its main results appear to have been reached as early as the end of the first."

While the Torah and the Prophets were settled long before Christ, the Ketuvim (Writings) were not settled until the 2nd century.

Many other sources cite the Pharisaic Canon as closing after 70 AD, at the end of the 1st century.

Irrespective, protestants chose to accept the late canon of those same Pharisees that REJECTED Jesus as the Messiah. Catholics choose to accept the Septuagint canon which Jesus used and the NT quotes more than 86% of the time.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Right, so the church of the first century did not have Mass, just as I said.

---

The people of the first century certainly celebrated mass. They gathered on the Lord's, read the scriptures of the OT and letters and other writings, and confected the Eucharist. It first documented by Justin Martyr in 155 AD.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The first christians knew the Gospels and the letters of Paul to be Scripture because of original apostolic authorship. The apostles considered the writings of each other as Scripture - Paul considered the Gospel of Luke to be Scripture (1 Timothy 5:18) and Peter considered Paul's writings as Scripture (2 Peter 3:16).

---

Timothy shows that Paul was referring to Luke's Gospel as Scripture, indicating an early recognition of its authority. It mentions nothing of the other 3 Gospels. 2 Peter mentioned Paul's writing; however, this still excludes half of the NT. Someone had to determine what was NT scripture.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The Roman Catholic Church did not recognize what was Scripture, God's people did. And they would recognize what God's word is even if the Roman Catholic Church wasn't there to tel them. That's what you're not grasping. If God's word is God's word the moment it was written, then the Roman Catholic Church didn't "determine" anything. It was already God's word, i.e. Scripture, and God's people recognize it as such.

---

Who were "God's people" that recognized what was scripture? It was those in the Church. Not a faceless nebulous of "God's people" at that time.

James, Hebrews, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Revelation were all questioned about their inclusion into the canon. It was the Church that made that determination.

Yes, it was God's word, but it was the Church that recognized it though the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The Didache contained a lot of redundancy with the other books, and its authorship was unknown. Plus, it contained specific instructions, for example with fasting, that was not taught in original apostolic tradition. It was rightfully considered a spurious book and not inspired, thus rightfully rejected.

Clement was a convert and follower of the apostles, but not an apostle himself. Though his letters were very biblical, they too contained redundancy with original apostolic tradition. He also believed in Phoenix, the Greek mythological bird. So he obviously was not inspired.

---

Fasting was absolutely part of the apostolic tradition. Jesus states in Matt 6, "When you fast …" Not IF you fast.

The Didache touches Christian morality and Church discipline, and it was also used in liturgy. It tells us how to baptize.

Clement used the Pheonix as an analogy for the resurrection, but if even if he did believe in an actual phoenix, it doesn't mean that 1 Clement wasn't scripture.

The point is that these books and others previously mentioned had to be discerned by someone. That someone was the Church.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The people of God, whether they are in the Roman Catholic Church, or outside of it, would have known what came from God and what didn't. No one is saying that God didn't use the Roman Catholic Church to aid in the process; there were true believers in the early RCC (though not infallible, not in the least). Again, with or without the RCC, God's word was God's word the moment it was written, and His people would have recognized it and received it, with or without a church council to tell them.

---

Right, so the Catholic Church gave us the NT. Thanks!

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

SMH. We already went through the Jewish canon. I had already debunked the claim that the Jewish canon wasn't settled by the time of Jesus. In one ear, and out the other.

---

No, you used a scholar or two that made that claim. Multiple sources state that the Jewish canon wasn't closed until well after the time of Christ.

Scholar Timothy H. Lim says about the Pharisaic canon close "probably between 150 and 250 C.E. But this 'closing' did not end all debates."

The Jewish Encyclopedia states concerning the "Inclusion and Exclusion of Apocrypha", "While this criticism still continued in the second century of the common era, its main results appear to have been reached as early as the end of the first."

While the Torah and the Prophets were settled long before Christ, the Ketuvim (Writings) were not settled until the 2nd century.

Many other sources cite the Pharisaic Canon as closing after 70 AD, at the end of the 1st century.

Irrespective, protestants chose to accept the late canon of those same Pharisees that REJECTED Jesus as the Messiah. Catholics choose to accept the Septuagint canon which Jesus used and the NT quotes more than 86% of the time.

---

The Jewish canon was settled before the time of Jesus. Scholars like Timothy Lim are probably referring to the fact that debates about whether certain books were inspired took place like in the Council of Jamnia, an informal council that wasn't authoritative. But as scholar F.F. Bruce says, the rabbis in this session were merely reviewing the tradition, and decided to leave the canon the same. Still, he notes that debates continued. This does not support the idea that the canon wasn't "settled". The Jews stored the specific set of canonical books in the Temple, and they were specific as to which books "made the hands unclean", which was a reference to their holiness. Any debates about which books should not belong were just debates, but were not official challenges to the canon.

Keep in mind, that despite all the debates, the decision had always been to keep it unchanged. The very same canon agreed upon by the Pharisees was agreed upon by all in the end. It means the Pharisees had it right all along. Jesus never once disagreed with the Pharisees as to what constituted the canon.

Your implication that since the Pharisees rejected Jesus, it meant they didn't have the canon right is just a ridiculous argument. One has nothing to do with the other. If anything, the fact that Jesus was so angry at them was that they DID have the canon correctly, but they couldn't see that he was the Messiah. If the Pharisees had the canon wrong, they would have an excuse - but Jesus held them 100% responsible, which you can't do if their canon was wrong or incomplete.

Similarly, your argument that Jesus validated ALL of the Septuagint as canon is equally ridiculous. The Septuagint contained BOTH canonical AND non-canonical writings, as the the translators did not separate between the two. Jesus was not validating the non-canonical parts simply by virtue of quoting the canonical parts. I've already debunked this bad logic of yours before. It seems like now you're trying to recycle all your bad arguments as if nothing ever happened. If you're concerned with what Jesus quoted, you should remind yourself that Jesus or his apostles NEVER quoted the apocrypha. But Jesus DID personally validate the Torah, Neviim, and Ketuviim which constitutes the entire Hebrew canon, even if he didn't quote from all of them. Protestantism considers the Old Testament canon to be what Jesus clearly considered to be canon. Why do you not do the same?

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Right, so the church of the first century did not have Mass, just as I said.

---

The people of the first century certainly celebrated mass. They gathered on the Lord's, read the scriptures of the OT and letters and other writings, and confected the Eucharist. It first documented by Justin Martyr in 155 AD.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The first christians knew the Gospels and the letters of Paul to be Scripture because of original apostolic authorship. The apostles considered the writings of each other as Scripture - Paul considered the Gospel of Luke to be Scripture (1 Timothy 5:18) and Peter considered Paul's writings as Scripture (2 Peter 3:16).

---

Timothy shows that Paul was referring to Luke's Gospel as Scripture, indicating an early recognition of its authority. It mentions nothing of the other 3 Gospels. 2 Peter mentioned Paul's writing; however, this still excludes half of the NT. Someone had to determine what was NT scripture.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The Roman Catholic Church did not recognize what was Scripture, God's people did. And they would recognize what God's word is even if the Roman Catholic Church wasn't there to tel them. That's what you're not grasping. If God's word is God's word the moment it was written, then the Roman Catholic Church didn't "determine" anything. It was already God's word, i.e. Scripture, and God's people recognize it as such.

---

Who were "God's people" that recognized what was scripture? It was those in the Church. Not a faceless nebulous of "God's people" at that time.

James, Hebrews, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Revelation were all questioned about their inclusion into the canon. It was the Church that made that determination.

Yes, it was God's word, but it was the Church that recognized it though the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The Didache contained a lot of redundancy with the other books, and its authorship was unknown. Plus, it contained specific instructions, for example with fasting, that was not taught in original apostolic tradition. It was rightfully considered a spurious book and not inspired, thus rightfully rejected.

Clement was a convert and follower of the apostles, but not an apostle himself. Though his letters were very biblical, they too contained redundancy with original apostolic tradition. He also believed in Phoenix, the Greek mythological bird. So he obviously was not inspired.

---

Fasting was absolutely part of the apostolic tradition. Jesus states in Matt 6, "When you fast …" Not IF you fast.

The Didache touches Christian morality and Church discipline, and it was also used in liturgy. It tells us how to baptize.

Clement used the Pheonix as an analogy for the resurrection, but if even if he did believe in an actual phoenix, it doesn't mean that 1 Clement wasn't scripture.

The point is that these books and others previously mentioned had to be discerned by someone. That someone was the Church.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The people of God, whether they are in the Roman Catholic Church, or outside of it, would have known what came from God and what didn't. No one is saying that God didn't use the Roman Catholic Church to aid in the process; there were true believers in the early RCC (though not infallible, not in the least). Again, with or without the RCC, God's word was God's word the moment it was written, and His people would have recognized it and received it, with or without a church council to tell them.

---

Right, so the Catholic Church gave us the NT. Thanks!

---

155 AD is not the first century. It is more than 100 years after Jesus' death and resurrection.

Paul wasn't giving an exhaustive list of what books were the Gospels. The other Gospels were authoritative in their own right, as they were original apostolic tradition. You don't need a Roman Catholic council 300 years later to tell the first century Christians what they already knew.

The Didache instructed fasting to be on specific days. Nowhere is this instructed by Jesus and the apostles in the other Gospels and writings.

No, belief in a Greek mythological bird means you are not inspired, sorry. You're not going to go far with that argument. He wasn't the only one in his time to believe it, by the way. Many of the early church fathers also had some questionable beliefs. That's why sola scriptura.

You continually make the same error - GOD gave us the NT, not the Roman Catholic Church. You clearly do not understand the concept, and seem intent on giving credit to your religion where credit is NOT due.

The "church" is the body of believers. It isn't the Roman Catholic Church. Jesus' body of believers would have recognized what was inspired and what was not inspired, even if the Roman Catholic Church wasn't there to tell them. Your main problem in understanding all this is that you believe "catholic" and "Roman Catholic", as well as "church" and "the Church", are the same thing. You are trying to incorporate the first century church into Roman Catholicism, which they certainly were not part of.

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

And there it is: that claim to Superior Authority that Coke Bear keeps saying he isn't pushing.

Older is no claim to authority, and no, pretending Peter was a Roman Catholic because you want him on your team, does not make it so.

It's enough to make Jesus face palm!

---

I am looking at history. If you want to call that "Superior Authority", then so be it.

Peter wasn't Roman Catholic. That's a pejorative term that originated with Anglicans trying to differentiate themselves from the Catholic Church in the 16th century.

He was certainly Catholic. Saint Ignatius of Antioch first to use the term Catholic in his Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Ch 8 in 110 AD.

See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is administered either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude of the people also be; even as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.

Peter was the first Bishop of Rome. If you don't believe me, ask Google, Wiki, or Britannica.

---

"Catholic" just means "universal". What Roman Catholics try to do is equivocate between "catholic" and "Roman Catholic" to try to bolster their argument that Roman Catholicism started from Jesus and had Peter as its first pope. However, even the majority of Roman Catholic historians acknowledge that there was no singular ruling bishop in Rome until the late 2nd century; rather, the ruling body, if there was one, was a group of elders. Eamon Duffy, emeritus professor of Christian history at Cambridge University and former member of the Pontifical Historical Commission:

"To begin with, indeed, there was no "pope", no bishop as such, for the church in Rome was slow to develop the office of chief presbyter, or bishop. By the end of the first century the loose patter of Christian authority of the first generation of believers was giving way in many places to the more organised rule of a single bishop for each city, supported by a college of elders.....There is no sure way to settle on the date by which the office of ruling had emerged in Rome, and so to name the first Pope, but the process was certainly complete by the time of Anicetus in the mid-150s."

Please take the time I read this first post if you haven't yet.

Once more, for clarity:

The Roman Catholic Church does not equal the Catholic Church.

Popes are just men who have been dubbed leaders, and historically are a lot richer than most pastors get to enjoy in this life.

Jesus asked us to follow Him, not conflate any human to His equal.

These threads can be opportunities to share testimony and insights, or they can be holy-water pissing contests. It is not hard to guess which way Jesus wants us to go.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Once more, for clarity:

The Roman Catholic Church does not equal the Catholic Church.

Popes are just men who have been dubbed leaders, and historically are a lot richer than most pastors get to enjoy in this life.

Jesus asked us to follow Him, not conflate any human to His equal.

These threads can be opportunities to share testimony and insights, or they can be holy-water pissing contests. It is not hard to guess which way Jesus wants us to go.

---

Did you hear that the pope is in critical condition with double pneumonia in both lungs?

Does anybody have any thoughts on the pope? Being in critical condition but double pneumonia?

Happy sunday! I hope you all had a great weekend.

From another site where it was asserted that Christianity borrowed stories from other religions.


Christianity didn't borrow anything from other religions. Every culture around the world has flood legends. That doesn't mean that the Bible borrowed anything from them. It means that there was a literal flood that actually happened. Having a list of moral principles to live by doesn't mean that Christianity borrowed from anybody. The same thing with Adam and Eve. All that means is that it actually happened and other cultures knew about it and it was passed on to them. The Bible just Chronicles what actually happened.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Once more, for clarity:

The Roman Catholic Church does not equal the Catholic Church.

Popes are just men who have been dubbed leaders, and historically are a lot richer than most pastors get to enjoy in this life.

Jesus asked us to follow Him, not conflate any human to His equal.

These threads can be opportunities to share testimony and insights, or they can be holy-water pissing contests. It is not hard to guess which way Jesus wants us to go.

---

What are your thoughts on the pope having double pneumonia?

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Once more, for clarity:

The Roman Catholic Church does not equal the Catholic Church.

Popes are just men who have been dubbed leaders, and historically are a lot richer than most pastors get to enjoy in this life.

Jesus asked us to follow Him, not conflate any human to His equal.

These threads can be opportunities to share testimony and insights, or they can be holy-water pissing contests. It is not hard to guess which way Jesus wants us to go.

---

What are your thoughts on the pope having double pneumonia?

---

I don't have much information on this matter, but he seems to be rallying and I wish him a full recovery, God willing.

Oldbear83 said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Once more, for clarity:

The Roman Catholic Church does not equal the Catholic Church.

Popes are just men who have been dubbed leaders, and historically are a lot richer than most pastors get to enjoy in this life.

Jesus asked us to follow Him, not conflate any human to His equal.

These threads can be opportunities to share testimony and insights, or they can be holy-water pissing contests. It is not hard to guess which way Jesus wants us to go.

---

What are your thoughts on the pope having double pneumonia?

---

I don't have much information on this matter, but he seems to be rallying and I wish him a full recovery, God willing.

---

I keep hearing news reports that he is in critical condition for the ladt two weeks...

Oldbear83 said:

---

Once more, for clarity:

The Roman Catholic Church does not equal the Catholic Church.

Popes are just men who have been dubbed leaders, and historically are a lot richer than most pastors get to enjoy in this life.

Jesus asked us to follow Him, not conflate any human to His equal.

These threads can be opportunities to share testimony and insights, or they can be holy-water pissing contests. It is not hard to guess which way Jesus wants us to go.

---

Then why are his words said to be infallable by the Cathoic Church?

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Once more, for clarity:

The Roman Catholic Church does not equal the Catholic Church.

Popes are just men who have been dubbed leaders, and historically are a lot richer than most pastors get to enjoy in this life.

Jesus asked us to follow Him, not conflate any human to His equal.

These threads can be opportunities to share testimony and insights, or they can be holy-water pissing contests. It is not hard to guess which way Jesus wants us to go.

---

Then why are his words said to be infallable by the Cathoic Church?

---

Politics.

Money

Pride

Same as Mega Church pastors who think they are as good as Jesus. Few things are as dangerous as someone who forgets we are all of us filthy sinners with a lifetime of shameful acts and words, just because he seems eloquent and pretends piety.

I have been blessed to know several people who were/are powerful in faith. Not one of them ever claimed to be special or worthy compared to anyone else.

So,in summary, the light source when God said "Let there be light" on the first day of creation was obviously not the sun, and thus the "day" and "night" that determined the "morning" and "evening" of the first day of creation could have very well been an indeterminate amount of time, as even the Hebrew word for "day" (yom) indicates. Therefore,it is perfectly in line with Scripture to believe that creation occurred over a long, long period of time instead of six literal 24 hour days. I believe this has been proven. Does anyone have any further objections?

We don't need to reject scientific understanding in favor of faith because the two are not in opposition. How could they be, when God is the one who created science? In fact, science reveals God - "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork". If you thought scientific understanding is at odds with faith, then I hope you now realize that maybe you are being too dogmatic with your understanding of Scripture. I hope I've opened your eyes to how much more deep the creation story actually is.

Oldbear83 said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Once more, for clarity:

The Roman Catholic Church does not equal the Catholic Church.

Popes are just men who have been dubbed leaders, and historically are a lot richer than most pastors get to enjoy in this life.

Jesus asked us to follow Him, not conflate any human to His equal.

These threads can be opportunities to share testimony and insights, or they can be holy-water pissing contests. It is not hard to guess which way Jesus wants us to go.

---

Then why are his words said to be infallable by the Cathoic Church?

---

Politics.

Money

Pride

Same as Mega Church pastors who think they are as good as Jesus. Few things are as dangerous as someone who forgets we are all of us filthy sinners with a lifetime of shameful acts and words, just because he seems eloquent and pretends piety.

I have been blessed to know several people who were/are powerful in faith. Not one of them ever claimed to be special or worthy compared to anyone else.

---

I agree with you on this, but aren't you Catholic?

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Once more, for clarity:

The Roman Catholic Church does not equal the Catholic Church.

Popes are just men who have been dubbed leaders, and historically are a lot richer than most pastors get to enjoy in this life.

Jesus asked us to follow Him, not conflate any human to His equal.

These threads can be opportunities to share testimony and insights, or they can be holy-water pissing contests. It is not hard to guess which way Jesus wants us to go.

---

Then why are his words said to be infallable by the Cathoic Church?

---

Politics.

Money

Pride

Same as Mega Church pastors who think they are as good as Jesus. Few things are as dangerous as someone who forgets we are all of us filthy sinners with a lifetime of shameful acts and words, just because he seems eloquent and pretends piety.

I have been blessed to know several people who were/are powerful in faith. Not one of them ever claimed to be special or worthy compared to anyone else.

---

I agree with you on this, but aren't you Catholic?

---

Not Roman Catholic, no.

Oldbear83 said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Once more, for clarity:

The Roman Catholic Church does not equal the Catholic Church.

Popes are just men who have been dubbed leaders, and historically are a lot richer than most pastors get to enjoy in this life.

Jesus asked us to follow Him, not conflate any human to His equal.

These threads can be opportunities to share testimony and insights, or they can be holy-water pissing contests. It is not hard to guess which way Jesus wants us to go.

---

Then why are his words said to be infallable by the Cathoic Church?

---

Politics.

Money

Pride

Same as Mega Church pastors who think they are as good as Jesus. Few things are as dangerous as someone who forgets we are all of us filthy sinners with a lifetime of shameful acts and words, just because he seems eloquent and pretends piety.

I have been blessed to know several people who were/are powerful in faith. Not one of them ever claimed to be special or worthy compared to anyone else.

---

I agree with you on this, but aren't you Catholic?

---

Not Roman Catholic, no.

---

So Catholic, but not Roman Catholic?

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Once more, for clarity:

The Roman Catholic Church does not equal the Catholic Church.

Popes are just men who have been dubbed leaders, and historically are a lot richer than most pastors get to enjoy in this life.

Jesus asked us to follow Him, not conflate any human to His equal.

These threads can be opportunities to share testimony and insights, or they can be holy-water pissing contests. It is not hard to guess which way Jesus wants us to go.

---

Then why are his words said to be infallable by the Cathoic Church?

---

Politics.

Money

Pride

Same as Mega Church pastors who think they are as good as Jesus. Few things are as dangerous as someone who forgets we are all of us filthy sinners with a lifetime of shameful acts and words, just because he seems eloquent and pretends piety.

I have been blessed to know several people who were/are powerful in faith. Not one of them ever claimed to be special or worthy compared to anyone else.

---

I agree with you on this, but aren't you Catholic?

---

Not Roman Catholic, no.

---

So Catholic, but not Roman Catholic?

---

Catholic in the sense that it means the Universal Church.

I was raised Southern Baptist and spent some time in a UMC when there was no Baptist church near by .

I look for the presence of the Holy Spirit and teaching based on Scripture.

Oldbear83 said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Once more, for clarity:

The Roman Catholic Church does not equal the Catholic Church.

Popes are just men who have been dubbed leaders, and historically are a lot richer than most pastors get to enjoy in this life.

Jesus asked us to follow Him, not conflate any human to His equal.

These threads can be opportunities to share testimony and insights, or they can be holy-water pissing contests. It is not hard to guess which way Jesus wants us to go.

---

Then why are his words said to be infallable by the Cathoic Church?

---

Politics.

Money

Pride

Same as Mega Church pastors who think they are as good as Jesus. Few things are as dangerous as someone who forgets we are all of us filthy sinners with a lifetime of shameful acts and words, just because he seems eloquent and pretends piety.

I have been blessed to know several people who were/are powerful in faith. Not one of them ever claimed to be special or worthy compared to anyone else.

---

I agree with you on this, but aren't you Catholic?

---

Not Roman Catholic, no.

---

So Catholic, but not Roman Catholic?

---

Catholic in the sense that it means the Universal Church.

I was raised Southern Baptist and spent some time in a UMC when there was no Baptist church near by .

I look for the presence of the Holy Spirit and teaching based on Scripture.

---

You should listen to Through The Bible With Les Feldick. He walks you to the Bible in 25 minutes lessons. He's the greatest Bible teacher. He changed my view on a lot of things.

https://www.lesfeldick.org/

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Once more, for clarity:

The Roman Catholic Church does not equal the Catholic Church.

Popes are just men who have been dubbed leaders, and historically are a lot richer than most pastors get to enjoy in this life.

Jesus asked us to follow Him, not conflate any human to His equal.

These threads can be opportunities to share testimony and insights, or they can be holy-water pissing contests. It is not hard to guess which way Jesus wants us to go.

---

Then why are his words said to be infallable by the Cathoic Church?

---

Politics.

Money

Pride

Same as Mega Church pastors who think they are as good as Jesus. Few things are as dangerous as someone who forgets we are all of us filthy sinners with a lifetime of shameful acts and words, just because he seems eloquent and pretends piety.

I have been blessed to know several people who were/are powerful in faith. Not one of them ever claimed to be special or worthy compared to anyone else.

---

I agree with you on this, but aren't you Catholic?

---

Not Roman Catholic, no.

---

So Catholic, but not Roman Catholic?

---

Catholic in the sense that it means the Universal Church.

I was raised Southern Baptist and spent some time in a UMC when there was no Baptist church near by .

I look for the presence of the Holy Spirit and teaching based on Scripture.

---

You should listen to Through The Bible With Les Feldick. He walks you to the Bible in 25 minutes lessons. He's the greatest Bible teacher. He changed my view on a lot of things.

https://www.lesfeldick.org/

---

What is Feldick's background, education?

Oldbear83 said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Once more, for clarity:

The Roman Catholic Church does not equal the Catholic Church.

Popes are just men who have been dubbed leaders, and historically are a lot richer than most pastors get to enjoy in this life.

Jesus asked us to follow Him, not conflate any human to His equal.

These threads can be opportunities to share testimony and insights, or they can be holy-water pissing contests. It is not hard to guess which way Jesus wants us to go.

---

Then why are his words said to be infallable by the Cathoic Church?

---

Politics.

Money

Pride

Same as Mega Church pastors who think they are as good as Jesus. Few things are as dangerous as someone who forgets we are all of us filthy sinners with a lifetime of shameful acts and words, just because he seems eloquent and pretends piety.

I have been blessed to know several people who were/are powerful in faith. Not one of them ever claimed to be special or worthy compared to anyone else.

---

I agree with you on this, but aren't you Catholic?

---

Not Roman Catholic, no.

---

So Catholic, but not Roman Catholic?

---

Catholic in the sense that it means the Universal Church.

I was raised Southern Baptist and spent some time in a UMC when there was no Baptist church near by .

I look for the presence of the Holy Spirit and teaching based on Scripture.

---

You should listen to Through The Bible With Les Feldick. He walks you to the Bible in 25 minutes lessons. He's the greatest Bible teacher. He changed my view on a lot of things.

https://www.lesfeldick.org/

---

What is Feldick's background, education?

---

He is a Cattle Rancher who studies the Bible all day while he is working. He has no fancy degrees. He is the greatest Bible Teacher I have heard. Charles Stanley listems to him as do nany Pastors who have degrees. Knowledge is not always summed up in degrees.

"Knowledge is not always summed up in degrees."

True, but knowing the school sometimes helps orient the perspective.