for Christians & Messianic Jews
Non-denominational
Home

Forum index page

Where did everybody go?

I know there are some far fetched postings in here that Bibleprobey has decided to keep up, but that should be reason for you all to disappear.. you all act like you have a life or something... What's a matter with you? LOL!!! *wink*

Miss you guys!

---
"Sometimes when you feel little, useless, beaten down and depressed; always remember that you were once the fastest and the most victorious sperm in your group"

I was about to ask what happened to Kathy, Perry, Bunkster and all the other regulars. Glad you asked first. Its been mainly just the unflappable and always interesting Ray, and I posting in here, for such a long time. I do hope they are all well where they are. And I hope you are well too. It looks like we made it to another spring. Thanks to our dear Lord.

They may have tried to come back in, but I need to frequently shut the signup down for some days at a time, due to a determined bunch of "low life" spammers in Russia and/or China.

I too have wondered about the lack of familiar names. It's nice to know that I am considered unflappable and interesting, some of the better things I have been called over the years.

Ray

Would you really like to know or would you like just a nice feel good answer?

PureWord. No. Go ahead. I'm listening.

Regardless though; the entire idea behind both this message board, and BibleProbe.com (as well as GhanaforJesus.com, CambodiaforJesus.com, VietnamforJesus.com, PakistanforJesus.com, FakeMessiah.com, and NigeriaforJesus.com), is to be a resource site, to give Christians worldwide, the news about the triple scourge of evil: (1) Islam, and the other unholy scourges of (2) Homos-exuality and (3) abortion upon the world - for the glory of God. The evils of Masonry/Freemasonry do not go unnoticed here also. It is to kick satan and his sidekick Allah in the teeth (with the help of Google, Yahoo, and other major search engines); which by they way has been a daily struggle.

If liberal Democrats (who back abortion & homos-exuality, & have a warm fuzzy feeling about either Islam or satanism) get caught in the fight. That's because they deserve what's coming to them.

If some people have a problem with Catholics and/or Messianic Jews being included with Protestants in the term "non-denominational" or the "Kingdom of God"; then that is their problem which they need to work out for themselves. It's most likely due to the influence of their ignorant ancestors and/or preachers -- about Catholics/Catholicism and/or Messianic Jewism.

Other than many Baptist churches (and some Pentacostal & Evangelical churches), I see very few other denominations, other than Messianic Jews and Catholics standing on the side of God vis-a-vis the above 3 scourges. Evangelicals, by the way have a recent history of standing with the Islamic pagans in a twisted ecumenical sort of way. Not long ago, one of the largest Evengelical denominations actually stood in solidarity with Islam during their entire unholy month of Ramadan.

Did you know that the Islamic Qur'an lies that Jesus never died on a cross? And its unholy book further says that God does not have a Son? Islam also places a curse on anyone who believes in the Triune God and the Son of God. Digest the ramifications of those Islamic/Satanic lies, if you will.

Seventh Day Adventists (SDA) are all about building up a huge following based on lies, based on inadherence to the Apostolic tradition. Apostolic tradition is what the apostles of Jesus said, did (like infant baptism), and taught; and the way they otherwise acted. I ask you. Why would our omni-present, and all knowing God of love (Jesus) pick the 12 apostles that He did, if his apostles were destined to preach other than what He taught them? Yes, Apostolic tradition is JUST as important as Holy Scripture.

You may not agree with all aspects of the Catholic Church. I find it very hard to believe myself, that any man can be error-free, as the Catholic Pope thinks he is (regarding faith and dogma). Think though, who it was who gathered, preserved, and "canonized" what you now know as the Bible. It was the Catholic Church. At one time, we were all Catholics. Catholic means Universal. As in Universal Church. It was built on the love for Jesus, scripture, history, and apostolic tradition. Messianic Jews are Jews who believe as we do that Jesus is the Messiah/the Son of God. Like the early apostles of Jesus did, they still maintain many of their Jewish customs and holy days.

I want to maintain an attitude of love toward my brethren in making the following statements and what I am about to say, I say carefully and prayerfully.

I have watched this board for a number of years and when I first found it, it was a place of ministry, excitement and fellowship. Many of us, though we had never personally met, felt a sense of Christian love and family and fellowship (I posted under a different handle then). We often ministered and prayed for one another. There were many topics and doctrines discussed which led to much thinking, re-evaluation, repentance and prayer. There were, at least a dozen regular posters and many more ocassional posters. Lately the board has been not much more than 2 or 3 posters whose posts mainly consists of news relating to Christian values from WND.com and the likes. Back then, there were several new postings each day as well as numerous strings to many of the posts. Often there were strings that would linger on for days and even weeks. Now, I see maybe a post a day, at most, and only ocassionaly a string of 3 or 4 responses. I see very little meat posted that a Christian can sink his or her teeth into. I would love to see this board rebound and become a greater source of ministry and fellowship than ever before.

It seems that if something that was once such an affective ministry and now seems not to be, one would try to evaluate the problem. I see no such evaluations. I liken it to a church which has been continually losing membership. So often the paster blames the flock for the attrition when the fault is totally in the church's leadership. I am certainly not saying that the posters here are being blamed but I am saying that I feel that the leadership is the responsible source.

The name of the board is Bibleprobe for Christians and Messianic Jews - non-denominational. Actually, it should be named Bibleprobe for Catholics. Please don't get me wrong, I'm not attacking Catholics or the Catholic denomination, (I am not Catholic but they are my dear brothers and sisters in the Lord), but if you are anything but a Catholic and post your view points on this board, you had better be prepared to be humiliated, ridiculed and made to feel that you are less than an infidel by the admin of this board. I have seen dear Christian brothers and sisters, time after time, experience the above. My doctrine is, in many respects, different from that of Catholicism but I respect their beliefs. As long as we name the name of Jesus as our Lord and Savior that's enough for us to fellowship as brothers and sisters. None of us are perfect and none of us have a perfect doctrine. There are flaws in every denomination and in every doctrine and in each of us. Jesus didn't call us into His kingdom because of our perfect doctrine but because of our faith in Him. That is the only criteria. He did call us to love each other fervently, and He didn't predicate it on doctrinal beliefs.

I saw the great decline of this board begin when the admin began severly criticising certain Christian ministries and posters who were not adhereing to his beliefs and certain Catholic doctrines. I certainly don't doubt the love of the Lord expressed by the admin but I do believe that repentence is necessary to turn this ministry around. I pray that it happens. God bless and prosper you.

Sincerely, in the love of the Lord

PureWord:

Thanks for your candor. Actually, I see the truth to what you have posted.

Good and fruitful arguments did arupt/clash here in the past between Protestant and Catholic theology in the past. I did try to give the Catholic view most often to balance out what were actually attacks on Catholicism due mainly to the posters ignorance about Catholic adherence to apostolic tradition. But not always. When I thought Catholics were wrong I also tried to often side with the Protestant thinking. All too often someone would come in here just to attack the Catholic Church and for no other reason. In the 9 years this mesage board has been up, I'd guess that 65% of the posters were Catholic, and the rest Protestant and/or a few Messianic Jews. I was often reminded that although Catholicism was the main target for many of those posts, in all this time I have not yet seen a single Catholic post anything derogatory about Protestantism. These people learned this hatred about Catholicism someplace. And it is based on ignorance.

WE WERE TOLD TO FOLLOW APOSTOLIC TRADITION:
Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle. 2 Thessalonians 2 verse 15

The internet is filled with "wild-eyed" posters saying absurd things like the upside down cross on the Pope's chair is proof Catholicism is satanic, when actually it is a tradition that goes way back in history (predating satanism's use of the upside down cross), symbolizing that Peter was crucified upside down. Catholics worshiping Mary is another regular Protestant misunderstanding. They pray to her and ask for her intercesion, but they adore only Jesus and only ask His forgiveness of their sins.



It was my hope that this message board and bibleprobe.com could help bridge the gap of misunderstanding between Protestants, Catholics and Messianic Jews. Neither are very far apart, as all 3 have the love for our dear Lord Jesus at their center.

Here I am! Sorry for the sustained absence... I have so precious little time now to surf the internet and post on this site. Occasionally I'll look at the posts here, but have no time any more to research post responses.

If you'd like an update, I can provide SEPCOR (separate correspondence) to known email addresses. Needless to say, things have been going 1000 mph.

God Bless,
Perry

I'm still here, although I haven't responded yet because I'm still recovering from a 10 pm to 2 am session in the simulator. I come here because I believe that this website is primarily concerned with the salvation of souls, and that means proclaiming the whole truth. There's a lot of confusion out there coming from the enemy, and it's not just from muslims and new agers. There are so called christians out there that have deviated from the fullness of truth, eg the anglicans, Nancy Pelosi, etc, and it has been going on now for 2000 years. When someone comes here and makes a statement like:

"None of us are perfect and none of us have a perfect doctrine. There are flaws in every denomination and in every doctrine and in each of us. Jesus didn't call us into His kingdom because of our perfect doctrine but because of our faith in Him. That is the only criteria. He did call us to love each other fervently, and He didn't predicate it on doctrinal beliefs."

you make a liar out of Jesus, because He promised to guide His Church to all truth:
"If you love me, you will keep my commandments.
16
And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate 8 to be with you always,
17
the Spirit of truth, 9 which the world cannot accept, because it neither sees nor knows it. But you know it, because it remains with you, and will be in you.
18
I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you. 10

and also:

Go, therefore, 12 and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit,
20
teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. 13 And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age."

He also promised to Peter that "the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it." (the Church)

Truth is not subjective, it is absolute. It does not change because the world changes or because people's opinions change. If you seek the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, you will find it. But if you believe that the holy spirit is confused and guiding christians to adopt strange new doctrines that were never taught before the 16th century, then you are very much mistaken. If you are offended by this message, then so be it. Jesus offended many people in His time as well, and many walked away from Him, especially when He taught about the Eucharist. Nothing less than the salvation of souls is at stake, and the fullness of truth must be proclaimed, even if it offends many. The apostasy that is going on throughout the christian world is just another sign that we are indeed in the end times.

Lorenzo:

Very well said indeed. May Jesus bless you for that great message/post you just made!

What similator are you in? Are you an astronaut? LOL

Steve

Embraer 145

Cabin - Embraer 145

No, I wish I was an astronaut. I'm an airline captain, flying the Embraer 145. We have to do simulator training every six months.

"None of us are perfect and none of us have a perfect doctrine. There are flaws in every denomination and in every doctrine and in each of us. Jesus didn't call us into His kingdom because of our perfect doctrine but because of our faith in Him. That is the only criteria. He did call us to love each other fervently, and He didn't predicate it on doctrinal beliefs."


Hi Lorenzo, can t see what is depressing you in the above comments by PureWord
In this case I can endorse his above comments.
A. None of us is perfect only Christ is perfect.(fact)
B. Christ did not institute denominations therefore imperfect man did (big flaws)
C. WE are justified in faith alone. Ephesians 1:13,” And you were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in Him with a seal the promised Holy Spirit.”
D. Love one another (one of Christ commands)


Lorenzo quoted; “you make a liar out of Jesus, because He promised to guide His Church to all truth:”

Zed; “No his comments do not make a liar out of Jesus, His Spirit continues to guide His church.”
The word church comes from the Greek work ekklesia , which literally means a 'called out assembly'; usually defined as 'gathering of the called out ones' or gathering of those summoned. As we can see in Ephesians 1:13 (above) it is the Holy Spirit that called those out to be part of the body of Christ (church). Only God can see mans hearts.


Lorenzo quoted partial scripture;”And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate 8 to be with you always,
17
the Spirit of truth, 9 which the world cannot accept, because it neither sees nor knows it. But you know it, because it remains with you, and will be in you.
18
I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you. 10

Zed;” I’m not sure where your going with this partial passage of scripture, usually when people/church leaders quote bits and pieces of scripture/verses, nine times out of ten they have a different gospel they are trying to get across. Please don’t tell us that you are somehow implying that the advocate is the pope or Mary, naah that would be silly.

Lorenzo: He also promised to Peter that "the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it." (the Church)

Zed; Yes we (the church/called out ones) are still standing firmly in His Word, the gates of hell have not will not prevail against us (the called out assembly). Though Rome tried to get rid of us during the dark ages, we’ve been here for around 2000 years and still going strong.

Lorenzo: Truth is not subjective, it is absolute. It does not change because the world changes or because people's opinions change. If you seek the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, you will find it. But if you believe that the holy spirit is confused and guiding Christians to adopt strange new doctrines that were never taught before the 16th century, then you are very much mistaken.

Zed; The only truth is found in Christ/ His Word, you know Rome calls it SS solar scripture, I prefer to call it “The whole council of Gods Word” So if your looking for the whole truth then No cherry picking at the scripture, Rome accepts scripture only when it suits them and override Gods Word with traditions/tradition of men. You will find that these traditions have not only conflicted with scripture but they have changed with more and more added through Rome’s history, confusing you bet, want security, a strong anchor, a firm foundation, peace of heart, a light on your path, salvation, then build your faith on SS solar scripture, you will not go wrong.

Lorenzo; If you are offended by this message, then so be it

Zed; No not offended but amused and concerned.

When you said :

"Zed; The only truth is found in Christ/ His Word, you know Rome calls it SS solar scripture, I prefer to call it “The whole council of Gods Word” So if your looking for the whole truth then No cherry picking at the scripture, Rome accepts scripture only when it suits them and override Gods Word with traditions/tradition of men. You will find that these traditions have not only conflicted with scripture but they have changed with more and more added through Rome’s history, confusing you bet, want security, a strong anchor, a firm foundation, peace of heart, a light on your path, salvation, then build your faith on SS solar scripture, you will not go wrong."

I did not understand what you meant. What do you mean by "SS solar scripture"? Do you mean to say "Sola Scriptura"? If so, who in Rome teaches this doctrine... and where is there a verse to suggest that this teaching is biblical? Shouldn't there be? In regards to what you said about Rome only accepting Scripture when it suits them, and overrides it with traditions of men... please give an example of the traditions that conflict with Scripture? In 2 Thess. 2:15, Paul stated, "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle". When Christ ordered to go and make disciples of all nations... there was no "New Testament". The early Church received their traditions and doctrines from the apostles who received them from Christ. Where did "Sola Scriptura" stand before Constantine distributed the first complete Bible to the Churches? All that they had was tradition, or possibly one of Paul's letters which states to hold "our" traditions (1 Cor 11:2; 2 Thess 2:15), follow the examples of the apostles (2 Thess 3:9), or to stay away from those who do not follow the traditions that we have learned from the apostles (2 Thess 3:6). You said, "Christ did not institute denominations therefore imperfect man did (big flaws)". I agree with you. Sola Scriptura was not a doctrine before the Reformation.

---
Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
~~Matthew 22:37

If God had intended scripture to be the sole source of truth as purported by Martin Luther, then all Christians would be in agreement as to those truths. However, thanks to his new doctrine, we have countless numbers of Christians with their own interpretations of scripture, each claiming to be guided by the Holy Spirit. Either the Holy Spirit is confused, or some people are being led by a different spirit. As I pointed out earlier in John 14, Jesus promised to send the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, to guide His Apostles to all truth. That promise was fulfilled on Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit descended on the Apostles, and these rough, uneducated men began preaching eloquently in several different languages. Jesus also promised in Matthew 28 that He would remain with His Apostles until the end of time, even though He would not be physically present. If that promise ended when the last Apostle died, either the end of time came about without our knowledge, or Jesus was lying about remaining with His Apostles. Either the Holy Spirit continues to guide the successors of the Apostles until the end of time, or your faith is in vain.

Also, you misquoted Ephesians when propagating that other novel doctine of sola fide. Just as Martin Luther did in the 16th century, you added the word "alone" to what Paul said. Nowhere in scripture does it say we are saved by "faith alone." In fact, the only place these two words are together is in the Epistle of James, where he says: You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by the works.
23
Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness," and he was called "the friend of God."
24
See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.

Indeed, you even ignore Jesus own words in Matthew 25, where at the last judgement, we are judged according to how much we loved our neighbor, not on whether we believed or not. Even the parable in the same chapter can only be understood in terms of deeds, not faith, since the lazy servant is clearly a believer who does not act on His Master's wishes by using the talents given to him. There are many more verses, such as in Revelations 20:11-15 where the dead are judged according to their deeds, and also in John 5: 28-29.

Without an authoritative teacher to guide and instruct the faithful, you get the kind of confusion you have now with countless denominations all claiming to have the truth. By the way, denomination comes from the latin word denominare, which means division, which is the fruit of the protestant reformation. Before this time, the only churches that existed were the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches, so unless your church was founded by an Apostle, you have no authority whatsoever to interpret scripture or to determine doctrine. There can only be one true faith founded by Jesus Himself, and if you had any knowledge of history, which you obviously do not have, you would know which church is the original church. I strongly urge you to read what the early church fathers wrote about the faith, and see how their teachings compare to yours. I would suggest starting off with Eusibius' History of the Early Church. It's pathetic how little Americans know about history. Seek the truth at all costs, because not only your soul, but the souls of billions of people are at stake. The devil is hard at work spreading his lies among all christians (that includes you Nancy Pelosi)!

On a side note, I want to mention a couple of little known historical facts:
Lincoln did not free the slaves. The Emancipation Proclamation only freed the slaves living in those areas still controlled by the Confederate government, so it was effectively unenforcable. It was the 13th amendment to the constitution that freed the slaves, and it was passed after Lincoln died. Also, the words "separation of church and state" is found nowhere in the constitution. It is quoted from some letters written by Thomas Jefferson who advocated this. The constitution only prohibits the establishment of a "Church of the United States" as the official church of the nation. The founding fathers were quite insistent that this nation be founded on Judeo-Christian principles.

Lorenzo, you've proven my point of the intolerance of other beliefs on this board. That's why I said that this board should be for Catholics only and not any other denominations or beliefs. No doubt that most who know scripture could easily refute you and your claims but to what ends? It would certainly be futile. A closed mind is rarely opened by arguments. What is your answer to what happened to this board and why it is no longer the effective ministry that it once was? (I was a poster on this board long before you and witnessed the dramatic change)

Hi Fezik,
Yes “sola scripture” is what I meant and no Rome is against the teaching of scripture alone.
The 16th century Reformation was responsible for restoring to the church the principle of sola Scripture, a principle that had been operative within the church from the very beginning of the post apostolic age. Initially the apostles taught orally but with the close of the apostolic age, all special revelation that God wanted preserved for man was codified in the written Scriptures. Sola Scripture is the teaching; founded on the Scriptures themselves, that there is only one special revelation from God that man possesses today, the written Scriptures or the Bible. Consequently
the Scriptures are materially sufficient and are by their very nature, as being inspired by God, the ultimate authority for the church. This means that there is no portion of that revelation which has been preserved in the form of oral tradition independent of Scripture. We do not possess any oral teaching of an Apostle today. Only Scripture therefore records for us the apostolic teaching and the final revelation of God. The Council of Trent in the sixteenth century, on the other hand, declared that the revelation of God was not contained solely in the Scriptures. It was contained partly in the written Scriptures and partly in oral tradition and therefore the Scriptures were not materially sufficient. This was the universal view of Roman Catholic theologians for centuries after the Council of Trent.

Fezik: In regards to what you said about Rome only accepting Scripture when it suits them, and overrides it with traditions of men... please give an example of the traditions that conflict with Scripture?

Zed; You only want one example, ok I’ll chose one that’s been very controversial, “Infant baptism” Here is the official teaching by Rome.
catechism #1250”‘0 Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called. The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant Baptism. The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth”

And here Rome is telling us that infant baptism is one of her traditions practiced from second century on, they also try to give their invented practice extra credibility by trying to tie it in with scripture basing it on a possibility or a maybe. Scripture criteria for baptism is to believe, repent, confess ones sins and be baptized, it’s a choice one must make, babies cant do that, that’s conflicting. I see it as a way for Rome to draft more people into her clutches.
catechism #1252 “The practice of infant Baptism is an immemorial tradition of the Church. There is explicit testimony to this practice from the second century on, and it is quite possible that, from the beginning of the apostolic preaching, when whole "households" received baptism, infants may also have been baptized.”

By NOT enough, I don't mean that Scripture is not enough or all you need to be saved and have eternal life. Quite the contrary. By this, I mean Scripture alone is NOT enough for the all the answers to spiritual and dogma questions, that come up in the Lord's Church. I think it is because of inadherence to apostolic tradition that most of the Christian denominations are in apostasy now, with the exception of many Baptist churches and the Catholic Church. Don't even get me started on Mormons, Christian Scientistism & Seventh Day Adventists. We have woman priests, homos-exual priests, and denominations who put their babies at a severe risk - and probably making them more susceptible to demonic attacks -by not baptising them.

Epiphanius of Salamis

"It is needful also to make use of tradition, for not everything can be gotten from sacred Scripture. The holy apostles handed down some things in the scriptures, other things in tradition" (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 61:6 [A.D. 375]).

I stand with Lorenzo, that it is a bold faced lie that Scripture alone is sufficient.

Like Lorenzo said, the reason for all these splinter denominations is that they think Scripture alone is sufficient. Then they go and misinterpret Scripture, without consulting apostolic tradition. These misinterpretations should not have happened if they first stopped and thought, "what did the apostles of Jesus say and do about that". In example is "infant Baptism". It was never an issue until the Antibaptists in Switzerland misinterpreted by not following what the apostles said and did (much of this is in the Acts of the Apostles). The apostles of Jesus baptized entire households. They didn't make woman priests (deaconesses came later), and they certainly wouldn't have allowed a homos-exual living in that grave sin to be a priest of Jesus.

What about the wealth of information that comes down to us from the Bishops the apostles themselves consecrated? Many of these early church fathers walked, talked, and listened to the apostles preach. Never forget, Jesus knew what He was doing when He chose the apostles He did. They were, with one exception all loyal to Jesus until their deaths; most by martyrdom.

WE WERE TOLD TO FOLLOW APOSTOLIC TRADITION:
Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle. 2 Thessalonians 2 verse 15

BELOW REFERENCE HERE: http://www.catholic.com/library/Apostolic_Tradition.asp

Is Scripture the sole rule of faith for Christians? Not according to the Bible. While we must guard against merely human tradition, the Bible contains numerous references to the necessity of clinging to apostolic tradition.

Thus Paul tells the Corinthians, "I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2), and he commands the Thessalonians, "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15). He even goes so far as to order, "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you 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).

To make sure that the apostolic tradition would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy, "[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first four generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, the generation Timothy will teach, and the generation they in turn will teach.

The early Church Fathers, who were links in that chain of succession, recognized the necessity of the traditions that had been handed down from the apostles and guarded them scrupulously, as the following quotations show.

Papias

"Papias [A.D. 120], who is now mentioned by us, affirms that he received the sayings of the apostles from those who accompanied them, and he, moreover, asserts that he heard in person Aristion and the presbyter John. Accordingly, he mentions them frequently by name, and in his writings gives their traditions [concerning Jesus]. . . . [There are] other passages of his in which he relates some miraculous deeds, stating that he acquired the knowledge of them from tradition" (fragment in Eusebius, Church History 3:39 [A.D. 312]).

Eusebius of Caesarea

"At that time [A.D. 150] there flourished in the Church Hegesippus, whom we know from what has gone before, and Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, and another bishop, Pinytus of Crete, and besides these, Philip, and Apollinarius, and Melito, and Musanus, and Modestus, and, finally, Irenaeus. From them has come down to us in writing, the sound and orthodox faith received from tradition" (Church History 4:21).

Irenaeus

"As I said before, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although she is disseminated throughout the whole world, yet guarded it, as if she occupied but one house. She likewise believes these things just as if she had but one soul and one and the same heart; and harmoniously she proclaims them and teaches them and hands them down, as if she possessed but one mouth. For, while the languages of the world are diverse, nevertheless, the authority of the tradition is one and the same" (Against Heresies 1:10:2 [A.D. 189]).

"That is why it is surely necessary to avoid them [heretics], while cherishing with the utmost diligence the things pertaining to the Church, and to lay hold of the tradition of truth. . . . What if the apostles had not in fact left writings to us? Would it not be necessary to follow the order of tradition, which was handed down to those to whom they entrusted the churches?" (ibid., 3:4:1).

...

"It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors to our own times—men who neither knew nor taught anything like these heretics rave about.

"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles.

"With this church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree—that is, all the faithful in the whole world—and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (ibid., 3:3:1–2).

My comment on Irenaeus: Irenaeus was born sometime between 130 and 140 AD in Smyrna. Irenaeus learned the key components of the Christian faith under Polycarp (a Bishop), who had been taught by the apostle John and others who had seen Christ. Irenaeus believed there was an unbroken line of tradition from the apostles, to those they mentored, and eventually down to himself and other Christian leaders.

Clement of Alexandria

"Well, they preserving the tradition of the blessed doctrine derived directly from the holy apostles, Peter, James, John, and Paul, the sons receiving it from the father (but few were like the fathers), came by God’s will to us also to deposit those ancestral and apostolic seeds. And well I know that they will exult; I do not mean delighted with this tribute, but solely on account of the preservation of the truth, according as they delivered it. For such a sketch as this, will, I think, be agreeable to a soul desirous of preserving from loss the blessed tradition" (Miscellanies 1:1 [A.D. 208]).

Origen

"Although there are many who believe that they themselves hold to the teachings of Christ, there are yet some among them who think differently from their predecessors. The teaching of the Church has indeed been handed down through an order of succession from the apostles and remains in the churches even to the present time. That alone is to be believed as the truth which is in no way at variance with ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition" (The Fundamental Doctrines 1:2 [A.D. 225]).


Cyprian of Carthage

"[T]he Church is one, and as she is one, cannot be both within and without. For if she is with Novatian, she was not with [Pope] Cornelius. But if she was with Cornelius, who succeeded the bishop Fabian by lawful ordination, and whom, beside the honor of the priesthood the Lord glorified also with martyrdom, Novatian is not in the Church; nor can he be reckoned as a bishop, who, succeeding to no one, and despising the evangelical and apostolic tradition, sprang from himself. For he who has not been ordained in the Church can neither have nor hold to the Church in any way" (Letters 75:3 [A.D. 253]).


Athanasius

"Again we write, again keeping to the apostolic traditions, we remind each other when we come together for prayer; and keeping the feast in common, with one mouth we truly give thanks to the Lord. Thus giving thanks unto him, and being followers of the saints, ‘we shall make our praise in the Lord all the day,’ as the psalmist says. So, when we rightly keep the feast, we shall be counted worthy of that joy which is in heaven" (Festal Letters 2:7 [A.D. 330]).

"But you are blessed, who by faith are in the Church, dwell upon the foundations of the faith, and have full satisfaction, even the highest degree of faith which remains among you unshaken. For it has come down to you from apostolic tradition, and frequently accursed envy has wished to unsettle it, but has not been able" (ibid., 29).


Basil the Great

"Of the dogmas and messages preserved in the Church, some we possess from written teaching and others we receive from the tradition of the apostles, handed on to us in mystery. In respect to piety, both are of the same force. No one will contradict any of these, no one, at any rate, who is even moderately versed in matters ecclesiastical. Indeed, were we to try to reject unwritten customs as having no great authority, we would unwittingly injure the gospel in its vitals; or rather, we would reduce [Christian] message to a mere term" (The Holy Spirit 27:66 [A.D. 375]).


Epiphanius of Salamis

"It is needful also to make use of tradition, for not everything can be gotten from sacred Scripture. The holy apostles handed down some things in the scriptures, other things in tradition" (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 61:6 [A.D. 375]).


Augustine

"[T]he custom [of not rebaptizing converts] . . . may be supposed to have had its origin in apostolic tradition, just as there are many things which are observed by the whole Church, and therefore are fairly held to have been enjoined by the apostles, which yet are not mentioned in their writings" (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 5:23[31] [A.D. 400]).

"But the admonition that he [Cyprian] gives us, ‘that we should go back to the fountain, that is, to apostolic tradition, and thence turn the channel of truth to our times,’ is most excellent, and should be followed without hesitation" (ibid., 5:26[37]).

"But in regard to those observances which we carefully attend and which the whole world keeps, and which derive not from Scripture but from Tradition, we are given to understand that they are recommended and ordained to be kept, either by the apostles themselves or by plenary [ecumenical] councils, the authority of which is quite vital in the Church" (Letter to Januarius [A.D. 400]).

John Chrysostom

"[Paul commands,] ‘Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you have been taught, whether by word or by our letter’ [2 Thess. 2:15]. From this it is clear that they did not hand down everything by letter, but there is much also that was not written. Like that which was written, the unwritten too is worthy of belief. So let us regard the tradition of the Church also as worthy of belief. Is it a tradition? Seek no further" (Homilies on Second Thessalonians [A.D. 402]).

Vincent of Lerins

"With great zeal and closest attention, therefore, I frequently inquired of many men, eminent for their holiness and doctrine, how I might, in a concise and, so to speak, general and ordinary way, distinguish the truth of the Catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical depravity.

"I received almost always the same answer from all of them—that if I or anyone else wanted to expose the frauds and escape the snares of the heretics who rise up, and to remain intact and in sound faith, it would be necessary, with the help of the Lord, to fortify that faith in a twofold manner: first, of course, by the authority of divine law [Scripture] and then by the tradition of the Catholic Church.

"Here, perhaps, someone may ask: ‘If the canon of the scriptures be perfect and in itself more than suffices for everything, why is it necessary that the authority of ecclesiastical interpretation be joined to it?’ Because, quite plainly, sacred Scripture, by reason of its own depth, is not accepted by everyone as having one and the same meaning. . . .

"Thus, because of so many distortions of such various errors, it is highly necessary that the line of prophetic and apostolic interpretation be directed in accord with the norm of the ecclesiastical and Catholic meaning" (The Notebooks [A.D. 434]).

Pope Agatho

"[T]he holy Church of God . . . has been established upon the firm rock of this Church of blessed Peter, the prince of the apostles, which by his grace and guardianship remains free from all error, [and possesses that faith that] the whole number of rulers and priests, of the clergy and of the people, unanimously should confess and preach with us as the true declaration of the apostolic tradition, in order to please God and to save their own souls" (Letter read at fourth session of III Constantinople [A.D. 680]).

It's also rather difficult for a "bible only" church to have developed when so many people were illiterate or couldn't afford their own copy of the bible. It wasn't until the 15th century when Guttenberg invented his printing press that the bible was able to be disseminated so widely. But then, I imagine these two don't seem to have much of a grasp of history. I'm not sure they're really interested in learning the truth of anything. I highly recommend this DVD from Amazon.com:



http://www.amazon.com/Where-Did-Bible-Come-Collection/dp/B0010ZCVHO

Again, there is no sense in arguing doctrine because it's futile. But the vast difference is that we, who are not Catholics, respect your beliefs and know and understand that your foundation is not only the Word of God but also tradition. In my opinion, your traditions greatly trump the Word of God. But, you do not respect the beliefs of those who do not adhere to tradition or who disagree with your doctrines. Therefore, this board is not for non-Catholics or even Messianic Jews, for that matter.

One question though. Is God so weak or does He not have enough foresight to have all of His truths, doctrines, laws and commands contained in His Word? It seems that contains the same mindset as the Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses. God's Word wasn't enough, so there needed to be another testament, another witness and another prophet because the first was not sufficient.

PureWord: God does have everything you need for your personal salvation in Scripture. He doesn't have everything you need to operate His church (dogma & theology) there though. He left that up to the Apostles of Jesus. Have you ever even read the "Acts of the Apostles"??? Why else did Jesus choose the apostles. To keep Him company? As sidekicks? They spent 3 years with Him. Don't you imagine they had additional things to offer us that were not contained in Scripture? Maybe if they had video tape back then and their sermons were captured on tape you'd think differently. But what they did do is teach their successors (Bishops and followers)...

You don't seem to want to debate at all. Your mind is made up. I have to follow my conscience. Which is this. The Protestant Reformation was a very good thing in many ways. It checked an over-bearing papacy and made the Catholic Church take a second look at itself. However, calling "apostolic traditions" (that go straight back to the apostles) "traditions of men" just so someone can open up another splinter denomination by denying that tradition -- just doesn't cut it with me. These splinter denominations have so many people befuddled simply because they stay far, far away from teaching their followers apostolic tradition.

Have you ever, ever really wondered why these "splinter" Protestant denominations avoid totally, teaching their followers church history, and especially "Apostolic Tradition"? They completely shut out what the apostles said and did by jumping up and down and shouting "Scripture only". They do so just for the same reasons that the Jews pass over, and turn their eyes from the Isaiah "Suffering Servant" passages in the Bible.

Jewish Congregations have been known to rip the "Suffering Servant" passages from Isaiah out of Torah. No doubt at the instigation of their Rabbis.

There was a time in the 1000 - 1100's AD when Jews could not help but be drawn to the "Suffering Servant" passages (around Isaiah 52) without thinking of the "historic" Jesus. Many of these considered following Jesus. The Rabbis (which means teachers) who had a lot to lose (including their livelihoods) convinced the Jews that the suffering servant passages were not about the Messiah, but were instead about the "suffering" nation of Israel. Even though up to that point, all Jewish Rabbis had taught the suffering servant passages referred to the Messiah/King of Israel.

All "political", self-serving, lies are the same! They all are generated in Hell... This includes the lies that have been spread since the days of the "Jew hating" Martin Luther; such as the apostolic tradition are "traditions of men". Seventh Day Adventists love that saying: vis-a-vis apostolic tradition -- they call "traditions of men"...

Steve, you pretty much said what I wanted to say. The main point of my post was to counter the notion that there is no absolute truth to be found among the christian denominations. This is an absolute lie, and it has caused division and apostasy at a time when unity is essential. The muslims and neo-pagans are at the gates ready to tear us down, and we have Judases within our own church giving them more ammunition. We cannot gloss over the truth just so people can feel good about themseleves. They need to know how to gain the salvation of their souls, and that means following the Word of God, which is contained both in scripture and the teachings of the apostles handed down through the centuries. The reformation should have been a means to purify the church of the corruption that had infiltrated the church, but rather than reforming, many chose to separate. Even in our present age, the filth has entered in through modernism, homosexuality, contraception, and the total rejection of any notion of sin. We need to stand up together in defense of absolute moral truth, and that is what this board is all about.

Can you name 1 tradition which you adhere to that could not have been written and included in God's Word. Of course you can't because there are none. I can name many of your traditions that oppose His Word.

There is no room for civil debate here because you are so degrading to those who don't agree.

One more thought, you have the nerve to demonize protestant denominations with all the wretchedness that has taken place within the Catholic Church in recent years. (by the way I am not a protestant nor do I belong to a denomination)

No. There are differences in our beliefs... this is a non-denominational site. It is simple to have a discussion with those with opposing views, unfortunately sometimes it gets heated... that's the danger in discussing religion or politics, the things that most people are passionate about. You risk offending somebody with anything that you may say on this site, but I have learned very much from members of different denominations on here. You don't generally see anybody come in here with the sole intention of tearing apart a Presbyterian or other Christian denominations. Of course we are on the defense, just as you hold your beliefs as truth... Catholics do, as well. The difference is that as long as I have been here, I have not once seen a new member come in here and try to prove that any Christian denomination was the whore of Babylon with the exception of the Catholic Church.

I do not believe that you can name off non-biblical Catholic traditions. Zedinhim named "infant baptism". That whole conversation recently happened on this site, he is free to see any of our beliefs. With many of the beliefs of some of Christians, I am inclined to believe that they will follow any belief so long as it differs from the teachings of the Church. Sola Scriptura... I would really like to see a verse that states that everything is written in The Bible, or possibly a verse to suggest that traditions are to end once The Bible is mass produced?

---
Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
~~Matthew 22:37

Hi again, I'm gonna have to keep it short as my PC had a meltdown,I'm using a borrowed little notebook(so annoying).
I thank God for the invention of the printing press, because we all well know that the reformation really got going when people were finally able to get their hands on Gods Word, it was at this point in history when Rome lost big time, people renounced Catholism.I also thank God that my bible is the reformers version as it had been translated from the original texts, God inspired handed down through the prophets and the apostles. My version has all ten commandments unlike you're catholic bible has only nine, also my bible dose not have those extra books of tales and fables.No wander Rome was so reluctant to allow our bible to be translated back into a common market place language, many of my fellow believers had to shed much blood simply for owning a portion of scripture written in a common language please read "The Blood Trail" free on line

Your Bible has been translated from the original texts? Maybe the original Vulgate or original youngest Septuagint... which, by the way, contained the "fairy tales" (as you call them).



Verses defining altering God's Word :

Matthew 17:21; Matthew 18:11; Matthew 21:41; Matthew 23:14; Mark 9:44; Mark 7:16; Mark 9:46; Mark 15:28; Mark 11:26; Luke 17:36; Luke 23:17; Acts 8:37; Acts 24:7; Acts 28:29; Romans 16:24; Daniel 3:31-100; Daniel 13:1-64; Daniel 14:1-42.

---
Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
~~Matthew 22:37

Hi bible/p,
a long read, but out of respect I did try to read all of it, to be honest I was abit on the noddy side, I don't think much of it sank in as in my heart and mind I know that we are "built on the foundation of apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone".Eph 2:20. No mention of church fathers, successors or traditionalists.Scripture is clear no adding no subtracting to his Word.
Rome seems to have a very carnal way of interpreting verses, If we apply common sense to the verses witch the apostles say,"take heed of the oral/traditional and written teachings". We need to remember that at first the apostles went out starting church gatherings in different city s spending a lot of time with them, eating staying in their homes and of course preaching to them orally teaching them the traditional ways of Christian living, then later in their ministry they were writing letters, letters that never conflicted with their original oral teaching.when we use this common sense then all scripture fits together so well.
Question for you. During the apostolic age the impostors were already at work trying to destroy the church, gainsayers looking for fleshly gain, changing and twisting the apostles message. How do you know or by what rule can you test the catholic teaching, you can not use scripture because scripture does not support her, you may say church fathers but you still have no way to know for sure that they were teaching with pure hearts, bible says that we are to even test the spirit because all to often people think they are hearing from the Holy Spirit but are really hearing from the wrong spirit, can you know that for sure that church fathers were hearing from the Holy Spirit ? Remember a whole eternity rides on truth.

You can't re-write Church History, or totally ignore it for that matter. Do so at your peril.

My idea of bringing up the subject of transubstantiation (bread & wine) below is to show that it is not just a "Catholic thing". But it was something the Apostles passed onto their followers. It is a spiritual truth that belongs to all of us (Protestant, Catholics, Messianic Jews). But those who ignore apostolic tradition are dangerously on the very wrong spiritual path -- by not showing extreme reverence to the consecrated Eucharist and consecrated wine.

I think it is quite apparent that Scripture as a whole is God's word up to the ascension of Jesus into Heaven, followed by the lives and Acts of the Apostles, and a glimpse of the end of days scenario; which is all in Scripture. The Bible wasn't meant to be an early history of the Church after the apostles. Christianity has an abundance of writings that have survived that tell us what the apostles taught their successors (Bishops and followers), and even who it was that succeeded (including carrying on their teachings) some of the apostles.

One of the strongest proofs for the 4 Gospels comes from Justin Martyr (Justin the Martyr)(100–165 AD). Around 150 A.D. Justin called the 4 gospels "memoirs". He says that the church used these gospels regularly in their weekly service --indicating they had already achieved a de facto canonical status. This shows that even as early as 150 A.D. the orthodox Christians already had a great love for the 4 gospels of Jesus which they knew to be authentic.

During a time of many heresies, early Christians clung to the apostles' teaching about Jesus as the standard for determining what was true and what was not. In the very early church, those who taught a different message from what the local bishop and elders taught, appealed to some "secret tradition" going back to one of the apostles. Over against this claim to "secret teaching" their opponents pointed to the public succession of leaders and teaching in the established churches. The theologian Tertullian (160 – 220 AD) summarized this argument: Truth is what "the churches received from the apostles, the apostles from Christ, Christ from God," and all other doctrine is false. Reference: Christian History & Biography, fall 2007, page 11

Irenaeus was born sometime between 130 and 140 AD in Smyrna. Irenaeus learned the key components of the Christian faith under Polycarp (a Bishop) (69 – 155 AD), who had been taught by the apostle John and others who had seen Christ. Irenaeus believed there was an unbroken line of tradition from the apostles, to those they mentored, and eventually down to himself and other Christian leaders.

This faith, according to Irenaeus, is found in the Scriptures and summarized in the Rule of Faith. The proof that this is the true faith is that the "Great Church" could point to a visible succession of teachers, presbyters, and bishops who taught the same things throughout the world: This is the teaching common to all apostles and the churches founded by them. The leaders of many of these churches had been taught by the apostles themselves, or disciples of the apostles, and they "neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about." Reference: Christian History & Biography, Fall 2007, page 32

Consider these statements about Linus, the Pope (Bishop of Rome) who directly followed Peter:

The passage by Irenaeus (Adv. haereses, III, iii, 3) reads:
"After the Holy Apostles (Peter and Paul) had founded and set the Church in order (in Rome) they gave over the exercise of the episcopal office to Linus. The same Linus is mentioned by St. Paul in his Epistle to Timothy. His successor was Anacletus."

Linus was also mentioned in II Timothy 4:21

APOSTOLIC FATHERS (from Wikipedia)
The Apostolic Fathers are a small number of Early Christian authors who lived and wrote in the second half of the 1st century and the first half of the 2nd century. They are acknowledged as leaders in the early church, although their writings were not included in the New Testament. They include Clement of Rome (probably 19 - 99 AD), the 3rd or fourth Bishop of Rome (Peter being the 1st Bishop of Rome), Ignatius of Antioch (somewhere between 35 and 117 AD) who was a student of John the Apostle, and Polycarp of Smyrna. Clement was consecrated by the apostle Peter. And Ignatius stressed the value of the Eucharist, calling it a "medicine of immortality"...

In Clement's letter to the Corinthian church, 1 Clement, which was a response to strife in the Corinth church, where certain presbyters had been deposed. He asserted the authority of the presbyters (elders) as rulers of the church, on the grounds that the Apostles had appointed them such.

The label "Apostolic Fathers" has been applied to them since the 17th century to indicate that they were thought of as being of the generation that had personal contact with the Twelve Apostles. Thus they provide a link between the Apostles who knew Jesus of Nazareth and the later generation of Church Fathers.

Irenaeus wrote that "Polycarp also was not only instructed by the apostles, and conversed with many who had seen the Lord, but was also appointed bishop by apostles in Asia and in the church in Smyrna". And that he himself had, as a boy, listened to "the accounts which (Polycarp) gave of his intercourse with John and with the others who had seen the Lord".

In 155 AD, the Smyrnans demanded Polycarp's execution as a Christian, and he died a martyr. His story has it that the flames built to kill him refused to burn him, and that when he was stabbed to death, so much blood issued from his body that it quenched the flames around him.

AN EXAMPLE OF AN EARLY CHURCH FATHER'S TEACHING ON THE EUCHARIST. SOMETHING PROTESTANTS OFTEN BELITTLE CATHOLICS ABOUT (transubstantiation):

Jesus said, "Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you." (John 6:53).

Protestants claim that Jesus' statement about the Body & Blood were are clear from the Scriptures that the words referring to the eating and drinking of the body and blood of Jesus are to be understood in a spiritual or symbolic sense and not literally. Yet Ignatius a student of the apostle John already set us straight on this over 1900 years ago.

On the Eucharist, Ignatius (student of the apostle John) wrote in his letter to the Smyrnaeans:

“ Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes. — Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1

Definition of transubstantiation:
- the Roman Catholic doctrine that the whole substance of the bread and the wine changes into the substance of the body and blood of Christ when ...
- transmutation: an act that changes the form or character or substance of something

Much what we know about Ignatius is from letters he wrote during his trip from Antioch to Rome, which took place under military guard because he had been condemned to death in Trajan's persecution for being a Christian. On this journey he wrote seven revealing letters, which make him an outstanding witness to Christianity in sub-apostolic times. Four of Ignatius' letters were written at Smyrna, where he had been received with great honor by Polycarp and many other Christians. They were addressed to the churches of Ephesus, Magnesia, Tralles, and Rome. At Troas he wrote his remaining letters to Polycarp and to the churches of Philadelphia and Smyrna.

THE WORD "CATHOLIC":
It is from the word katholikos that the word "catholic" comes. When Ignatius wrote the Letter to the Smyrnaeans in about the year 107 and used the word "catholic", he used it as if it were a word already in use to describe the Church. This has led many scholars to conclude that the appellation "catholic Church" with its ecclesial connotation may have been in use as early as the last quarter of the first century.

I'm curious, do you even have a clue as to how the scriptures were preserved throughout the centuries? Do you realize that they were written on parchment or sheepskin that deteriorated over time? Do you not know that they were painstakingly copied over the centuries by Catholic monks, who were among the few people at the time that could actually read and write? Do you not know that there is no secular historian that seriously accepts the Trail of Blood fantasy?