The RCC born in 313 AD? (2)

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Hi, I am wondering, is it the following passages that you're thinking about?

(Psalms 2:7 KJV) I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

(Acts 13:33 KJV) God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.

(Hebrews 1:5 KJV) For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
​

From the bigger picture ... but I can't find the reference to the second half of the statement in the quote of Hebrews in the OT

Acts 13
31 and he was seen for many days of them that came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are now his witnesses unto the people.

32 And we bring you good tidings of the promise made unto the fathers,

33 that God hath fulfilled the same unto our children, in that he raised up Jesus; as also it is written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.

34 And as concerning that he raised him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, he hath spoken on this wise, I will give you the holy and sure blessings of David.

35 Because he saith also in another psalm, Thou wilt not give Thy Holy One to see corruption.

36 For David, after he had in his own generation served the counsel of God, fell asleep, and was laid unto his fathers, and saw corruption:

37 but he whom God raised up saw no corruption.

38 Be it known unto you therefore, brethren, that through this man is proclaimed unto you remission of sins:

39 and by him every one that believeth is justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.

40 Beware therefore, lest that come upon you which is spoken in the prophets:

41 Behold, ye despisers, and wonder, and perish; For I work a work in your days, A work which ye shall in no wise believe, if one declare it unto you.

Hebrews 1
1 God, having of old time spoken unto the fathers in the prophets by divers portions and in divers manners,

2 hath at the end of these days spoken unto us in his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom also he made the worlds;

3 who being the effulgence of his glory, and the very image of his substance, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had made purification of sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

4 having become by so much better than the angels, as he hath inherited a more excellent name than they.

5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, This day have I begotten thee? and again, I will be to him a Father, And he shall be to me a Son?

6 And when he again bringeth in the firstborn into the world he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.

7 And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels winds, And his ministers a flame a fire:

8 but of the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever; And the sceptre of uprightness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; Therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee With the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning didst lay the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the works of thy hands:

11 They shall perish; but thou continuest: And they all shall wax old as doth a garment;

12 And as a mantle shalt thou roll them up, As a garment, and they shall be changed: But thou art the same, And thy years shall not fail.

13 But of which of the angels hath he said at any time, Sit thou on my right hand, Till I make thine enemies the footstool of thy feet?

14 Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to do service for the sake of them that shall inherit salvation

 

[Root of Jesse]

It is the question that this thread subject title brings up.

I thought we were all on the same page on that one.

So it's an academic question, sorta like the show last night on Smithsonian about "What was Stonehenge?" All pure conjecture on the part of those outside of the Catholic Church.

No doubt. Group-think works that way all day long.

But this is not a "Catholic only" discussion board -- so here you have to be objective to make a compelling case.

That would be great, so just ignore the evidence at hand in order to foment your own ideology. I get it now.

That is why I point to that list of Catholic doctrines and ask how many of them can you toss out the window and still have the RCC.

That answer is simple. None.

If you can toss them all out the window - then Methodists can claim they are the true church and they are the RCC.

Anyone can claim it. Only one can name it.

I think we all see the problem.

If you take the other approach and argue that all these doctrines are needed to have the RCC -- then you are stuck with the fact that none of them are in taught by the first century NT writers - making the origin of the actual RCC some time after 100 A.D.

Well that's you're opinion, but it would be wrong. But who says it must be in Scripture to be a valid belief??? That "rule" was made up in the 1500's.

Impossible to escape.



Actually I am the one that said it does not matter. Because if Peter is in Rome NOT TEACHING the doctrines of the RCC -- then it does not make the RCC part of the first century church.

The Problem remains for the RCC.

Well, no, it doesn't. But Peter was in Rome. You just want to ignore the evidence.

Indeed and the 313A.D. Title for this thread does not claim that Christianity itself did not start until 313 A.D. but it questions whether the RCC itself began at that point.

and the answer is no, it began on Pentecost.

All of us a Christian. Just arguing that Christians existed in the first century does not make them RCC.


in Christ,

Bob

There was only one Church instituted by Christ. If you claim to be a Christ-ian, then you're part of it. Then the question remains "How perfectly, or imperfectly...?"

 

[MoreCoffee]

But Paul, our Apostle, was given a new revelation in 63 AD no one wanted to hear.

2 Tim 1:15 This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me; of whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes.

And not many want to hear it today.
Paul's commission, as should be ours:
Eph 3:8-9
8 Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ;
9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:

Paul is to the Gentiles as Moses was to Israel. They were THE MEN through whom God spoke.

Very few are willing to listen.

I've never seen any passage in sacred scripture compare saint Paul to Moses but I have seen our Lord Jesus Christ compared to Moses in the scriptures. So why do you say that "Paul is to the Gentiles as Moses was to Israel"? Do you have any good reason for making this comparison?

 

[~Anastasia~]

Robert Witham was an Englishman and a Catholic. He was a biblical scholar and head of a college, he was born in 1667 AD and died in 1738 AD. He wrote this about Acts 13:33: <snip>

Ah, I think I am beginning to see. We were simply really speaking of two different things, I think. That is often the case when there seems to be a disagreement (which is why I try not to jump to a conclusion of being disagreeable.)

My main concern was that Christ was not considered to have a point of origin in time - which would essentially make Him a creature - as being "begotten". In the same sense that I wanted to make sure that the Holy Spirit is not seen to "proceed" from the Father as being a "creation" moment in time.

The only answer is that it must be eternal. Which I know the orthodox (small "o") Christian belief is that God is a Trinity - and co-eternal. So therefore having been "begotten" or "proceeding" in the Creed simply must be in an eternal sense?

But your other quotes and comments help. Of course we have the incarnation, at a point in time. Of course we have the resurrection, making Christ the firstfruits.

No one of these negates any of the other.

So it's all good, I think. Thanks for your post. Though I may need to read it another time or two and look into the Scripture references to make sure that what I'm getting from it is what was actually intended. But I think I'm following.

Thanks!

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Robert Witham was an Englishman and a Catholic. He was a biblical scholar and head of a college, he was born in 1667 AD and died in 1738 AD. He wrote this about Acts 13:33:

He then shews them that Jesus was their Messias, and the Son of God, begotten of his Father from eternity, who rose from the dead, and he applies these words, (Psalm 2:7) to prove Christ's resurrection, thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee. It is true, these words regard chiefly the eternal generation of Christ, as they are applied by St. Paul, (Hebrews 5:5) but the resurrection was a necessary consequence of his divinity, since death could have no power over him. St. Paul here also proves Christ's resurrection by the following predictions.​

He refers to "the following predictions" meaning the verses following Acts 13:33 which say:

Acts 13:32-42 KJV

(32) And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers,
(33) God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.
(34) And as concerning that he raised him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, he said on this wise, I will give you the sure mercies of David.
(35) Wherefore he saith also in another psalm, Thou shalt not suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.
(36) For David, after he had served his own generation by the will of God, fell on sleep, and was laid unto his fathers, and saw corruption:
(37) But he, whom God raised again, saw no corruption.
(38) Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins:
(39) And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.
(40) Beware therefore, lest that come upon you, which is spoken of in the prophets;
(41) Behold, ye despisers, and wonder, and perish: for I work a work in your days, a work which ye shall in no wise believe, though a man declare it unto you.
(42) And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath.​

A more recent translation may be easier to understand. Here's the one I use.

Acts 13:32-42 NJB (32) 'We have come here to tell you the good news that the promise made to our ancestors has come about. (33) God has fulfilled it to their children by raising Jesus from the dead. As scripture says in the psalms*: You are my son: today I have fathered you. (34) The fact that God raised him from the dead, never to return to corruption, is no more than what he had declared: To you I shall give the holy things promised to David which can be relied upon. (35) This is also why it says in another text: You will not allow your Holy One to see corruption. (36) Now when David in his own time had served God's purposes he died; he was buried with his ancestors and has certainly seen corruption. (37) The one whom God has raised up, however, has not seen corruption.

(38) 'My brothers, I want you to realise that it is through him that forgiveness of sins is being proclaimed to you. Through him justification from all sins from which the Law of Moses was unable to justify (39) is being offered to every believer.

(40) 'So be careful -- or what the prophets say will happen to you.

(41) Cast your eyes around you, mockers; be amazed, and perish! For I am doing something in your own days that you would never believe if you were told of it.'​

(42) As they left they were urged to continue this preaching the following Sabbath. (43) When the meeting broke up many Jews and devout converts followed Paul and Barnabas, and in their talks with them Paul and Barnabas urged them to remain faithful to the grace God had given them.

* Literally "the second psalm" many manuscripts say "the first psalm" the numbering of the psalms differed in the ancient collections.​

I am guessing that by "incubation period" ~Cassia~ may have been thinking of a kind of spiritual gestation period during which Jesus' mortal flesh underwent its natural human maturation and its untimely death at the hands of the Romans and the instigation of the leaders of the Jews. His human mortality was testified to by his death; only that which is mortal can die, that which is immortal cannot die. And when Jesus Christ rose on the third day he was raised as an immortal human. This is referred to as being raised in a "glorified body" by some writers. The point is, however, that Jesus was raised to immortal human life. This is necessary to Paul's argument, which is on the resurrection of Jesus as a proof that He was the Messiah. The quotation which follows need not refer alone to the birth of Jesus into this world. He was also the first-begotten from the dead, the firstfruits of them that slept. It is important to keep in mind what Psalm two is about since it forms a part of Paul's argument. The psalm celebrated the promise made to David of an eternal dynasty, a promise that was repeated regularly in the temple worship, in the hope of the ultimate Davidic king who would fulfil it completely. Paul goes on to cite Isaiah 55:3 to indicate that Israel’s future hope was bound up with the promise to David. Rabbis used a technique called gezerah shavah to connect passages that used the same key word; thus here Paul may use “holy” in Isaiah 55:3 to lead into a citation of Psalm 16:10, which guarantees that the object of David’s promise would never rot. Paul concludes with Habakkuk 1:5; he says “in the Prophets” because some of the smaller books of the prophets were grouped together and treated as a single book. Habakkuk refers to impending judgment under the Chaldeans (Habakkuk 1:6), which only the righteous remnant will endure by faith (Habakkuk 2:4); here the principle is applied to the judgment of the end.

According to Josephus, many Gentiles attended synagogues with great interest. Even as late as the fourth century, the Christian preacher John Chrysostom complains that Gentiles—in this case Christians—were still attending synagogue services. Those who were interested in Judaism but unattracted to circumcision might well find Paul’s message appealing. (drawn from several commentaries, especially The IVP Bible Background Commentary)

That sounds like a correct assesment altho there are areas that do remain a mystery to me that I want to delve into further ... thank you

 

[bbbbbbb]

I've never seen any passage in sacred scripture compare saint Paul to Moses but I have seen our Lord Jesus Christ compared to Moses in the scriptures. So why do you say that "Paul is to the Gentiles as Moses was to Israel"? Do you have any good reason for making this comparison?

This reminds me of a church I was once asked to visit by friends who belonged to it. In the sermon the pastor claimed that as Mose was to Israel, so he was to the congregation - every word that came from his mouth was to be obeyed implicitly.

 

[Targaryen]

This reminds me of a church I was once asked to visit by friends who belonged to it. In the sermon the pastor claimed that as Mose was to Israel, so he was to the congregation - every word that came from his mouth was to be obeyed implicitly.

Bad pastoral care then.

 

[Mama Kidogo]

Bad pastoral care then.

And delusions of grandeur.

 

[By Faith Alone]

MC:

Moses led Israel out of Egypt. He was a prophet.

Paul was given the office of Apostle to the Gentiles and it was by revelation he was given the "charter" of the church whch is HIS body bound for the heaven far above all. Showing people the facts of this revelation only tends to make them murmur just as Israel did in the Wilderness.

Yes. Paul IS the "Moses" of the Gentiles.

 

[MoreCoffee]

MC:

Moses led Israel out of Egypt. He was a prophet.

Paul was given the office of Apostle to the Gentiles and it was by revelation he was given the "charter" of the church whch is HIS body bound for the heaven far above all. Showing people the facts of this revelation only tends to make them murmur just as Israel did in the Wilderness.

Yes. Paul IS the "Moses" of the Gentiles.

Who is the "HIS" you are referring to? It looks as if you may mean Paul's body but that, surely, is not what you meant, is it? And what's this "charter"? I can't recall seeing any mention of such a thing in sacred scripture. And when saint Paul spoke of "the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me" he was not making a claim to exclusive authority over the gospel preached among the gentiles. His statement tells us that he was a preacher to the gentiles and that's a far cry from the picture you're trying to paint. Saint Paul also said "the gospel of the circumcision was [committed] unto Peter" but he did not mean thereby that Peter and Peter alone preached to Jews, quite the contrary, it was Paul's custom to go to the synagogue and preach to the Jews when he arrived in a new city. It seems that the way you read Galatians chapter two is misleading you.

Galatians 2:5-8 (5) We did not yield to them in subjection, even for an hour, in order that the truth of the Gospel would remain with you, (6) and away from those who were pretending to be something. (Whatever they might have been once, it means nothing to me. God does not accept the reputation of a man.) And those who were claiming to be something had nothing to offer me. (7) But it was to the contrary, since they had seen that the Gospel to the uncircumcised was entrusted to me, just as the Gospel to the circumcised was entrusted to Peter. (8) For he who was working the Apostleship to the circumcised in Peter, was also working in me among the Gentiles.​

Saint Paul was a preacher, he preached to Jews and to Gentiles and so did saint Peter; in fact saint Peter was the first of the apostles to preach to the gentiles when he preached to Cornelius and his household. So Paul is not "Moses" in any sense. He'd be more like one of the prophets who came after Moses than he is like Moses. It is Jesus Christ who is the Moses of the new covenant. Christ is the new law giver. Scripture tells us that explicitly. But scripture never compares Paul to Moses. And since what I asked of you was to show a passage comparing saint Paul to Moses and you have not yet done so it seems that you either cannot find one or you do not want to reply to that specific request.

 

[Targaryen]

Who is the "HIS" you are referring to? It looks as if you may mean Paul's body but that, surely, is not what you meant, is it? And what's this "charter"? I can't recall seeing any mention of such a thing in sacred scripture. And when saint Paul spoke of "the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me" he was not making a claim to exclusive authority over the gospel preached among the gentiles. His statement tells us that he was a preacher to the gentiles and that's a far cry from the picture you're trying to paint. Saint Paul also said "the gospel of the circumcision was [committed] unto Peter" but he did not mean thereby that Peter and Peter alone preached to Jews, quite the contrary, it was Paul's custom to go to the synagogue and preach to the Jews when he arrived in a new city. It seems that the way you read Galatians chapter two is misleading you.

Galatians 2:5-8 (5) We did not yield to them in subjection, even for an hour, in order that the truth of the Gospel would remain with you, (6) and away from those who were pretending to be something. (Whatever they might have been once, it means nothing to me. God does not accept the reputation of a man.) And those who were claiming to be something had nothing to offer me. (7) But it was to the contrary, since they had seen that the Gospel to the uncircumcised was entrusted to me, just as the Gospel to the circumcised was entrusted to Peter. (8) For he who was working the Apostleship to the circumcised in Peter, was also working in me among the Gentiles.​

Saint Paul was a preacher, he preached to Jews and to Gentiles and so did saint Peter; in fact saint Peter was the first of the apostles to preach to the gentiles when he preached to Cornelius and his household. So Paul is not "Moses" in any sense. He'd be more like one of the prophets who came after Moses than he is like Moses. It is Jesus Christ who is the Moses of the new covenant. Christ is the new law giver. Scripture tells us that explicitly. But scripture never compares Paul to Moses. And since what I asked of you was to show a passage comparing saint Paul to Moses and you have not yet done so it seems that you either cannot find one or you do not want to reply to that specific request.

Sounds just like something else concerning replacement of terms he's done before. I'm STILL waiting on him to provide that answer as well.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Sounds just like something else concerning replacement of terms he's done before. I'm STILL waiting on him to provide that answer as well.

tis a large forum for finding answers alas

 

[By Faith Alone]

Who is the "HIS" you are referring to? It looks as if you may mean Paul's body but that, surely, is not what you meant, is it? And what's this "charter"? I can't recall seeing any mention of such a thing in sacred scripture. And when saint Paul spoke of "the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me" he was not making a claim to exclusive authority over the gospel preached among the gentiles. His statement tells us that he was a preacher to the gentiles and that's a far cry from the picture you're trying to paint. Saint Paul also said "the gospel of the circumcision was [committed] unto Peter" but he did not mean thereby that Peter and Peter alone preached to Jews, quite the contrary, it was Paul's custom to go to the synagogue and preach to the Jews when he arrived in a new city. It seems that the way you read Galatians chapter two is misleading you.

Galatians 2:5-8 (5) We did not yield to them in subjection, even for an hour, in order that the truth of the Gospel would remain with you, (6) and away from those who were pretending to be something. (Whatever they might have been once, it means nothing to me. God does not accept the reputation of a man.) And those who were claiming to be something had nothing to offer me. (7) But it was to the contrary, since they had seen that the Gospel to the uncircumcised was entrusted to me, just as the Gospel to the circumcised was entrusted to Peter. (8) For he who was working the Apostleship to the circumcised in Peter, was also working in me among the Gentiles.​

Saint Paul was a preacher, he preached to Jews and to Gentiles and so did saint Peter; in fact saint Peter was the first of the apostles to preach to the gentiles when he preached to Cornelius and his household. So Paul is not "Moses" in any sense. He'd be more like one of the prophets who came after Moses than he is like Moses. It is Jesus Christ who is the Moses of the new covenant. Christ is the new law giver. Scripture tells us that explicitly. But scripture never compares Paul to Moses. And since what I asked of you was to show a passage comparing saint Paul to Moses and you have not yet done so it seems that you either cannot find one or you do not want to reply to that specific request.

**Must be buzzards I hear pecking at my roof. Too early for Santa Clause.

Nag, nag, nag. I cannot sit and immediately answer every post. Sorry.

The POINT IS that God chose Moses as well as He chose Paul. The 12 were appointed by the Lord in the BEGINNING as apostles to the circumcision (Israel).. Paul was chosen by the ASCENDED Lord and had a SEPARATE mission. The apostle to the GENTILES.

Cornelius was before Acts 28 and still had Israel in view, as was the ENTIRE Acts period (Acts 1:6, ;28:20). The Olive tree STILL stood!. Just as God used Moses to lead the children of Israel out of Egypt, He also chose Paul for a SPECIAL mission exclusively for the Gentiles (Acts 28:28). Paul's words has just as much authority as the Lord Jesus Christ Himself.

The mission of the 12 REMAIN under this temporary Heaven but the third calling, in first link below, is revealed to Paul, and Paul alone, for a higher Glory far beyond the limitations of the hope of Israel. NO MORE OLIVE TREE.

 

[By Faith Alone]

MC:

What Bible did you get Galatians 2:5-8 please?

 

[MoreCoffee]

**Must be buzzards I hear pecking at my roof. Too early for Santa Clause.

Nag, nag, nag. I cannot sit and immediately answer every post. Sorry.

The POINT IS that God chose Moses as well as He chose Paul. The 12 were appointed by the Lord in the BEGINNING as apostles to the circumcision (Israel).. Paul was chosen by the ASCENDED Lord and had a SEPARATE mission. The apostle to the GENTILES.

Cornelius was before Acts 28 and still had Israel in view, as was the ENTIRE Acts period (Acts 1:6, ;28:20). The Olive tree STILL stood!. Just as God used Moses to lead the children of Israel out of Egypt, He also chose Paul for a SPECIAL mission exclusively for the Gentiles (Acts 28:28). Paul's words has just as much authority as the Lord Jesus Christ Himself.

The mission of the 12 REMAIN under this temporary Heaven but the third calling, in first link below, is revealed to Paul, and Paul alone, for a higher Glory far beyond the limitations of the hope of Israel. NO MORE OLIVE TREE.

Okay, you don't have a passage that compares saint Paul to Moses. You should have just said so. Saying so would have saved us all from reading the rest of your post.

 

[MoreCoffee]

MC:

What Bible did you get Galatians 2:5-8 please?

From my bible; it is a modernised translation of the Vulgate that is called "Catholic Public Domain Bible" it is available free of charge on various web sites. Would you like one for yourself?

 

[~Anastasia~]

Paul's words has just as much authority as the Lord Jesus Christ Himself.

Somehow I'm surprised if you actually mean this literally.

Paul himself made the distinction between his own opinions and the words from God. If Paul's authority equalled Jesus Christ's, why bother with such a distinction?

Maybe that's not what you actually meant?

 

[By Faith Alone]

From my bible; it is a modernised translation of the Vulgate that is called "Catholic Public Domain Bible" it is available free of charge on various web sites. Would you like one for yourself?

Oh. A "CATHOLIC" Bible. I see:

Gal 2:7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel... of... the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel... of... the circumcision was unto Peter;

Do you happen to remember where the Gentiles were not to be burdened with the WHOLE law? The differences were at LEAST those few rules for the Gentiles.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Oh. A "CATHOLIC" Bible. I see:

Gal 2:7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel... of... the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel... of... the circumcision was unto Peter;

Do you happen to remember where the Gentiles were not to be burdened with the WHOLE law? The differences were at LEAST those few rules for the Gentiles.

Is there something that you think is significant about the "of" in the KJV?

If you prefer I can quote the verses from a conservative evangelical bible:

Galatians 2:7-9 NASB (7) But on the contrary, seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised (8) (for He who effectually worked for Peter in his apostleship to the circumcised effectually worked for me also to the Gentiles), (9) and recognizing the grace that had been given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we might go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.
​

Saint Paul was a preacher, he preached to Jews and to Gentiles and so did saint Peter; in fact saint Peter was the first of the apostles to preach to the gentiles when he preached to Cornelius and his household.

 

[By Faith Alone]

Somehow I'm surprised if you actually mean this literally.

Paul himself made the distinction between his own opinions and the words from God. If Paul's authority equalled Jesus Christ's, why bother with such a distinction?

Maybe that's not what you actually meant?

I already know he spoke without revelation at times and meant that. When Paul says..."BY REVELATION" ...he means just that and that is by the Authority of Jesus Christ THROUGH Paul.