Second Coming

Icemoon SG

And we wonder why they took so long .. and ended up with the same canon as the Jews. Laughing

vadermanu89 SG

Not really meh. The EO and Caths got a different OT Canon. I believe the EO has yet to make a definitive ruling on the OT Canon though most of them have 76 books. Caths got 73 books while the Prots got 66 books.

Icemoon SG

They early church resembled Protestant in the sense they had no definite hierarchy structure. While there were bishops or elders, the apostle Paul did not see these people as how we will see bishops today. Probably because parousia is near, there is no need for a clear hierarchy.

The Bishop of Rome, while not exercising any primacy, was certainly a respected figure, c.f. the Tome of Leo.

Icemoon SG

Well, the deutero-canonical should be excluded from the discussion. So what we have at the core is the same bible.

Icemoon SG

By the way, you a fan of the EO?

My heart goes out to Nestorius, Bishop of Constantinople. Laughing

vadermanu89 SG

If you mean the NT Church then it depends since everyone can intepretate it differently. Sure there is little difference between elders and bishops and most certainly zero mention of cardinals. But then again we have the so-called Petrine Verses such as Mat 16:18 which doesn't fit Protestantism theologies.

If you mean the early Christian Church during the chaotic 2nd century, then I beg to differ haha! By that era St Ignatius had clearly outlined the the three-fold office and Apostolic Succession were beginning to be preached.

The Bishop of Rome only truly began to exercise her primacy around the 3rd century onwards. We do have instances of Popes such as Pope Victor attempting to settle the Easter Controversy in 190AD but the Eastern Churches never did accepted his right to intervene. Pope Leo the Great was a clear example of not just Papal Primacy but rather Papal Supremacy. At times he seems more forceful than Vatican 1 haha!

vadermanu89 SG

I am not a fan of EO though I am currently attempting to learn more about Eastern Christianity. With so much controversy in Western Christianity especially with regards to Salvation and Justification, perhaps the Easterns may have been right all along haha!

vadermanu89 SG

Well in that case yes the Core of the OT Canon was long known. Do the Reformed Thinking allows for Newman's Development of Doctrines?

Icemoon SG

No idea what you are talking about.

You mean J H Newman?

Icemoon SG

got controversy meh? I thought it is an issue already settled.

Icemoon SG

Why doesn't it fit?

I think it fits Christian theology 'cos Peter, the bumbling idiot, has nothing but faith which he shows at the end, i.e. the upside down crucification of Peter.

He obviously has no idea who Jesus was, how dare he rebuked Jesus when the latter talked about the impending Passion event.

As chief apostle, he is a total disgrace among the 12, considering how Paul rebuked him.

vadermanu89 SG

Yes Cardinal John Henry Newman, the Anglican Convert.

vadermanu89 SG

Well the Lutherans and the Caths may have settled it but there are still so many different teachings in Western Christianity. It does seems to back the Eastern Cath and EO claims that Augustine's Original Sin theology is filled with errors Smile

vadermanu89 SG

I mean the office Jesus Christ gave to Peter as his Stewart in the New Church. EO and Cath can reconcile it with their teachings but not the Reformed teachings.

« Previous Page