protestantism

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Ask Jesus : One Thread

how can someone be protestant and christian?
if someone fully distrusts the RCC(with full right,i do too) and his whole life is about NOT being a catholic,how can he then accept the bible if the RCC are the ones who put the bible together
they could say anything in it
anything

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.Com), January 09, 2005

Answers

-- (bump@bump.bump), January 09, 2005.

The Roman Catholics did not put the Bible together.
The Bible was compiled by the prophets and apostles of God, and recognized as such by early believers long before the Roman Catholic Church even knew what was going on.
Jesus confirms the Old Testament Scriptures--and the apostles themselves confirm each other.
Centuries later--the RCC decided to put their stamp of approval on the Bible--and they neither added or subtracted anything that wasn't already added or subtracted by the early church.
The Bible comes to us by God's Divine Providence.

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 09, 2005.

Your view is funny, Faith. All Protestants are extracted from Catholicism. The Holy Bible is a compilation that was first filtered by the Church. Later, the Protestants started to fiddle with it.
...................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 09, 2005.

'Bible Christians rely on Catholic Tradition. For instance, how do they know that the 27 books of the New Testament belong in the Bible? How do they know that Mark wrote the Gospel of Mark? His name doesn't appear in the manuscripts. How do they know that public revelation ended with the death of the last apostle? They know these things the same way that Catholics know them, because the Catholic Church tells us so.'
this is true and this is why i doubt about the authenticity and the truth of the gospels,because i have million reasons why not to trust the RCC

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), January 10, 2005.

So, sqda, How can any individual prove that the Bible is credible, reliable, and inspired?
..................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 10, 2005.

sqda,
Parroting what the Catholic Church claims, doesn't make it true.
Do your homework.
Even the Scriptures themselves can shed light on the majority of accepted Scripture.
For example, Luke refers to Paul's work as inspired Scripture.
Early Christians were aware of what constituted as inspired Scripture long before the Catholic Church sat down to give the Bible its stamp of approval, in fact--centuries earlier.

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 10, 2005.

"Early Christians were aware of what constituted as inspired Scripture long before the Catholic Church sat down to give the Bible its stamp of approval, in fact--centuries earlier."--Faith.
That's not true. They didn't. That's why they had to sit down and figure out what was what, Faith. Even today we still don't agree with what belongs and what doesn't. Protestants (some) don't have a complete Bible.
..............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 10, 2005.

we don't know what there was originally said in the scriptures,we don't have manuscripts of the scriptures nor historical proof about it,we only have the bible that the RCC put together,the RCC could write there anything they want

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), January 10, 2005.

Exactly rod..,
Even today we still disagree.
That has always been the case--yet, ultimately, the New Testament Scriptures were understood even before Rome said so.
Rome merely agreed with what was already accepted. The list of New Testament Scripture was known before the Catholic Church convened behind closed doors.
All I am saying is that it is God's Divine purpose that we have His Word.

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 10, 2005.

"Rome merely agreed with what was already accepted. The list of New Testament Scripture was known before the Catholic Church convened behind closed doors. "--Faith.
That's not exactly true either. Rome did not "merely" agree. There were many conflicting doctrines and theologies during that time. The true doctrines and theologies were polarized into one. Hello Catholicism.
Why won't you give credit where credit is due, Faith? Yes, it was the inspired Word of God that was eventually compiled into one common source--The Holy Bible--for all to have. But, we still have confusion as a result of that Great Reformation. The Catholic Church structured it, the Reformation splintered it.
.......... ....................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 10, 2005.

That's how you see it rod.
I disagree that the bible was structured by the Roman Catholic council because the list of New Testament books can be seen earlier.
The Roman catholic religion is as much a splinter of the early church as is any religion.
Paul tells us that this problem began in his day.
The only way that Jesus' words could possibly be true when He said that His Body could not be divided--is that His Body is not of this world or caught up in any one religion whatsoever.
If the Protestant Reformation is a division of Catholicism, right there., Jesus was wrong!
But in truth, the Protestant Reformation isn't the first time that the church had problems and divided.

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 10, 2005.

where is the proof how these books look like?
where are the original manuscripts?
all biblical religious information about jesus and co we have through the catholic church
correct or not?

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), January 10, 2005.

False.
The Catholic Church didn't even exist until the time of Constatine when in A.D. 306, this emporer became a Christian and declared that Christianity was now the religion of the Roman Empire. But what kind of Christianity was it? Remember that Rome practiced a pagan religion until that time?
This is when babylonianism and organized Christianity merged. The rites of Babylon--complete with the veneration of images and relics, penances, pilgrimages, and other pagan rites and festivals--became part of Christian worship.
We see no evidence that the early church (any of the apostles or Jesus Himself) ever practiced Rome's version of Christianity like that.
The Christian church before that time was not Roman in any way. Peter, Paul and the other apostles never heard of Roman Catholicism.
The apostles were not Roman Catholics!!!

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 10, 2005.

CATHOLIC
"See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out[through their office] the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is[administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude[of the people] also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude[of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." Ignatius of Antioch,Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2(A.D. 110),in ANF,I:89
"[A]ll the people wondered that there should be such a difference between the unbelievers and the elect, of whom this most admirable Polycarp was one, having in our own times been an apostolic and prophetic teacher, and bishop of the Catholic Church which is in Smyrna. For every word that went out of his mouth either has been or shall yet be accomplished." Martyrdom of Polycarp,16:2(A.D. 155),in ANF,I:42
"[N]or does it consist in this, that he should again falsely imagine, as being above this [fancied being], a Pleroma at one time supposed to contain thirty, and at another time an innumerable tribe of Aeons, as these teachers who are destitute of truly divine wisdom maintain; while the Catholic Church possesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world, as we have already said." Irenaeus,Against Heresies,1:10,3(A.D. 180),in ANF,I:331-332
***********
VENERATION OF SAINTS/RELICS
"[T]hat it is neither possible for us ever to forsake Christ, who suffered for the salvation of such as shall be saved throughout the whole world (the blameless one for sinners), nor to worship any other. For Him indeed, as being the Son of God, we adore; but the martyrs, as disciples and followers of the Lord, we worthily love on account of their extraordinary affection towards their own King and Master, of whom may we also be made companions and fellow disciples! The centurion then, seeing the strife excited by the Jews, placed the body in the midst of the fire, and consumed it. Accordingly, we afterwards took up his bones, as being more precious than the most exquisite jewels, and more purified than gold, and deposited them in a fitting place, whither, being gathered together, as opportunity is allowed us, with joy and rejoicing, the Lord shall grant us to celebrate the anniversary of his martyrdom, both in memory of those who have already finished their course, and for the exercising and preparation of those yet to walk in their steps." Martyrdom of Polycarp 17,18(A.D. 157),in ANF,I:43
"As often as the anniversary comes round, we make offerings for the dead as birthday honours." Tertullian, The Crown,3(A.D. 211),in ANF,III:94
*****
I could have posted many more quotes showing the cohesive unit of the "Catholic Church." I also could have posted numerous quotes concering "relics" and the veneration of the saints. There are some great quotes from St. Jerome and St. Augustine, but they are too long and wordy (and besides, sometimes "less is more.")
At any rate, these customs or traditions did indeed evolve over time, that is true. But as you can see from the dates on these quotes, the seeds had already been planted long before Constantine.
BTW, Faith, I know I have asked you this before numerous times. Maybe you have answered and I missed it, but why-oh-why, if the Church went belly-up-to-Constantine and became apostate as you believe, is there no mention of this apostacy from men like Jerome and Augustine, who remained Catholic until the day they died and contributed substantially to the doctrines of the Church.
Gail
P.S. Also, I might mention here, that the pre-Constantine quotes on the Eucharist are extensive! The Eucharist is the center-piece of our worship at every mass. It has always been so.

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), January 10, 2005.

'We see no evidence that the early church (any of the apostles or Jesus Himself) ever practiced Rome's version of Christianity like that.
The Christian church before that time was not Roman in any way. Peter, Paul and the other apostles never heard of Roman Catholicism.
The apostles were not Roman Catholics!!! '
off course not!
i completely agree with you,finally someone who understands :)
but is there any proof that the christianity the apostels practice and that jesus taught are the same as described in the bible?
because the RCC put the bible together as we know it today and i think that they could easily add their own things and take some other things away of the new testament

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), January 10, 2005.

SDQA, the N.T., though it contains power-packed words of extraordinary meanings, are not very voluminous, are they? They contain only a very small segment of historical information. It is hard to find answers to all of our questions in a series of books that can be read in their entirety in one sitting, (by some).
That is why the historical writings of disciples OF the disciples (or apostles) can shed so much light on exactly what the early church was like. We know, from these writings that the Church was called "Catholic" from the very beginning. We know that the Church believed in "transubstantiation" or the "real presence of Christ" in the Eucharist. We know, from the above quotes I provided, that the relics of the martyrs were coveted and held dear by their friends, and we know that on the days of their martyrdom they were celebrated by the Church. And I could go on and on.
The practices of the Catholic Church are traditional, to be sure, but they are FIRMLY rooted in the practices and beliefs of our ancestors that date all the way back to first generation Christianity.
Gail

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), January 10, 2005.

Gail,
I never denied that the Christian church was called catholic and is meant universal.
But none of your quotes say Roman Catholic. And I bet the c isn't initially capitalized., or at least--it shouldn't be.
There is also a huge difference between what Christians in the early church were doing with these relics, and what the Roman Church turned it into.
The apostles nor Jesus ever idolized relics or saints.

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 10, 2005.

Also Gail.,
--there is a huge difference between believing in the real presence of jesus Christ--something I believe in., and the doctrine of transubstantiation which says that the bread and wine literally turn into the literal flesh and blood of jesus Christ and that we literally have to eat Him.
I think if you read the early church father's quotes with the understanding that this real presence is spiritual, you can see that what they believed was very different from what Rome changed it into.

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 10, 2005.

No, Faith, these quotes state what the Eucharist IS, not what it represents: (These are the short ones; there are many more.)
"They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again" Ignatius of Antioch,Epistle to Smyrnaeans,7,1(c.A.D. 110),in ANF,I:89
"For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour,having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh." Justin Martyr,First Apology,66(A.D. 110-165),in ANF,I:185
"[T]he bread over which thanks have been given is the body of their Lord, and the cup His blood..." Irenaeus,Against Heresies,IV:18,4 (c.A.D. 200),in ANF,I:486
"He acknowledged the cup (which is a part of the creation) as his own blood,from which he bedews our blood; and the bread (also a part of creation) he affirmed to be his own body, from which he gives increase to our bodies." Irenaeus,Against Heresies,V:2,2(c.A.D. 200),in NE,119
"But what consistency is there in those who hold that the bread over which thanks have been given is the Body of their Lord, and the cup His Blood, if they do not acknowledge that He is the Son of the Creator of the world..." Irenaeus,Against Heresies,IV:18,2(c.A.D. 200),in JUR,I:95
**************
Here is an excerpt from the quote I provided earlier about the veneration of the relic of Polycarp: "Accordingly, we afterwards took up his bones, as being more precious than the most exquisite jewels, and more purified than gold, and deposited them in a fitting place, whither, being gathered together, as opportunity is allowed us, with joy and rejoicing, the Lord shall grant us to celebrate the anniversary of his martyrdom, both in memory of those who have already finished their course, and for the exercising and preparation of those yet to walk in their steps."
"The apostles nor Jesus ever idolized relics or saints." That is simply because they were ALL STILL ALIVE. You have to have bodily died to provide a relic.
Gail
P.S. If you want me to provide SCORES of quotes showing that THE Church was one cohesive unit under the name Catholic, I will be happy to do so. I have provided them before, however, and you have never bothered to read them. There is no break in the succession of bishops (according to Augustine, Eusebius and others), and there is no proof of this alleged apostacy you claim occurred at the time of Constantine.

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), January 10, 2005.

Gail.,
These quotes don't read to me the way you want them to. But even if they did--it doesn't mean anything. Desception and false teaching entered the church right away., as Paul warned us.
What matters is what do the Scriptures say? What did the apostles themselves say?

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 10, 2005.

I think if you read the early church father's quotes with the understanding that this real presence is spiritual, you can see that what they believed was very different from what Rome changed it into - Faith

"They [heretics] abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again"

"[T]he bread over which thanks have been given is the body of their Lord, and the cup His blood..."

"For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour,having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh."
"He acknowledged the cup (which is a part of the creation) as his own blood, from which he bedews our blood; and the bread (also a part of creation) he affirmed to be his own body, from which he gives increase to our bodies."

How much clearer can Justin, Ignatius, and Irenaeus be?

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), January 10, 2005.

What matters is what do the Scriptures say? What did the apostles themselves say? - Faith

No one is arguing with what the Scriptures say. Jesus clearly said "this is my body". We're arguing about the interpretations. Gail quoted from men who lived in the apostolic age or not far removed from it. She quoted from men who died for the Faith. Are you saying that these men were involved with deception and false teachings? What they say agrees with the words of Scripture. Their interpretation however, is different than yours.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), January 10, 2005.

"What matters is what do the Scriptures say? What did the apostles themselves say"
John 6 54: Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
1 Corin 10: 16 Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ?
1 Corin 11:27 Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, SHALL BE GUILTY OF THE BODY AND THE BLOOD OF THE LORD! No symbolism here, Faith, it says GUILTY OF THE BODY AND BLOOD of the Lord.

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), January 10, 2005.

Very cute Gail., but of course--then we would also have to accept that Jesus is a literal Shepherd and that only sheep get saved., that Jesus is a door, complete with hinges and a knob and maybe even a lock., and that Jesus is a lampstand--shade and all? Ah yes--and don't forget that He is a true vine as well.

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 10, 2005.

Like you always say, Faith, "you just have to know what to take literal and what not to take literal."
Apparently, the Corinthians who ate the body and drank the blood unworthily, very literally received the condemnation St. Paul described and very literally "died."
Your ancestors in the faith, and mine took these words to be quite literal, so why in the world should I not? Just because you say so? No disrespect to you Faith, but I would rather be part of the unified body of believers who took their faith serious enough to die for, who were under the umbrella of the one holy, Catholic and apostolic Church!
Gail

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), January 10, 2005.

Interesting and funny twist, Faith. No one here is asserting that only the literal sheep are saved, but you. There's that interpretive dance, cute!
.............................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 10, 2005.

Those analogies are found in the very same chapter along with the verses that call Jesus the bread from heaven, and say that we must eat his flesh to see life.
These are all analogies impressing a deeper spiritual truth. That is my point.
You can't just determine that one out of all those analogies must be taken literally. Why not all of them, then?

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 10, 2005.

Oops!
There's that interprative dance, cute! Let's call it the "Twist"!
..........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 10, 2005.

"You can't just determine that one out of all those analogies must be taken literally. Why not all of them, then? "--Faith.
Uh, because of the Holy Spirit given the believer the power of discernment and faith that is why. Yup. It also has to do with acceptance, not self-interpretation, which is based on lack of understanding and wishful thinking.
..................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 10, 2005.

Whatever you say rod.
Go ahead and and idolize a wafer all you want!

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 10, 2005.

There you go with the TWIST, Faith. Your interprative dancing gets real cute; it does. But, no. Idolize a wafer? Perhaps that is your view of the Eucharist, not mine. The Eucharist is actually part of the celebration of our Salvation in Jesus Christ. It is also part of our human acceptance of His sacrifice for all who believe in Him. Catholics just don't sit, sing, and have Bible classes during mass. Catholics physically engage in the acceptance of Christ because of His sacrifice on the cross for all mankind without this human concept of time. It is His divine perception of eternal Salvation that knows no time limits. It is one sacrifice through His time frame for all people now and in the future. It isn't about your concept and warped understanding of a "wafer". It is about Christ on the cross for all of mankind.
........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 10, 2005.

"Go ahead and and idolize a wafer all you want!" Yikes, that's what the folks that "fell dead" thought of it . . . NOTHING!

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), January 10, 2005.

faith is right about this eucharist thing.....
that's my opinion

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), January 11, 2005.

Faith is right about the Eucharist? Well, she was at one time, but not anymore. So, sdqa, would you please elaborate on your understanding about the Eucharist?
....................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 11, 2005.

--------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------
Whatever you say rod. Go ahead and and idolize a wafer all you want! "It is a hard saying, how can anyone eat His flesh"?
"Will you aso leave"? "Where shall we go Lord. you have the truth"

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), January 11, 2005.

HAHAHAHAHAAHAHA
hahahaahahaha
good one tc

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), January 11, 2005.

but anyway i think the eucharist is a piece of bread or something?

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), January 11, 2005.

sdqa do you know what TC meant in his previous post?
Your understanding of the Holy Eucharist needs more enlightening.
.............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 11, 2005.

iM NOT ANSWERING sq RIGHT NOW, AS HE SI A TROLL, BUT fAITH, WE HAVE BEEN THROUGH THIS BEFORE...
False. The Catholic Church didn't even exist until the time of Constatine when in A.D. 306, this emporer became a Christian and declared that Christianity was now the religion of the Roman Empire.
Constantine never made the Christain faithhte official state rleigion, he only mad it Legal withthe edits of Malin. it took about 50 years before it became recognised as the state rleiion, and ocnstantine was dead already before this time...

But what kind of Christianity was it? Remember that Rome practiced a pagan religion until that time?
Not this again, didnt we discuss this Faith?
did nothig sink in?
This is when babylonianism and organized Christianity merged.
At leats accordign tot he deranged rantigns of alexander hislop and the writtigns of those who use him as a source, or use others hwo use him as a source...
But the romans did NOT practie babylonain rleigion, tu endo_european aganism, headed by a Storm god, known tot he Romans as Jupiter...

The rites of Babylon--complete with the veneration of images and relics, penances, pilgrimages, and other pagan rites and festivals-- became part of Christian worship.
Can you prove that thse thigs, aside form Image veneration ( Idol worhsp rellay) where part of Babylonian rleigion?
whats more, can you prove that rime practiced babylonain rleigion?
We see no evidence that the early church (any of the apostles or Jesus Himself) ever practiced Rome's version of Christianity like that.
so thr wuotes above ar useless, what abotu Nible erses sucha s Paul saifn to confess one oanother???
I may disagree with some Cahtolci praxctices, but to say NONE of the thigns in Cahtolisism are Biblcal is a bit extreme...
The Christian church before that time was not Roman in any way. Peter, Paul and the other apostles never heard of Roman Catholicism.
OK, the poitn beign what? what of the claims toat peter latermoved to orme? ( The evidence he wasnt there, Paul ot mentioign him in his leter, is weak sicne he may just have yet to have traveeld to rome...)
The apostles were not Roman Catholics!!!
OK, so what? The roman Pagans didnt practice babylonainism either, but you persist in your presentaiton that they did...so why trust you?

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 11, 2005.

I have a gut feeling that "greg" and "sdqa" are the same poster.
..............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 11, 2005.

Zarove, it is such a pleasure to have your expert knowledge on history on this forum. (BTW, what is a "troll")
I would add, that the Church had not acquired the name "Roman" at the time of the inception of the Church, but they certainly did use the word "Catholic," to describe the one universal church.
Furthermore, they were not Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, Pentecostals or Presbyterians. They were not fundamentalists. They were not evangelicals. They were not Episcopalians. They were not Anglicans, nor were they "store front" churches meeting under the authority of a self-elected pastor.
By the description of the Church Fathers as EVIDENCED in their writings, they were ONE BODY and they called themselves Catholic.
Gail

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), January 11, 2005.

Still Gail--that church was not the same as the Roman Catholic Church either. the word catholic meant universal--not Roman.

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 11, 2005.

"You think that you make a very acute remark when you affirm the name Catholic to mean universal, not in respect to the communion as embracing the whole world, but in respect to the observance of all Divine precepts and of all the sacraments, as if we (even accepting the position that the Church is called Catholic because it honestly holds the whole truth, of which fragments here and there are found in some heresies) rested upon the testimony of this word's signification, and not upon the promises of God, and so many indisputable testimonies of the truth itself, our demonstration of the existence of the Church of God in all nations." Augustine,To Vincent the Rogatist,93:7,23(A.D. 403),in NPNF1,I:390
"Number the bishops from the See of Peter itself. And in that order of Fathers see who has succeeded whom. That is the rock against which the gates of hell do not prevail" Augustine,Psalm against the Party of Donatus,18(A.D. 393),in GCC,51
"I am held in the communion of the Catholic Church by...and by the succession of bishops from the very seat of Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection commended His sheep to be fed up to the present episcopate." Augustine,Against the Letter of Mani,5(A.D. 395),in GCC,78
"Carthage was also near the countries over the sea, and distinguished by illustrious renown,so that it had a bishop of more than ordinary influence, who could afford to disregard a number of conspiring enemies because he saw himself joined by letters of communion to the Roman Church, in which the supremacy of an apostolic chair has always flourished" Augustine,To Glorius et.al,Epistle 43:7(A.D. 397),in NPNF1,I:278
"If the lineal succession of bishops is to be considered with how much more benefit to the Church do we reckon from Peter himself,to whom, as bearing in a figure the whole Church, the Lord said: Upon this rock I will build my church,and the gates of hell shall not conquer it!' For to Peter succeeded Linus,Clement...Damsus,Sircius,Anastasius. In this order of sucession no Donatist bishop is too be found." Augustine,To Generosus,Epistle 53:2(A.D. 400),in GILES,180-181
And finally,
"The chair of the Roman Church, in which Peter sat, and in which Anastasius sits today." Augustine, Against the Letters of Petillian,2:51(A.D. 402),in GCC,78
Yes, I am in the very same Church of which Augustine writes!

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), January 11, 2005.

Gail,
What do you think this proves to me?
The truth is that even the Catholic Encyclopedia admits that a true line of succession cannot be determined for sure--your church has two lists., none in which, by-the-way, ever list Peter!
We were discussing the word catholic which never meant Roman Catholic until this Roman Church took it for itself in order to counter Luther!

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 11, 2005.

Anglcians in an odd way did exist... since hte time of Jospeh or Amenathia at leat,and by soem acounts St. john.
The celtic chruches existed independant of irme, as thy had no contact, bt whe ein a small minority till augustine the Kess became the irts archbisop and converted england t Catholisism. Noentelss, the nelgish churhc had its own traditions and culture, and was called the "Church of england" and "anglican' ince thi time.
It aso petitioned for independance form boht the Pope and king i the eleciton fo bihsops and setitng of litergy, and was grantdhtis, as the firts article in the Magna carta.
Nonethelsss, te current anglcian chruch and communion owes its existance ot a shcism from rome, the former that I just described beign in full Union with rome at the time, until henry wantd to marry ann Bolyne while still marird to Cathrine of Aragorn and thus needed an annil,mnt and th Pope said no.
The pre-existance of the angican cruc was the legal basis fr the divisionw ith orme. ( een thought he Magna Carta also stipulated that the King woidl hav no auhtority over the chruch either, but I digress...)

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 11, 2005.

The truth is that even the Catholic Encyclopedia admits that a true line of succession cannot be determined for sure--your church has two lists., none in which, by-the-way, ever list Peter! - Faith

What's your source Faith? What two lists?

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), January 11, 2005.

Faith, I posted Augustine because he refers to the Church as both "Catholic" and the "Roman Church." He is also very well respected by both Catholics and Protestants. I also like to use Augustine because he was QUITE Catholic in all of his beliefs, as EVIDENCED by his writings.
There are volumes of writings from 1st century Christians on up through the Constantine period, and NEVER A HINT OF CONSTANTINE ambushing the Church like you suppose. WHERE'S THE EVIDENCE!
I have seen the fruit of rebellion in my own life and it is a rascal to contain, and it is as the "sin of witchcraft." It wreaks havoc on your soul like no other sin. Since I firmly believe that the Catholic Church IS the organic outgrowth of the apostolic church, (and no one can prove otherwise, at least to me) I would be in clear rebellion to "jump ship."
I know that you and I look at evidence in two completely different ways. I have had the pleasure (or displeasure depending on how you look at) to work for some pretty bigtime litigators in my lifetime, trial lawyers that are "experts" in evidence. I have vicariously been groomed to search for facts. And all of the facts prove to me "beyond a reasonable doubt" that she is who she says she is . . . the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church!
Gail

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), January 11, 2005.

Deception is sugar-coated Gail. And the way in which paganism infiltrated the church of Jesus Christ was slow....but clearly it began at that time.
There was never a Roman Catholic Church in the earlier days, either, Gail.
The church was always refered to as catholic. No one denies that. It is still refered to as catholic. It is the holy catholic and apostolic church. But that has nothing to do with Rome.
Did you know that Calvin was a huge fan of Augustine? He cites Augustine's work more than anything else in his *Institutes.*

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 11, 2005.

Faith, the fact is that Augustine, Clement, Ignatius, Jerome, Athanasius and so on and so on were all part of ONE Church, and these gentlemen were in clear submission to that Church. If what you say is true -- that Constantine hijacked the Church -- surely someone would have noticed it. Secondly, Christ could have vaporized Constantine and anyone who tried to "take over His" Church in an nanosecond, and surely we could expect that he would have. His Church is indestructible, like He said, and will prevail until the end.
As regards to Protestantism -- the division, the discord, the mayhem - - this is clearly not of Christ but the work of the devil. Now, I'm not staying that good hasn't come out of it, because most assuredly great good has come out of it, but the "structure" of Protestantism itself does not hold the blessing of Christ, that's why we see the splintering and doctrinal divisions, and that is why as institutions, they are doomed.
The structure of Catholicism has not withstood the test of time because there has always been holy popes at the helm, but on the contrary, the structure of Catholocism has stayed the course, INSPITE of UNholy men at the helm . . . just because He made it so.
If the structure, or institution of the RCC had been demolished at the time of Constantine, the Church would not, could not exist today. It would have splintered into a million pieces, fullfilling Christ's own words "A house divided against itself will not stand."
In my area, which is a relatively small three-county rural area, I know lots of Christians. My Protestant friends change churches like some folks (hopefully) change their underwear. "Church hopping" is the phenomenon of our time. The lack of continuity and steadfastness is dizzying if not nauseating. My friends leave one church because the pastor is teaching "this or that." Then they leave their new church because "the board of elders is taking over." Then they leave the next church because "the pastor is 'too' concerned about the poor." Then the kick the next pastor out because "he spends too much money" on the church, and on and on it goes.
Now, I go to mass, and in the quiet of my soul, and in deep intimacy with my Lord, I can focus completely on Him, and finally I have peace from the confusion and dilirium of Protestantism.
Gail

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), January 11, 2005.

hypothetically speaking...
"They [heretics] abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again"
paul did mention that people were corrupting the church even in his day... is it hypothetically possible that the THEY in this text could technically be the church and the speaker of this text technically the heretic?
secular historians believe the babylonian, sumerian, mesopotamian version of myth because it was written down earlier than the bible. so that means the bible stories are a rip off of those earlier accounts. we know that logically speaking, it's possible that the bible stories are more true and earlier than the others, it's just that the others were technically written down first.
so in regards to quoting from early church fathers... they were in unity and their works were written down. does that make them "more right?" like the secular historians?

-- rina (hellorina@aol.com), January 11, 2005.

Hi Rina,
They are not "more right" but they "shed light" on the teachings of the Church found in the pages of the N.T. The writers I quoted above do not teach contradictions to scripture, but rather "expound" what has already been written.
Gail

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), January 11, 2005.

hypothetically speaking...
"They [heretics] abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again"
paul did mention that people were corrupting the church even in his day... is it hypothetically possible that the THEY in this text could technically be the church and the speaker of this text technically the heretic?
Thwe problem wihthtat i that the same cruhc romoted these writings.
That said, Gails main point in showing these quotaitosn is to refute faiths claim hat the early chruch did not hold these veiws till the time of constantine, when, accordign to her, babylonian Mystery rleigion emrged with Christendom. if a quote exists befoe the edict of Malin by a cuple of centiries, it discredits faiths argument.

secular historians believe the babylonian, sumerian, mesopotamian version of myth because it was written down earlier than the bible.
They dont actualy beleive htem, htye jusy think the Bible was based on he common myths of the region, and not all secular researchers beelive this...
But this aside...

so that means the bible stories are a rip off of those earlier accounts.
Only to those Bgots who want to trash Christianity...
wven those shcoalrs who beleive the other myths re odler sont think the Bible was plagersied, they think its just a long lien of retellign in a cultural myth that spanned the region...
So large difference here...

we know that logically speaking, it's possible that the bible stories are more true and earlier than the others, it's just that the others were technically written down first.
Faith claims that Bbaylonian paganism infested the churhc athe time of Ocnstantine, and he teachigns, suhc as the eucharist, origionated whthim, thats the queatsin beign answered here...

so in regards to quoting from early church fathers... they were in unity and their works were written down. does that make them "more right?" like the secular historians?
It makes htem older than cnstantine, andthats whats relaly important here.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 11, 2005.

stupid italics...If elp can adjust...
[Previous Post Edited.]

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 11, 2005.

Gail?
When did I say that Constatine hyjacked the church?
I think you misunderstand.
I said that Constatine declared that the pagan state of Rome would now be a Christian state.
Remember that the Roman Catholic Church didn't exist yet.
Christianity began to merge with babylonianism--and there were those who tried to fight Rome over this.
Even though we don't fully know about much of all the attempts to fight Rome before the first best known division in about 1000 A.D when the great schism occured--it doesn't mean there weren't problems and protests going on.
Rome ruled with an iron fist though. I am sure you don't need a history refresher course.

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 11, 2005.

Faiht, you do relaise cnstantine ewas dead before the roman state religion officially changed to Christainity, right?

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 11, 2005.

"I said that Constatine declared that the pagan state of Rome would now be a Christian state."
I'm sure that Christians were rejoicing, much as they would here in America if George Bush declared the U.S. to be a Christian state! Freedom from torture and the guillotine after 400 years of intense persecution must have been . . . well, I can't even imagine!
You seem fixated on the negative aspect of the legalization of Christendom, but the flip-side of the coin is that the persecution of Christians, because of Constantine, died down DRAMATICALLY, at least to a large extent. Of course there were still Vandals, and other barbaric groups that pillaged churches, monestaries, etc., and did all the way up through the Middle Ages. Bloody, bloody was Europe, barbaric and ruthless. The Church fought fire with fire. Even the crusades we hear so much about were the result of retaliation against ruthless murderers and heartless hounds who persecuted the Church mercilessly until the Church finally fought back. Should they have retaliated? I didn't walk in their shoes. If my children were at risk, there's no tellin' . . .
You seem to think that the Reformation put an end to this sort of "bloody tactic" and if you do you are dead WRONG. Protestantism spurred yet even more violence, this time brother-against-brother. Catholicism/Protestantism became "political footballs" all across Europe. The blood of our ancestors, both Catholic and Protestant, saturates the soil of Europe as a result of that "family feud."
Gail
BTW, I didn't know that about Calvin's love for Augustine, though it doesn't surprise me. Augustine is a favorite of many. Did you know that Augustine died a very old man at the age of 75 during the demise of the Roman Empire that he so vehemently detested. He wrote The City of God where he contrasted the "City of Jerusalem" (our heavenly home) with the pagan worldy powers of his day, i.e., Rome. It might also interest you to know that it was Augustine who promoted the notion that Catholicism as an institution would survive despite the sinfulness of its members (clergy included).

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), January 11, 2005.

Yes, Calvin did like Augustine. His error, in my opinion, was diverging from Augustine's teachings. He took part of them, but added his own understanding fell into error. Perhaps David could comment when he gets back.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), January 12, 2005.

He took part of them, but added his own understanding and then fell into error.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), January 12, 2005.

Gail,
My point is that even though Constatine declared Romae a Christian state, nothing really changed for Rome. They continued in their pagan practices and just called them Christian now. This was the first time a Christian practiced Christianity in the way that Rome continues to this day--with all the adoration of a queen of heaven and shrines built to her and penance, pilgrimages, and the worship of relics.
We simply do not see this sort of practice in the New Testament- It slowly became part of Christian worship.
Rome became power hungry and did demand headship over all Christianity. This was new--as there was never one head church that ruled over all others before this time. What choice did the other Christians have? Did Rome use force?
Eventually--there wasn't a difference between pope and emporer!
I am well aware that protestantism then too--made its share of mistakes, falling into the very same mistakes it tried to escape from Rome--becoming just another sect. But Rome was the cause.
This is why I believe that no one earthly church or institution is the true church of Jesus Christ. But biblically speaking, I find much more harmony within some protesatant churches, in particular--the baptist congregation. I think this church would please Paul. (And I don't mean the *reformed* Baptist or Calvinisitic type churches).

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 12, 2005.

Hi Faith,
If elements of Catholic doctrine can be found in post-Constantine writings of the Church, then your statement that the Church acquired paganism is simply not true. We find teachings on the Eucharist, the veneration of the saints, purgatory, PRE-Constantine. The doctrines concerning Mary were in retaliation to the Arian heresy that threatened to overtake the Church around the same time as the fall of Rome. Athanasius was instrumental in defeating that heresy. Prayers to the saints were offered WAY before Constantine as EVIDENCED by the interior walls of the catacombs and early church writings.
I don't understand what you mean that "nothing changed for Rome." The pagan empire was demolished. Augustine who LOATHED paganism never wrote anything about the Church being pagan, but rather saw the Church for what she is, the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Futhermore, you can find quotes from Augustine on every single Catholic doctrine. Did he not notice that the paganism he despised was part-and-parcel with the Church he adored?
I don't understand your statement about Catholics worshipping "relics." We don't worship relics. We worship One God revealed in Three Persons, just like you.
Yes, evil people have been involved in the Church throughout the ages, "the wheat and the tares will grow together until the consummation of the ages."
Faith, you have no PROOF of your ascertions and you are refusing to look at HARD EVIDENCE.
I cannot understand how you can continue to make these baseless accusations. You have attended masses, many I presume, are you telling me that in those masses Mary was WORSHIPPED as God, that relics WERE WORSHIPPED as God? Didn't your masses confess the Creed? Weren't the scriptures read? Wasn't it Christ on the cross behind the altar (not Mary)? At Lent, wasn't it a time of repentence and reconciliation to God through the CROSS!
Where is the evidence, Faith? You must have something besides mere verbal accusations? Our liturgy is available for the world to see. Where is the evidence?
Gail

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), January 12, 2005.

It is a subtle deception Gail--
And I see the evidence in the Mass itself.
I do not agree that the early church fathers believed as the Catholic Church does today.
Perhaps paganism was infiltrating the church even sooner than Constatine. But surely his reign enabled it to really become an established part of Christian worship where no one would even recognize what was happening. Well--almost no one.
Emporer Gratian refused the title of Pontifex Maximus because he recognized that Babylonianism was idolatrous. As a result, two years later, bishop of the Christian church at Rome, was elected to the position and from that time Babylonianism and organized Christianity were easily able to merge.
One of the most amazing aspects about the ascendancy of the papacy is that the church of Rome promotes the pope as the "Pontifex Maximus" or, Supreme Pontiff. The title Pontifex Maximus is mentioned numerous times by the early church fathers (particularly by Tertullian), but it was not applied to a Christian bishop. The early church fathers say that the Pontifex Maximus was the "King of Heathendom", the evil high priest of the pagan mystery religion of Rome. It is certainly not likely that Christ appointed Peter "Pontifex Maximus" of Rome.

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 12, 2005.

Faith, even though mystery religiosn existed, Roman rldeigion was NOT mystery religion, the gods had an estalbished, ell strictures heirarchy...
That said, Babylonian rleigion is radiclaly divergent form roman religion, which isbase don Indo-european rleigious ractices. so hwo coidl this be babylonain?

-- ZAROFF (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 12, 2005.

Faith, you said "And I see the evidence in the Mass itself."
Where?

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), January 12, 2005.

Faith, since you didn't cite your source AGAIN, here it is in case anyone, (perhaps Zarove), would like to read your excerpt in its entirety.
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a104.htm

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), January 12, 2005.

Gail--
It doesn't seem that your link provides the source to that quote either.
And the Mass is evidence to me because the early church did not recrucify Jesus over and over again on their church alters!
That practice stems from the fact that the Roman Church had gone astray and did not understand the truth about Jesus' fully sufficient once for all sacrifice--which is able to pay for all sin--past, present and future.. It does not need to be renewed or reoffered up to God as though the original was somehow insufficient!

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 12, 2005.

Faith,

We've been through this again and again. Catholics do not recrucify Christ on the altar. I do my best not to misrepresent your beliefs. Please have the same courtesy.

I know you enough by now to know that you don't believe a "born again" Christian can go on sinning and be saved. I hope you know us well enough by now to know we don't recrucify Christ in the Mass. We've been through this in great detail with quotes from the Catechism and explanations of Catholic doctrine.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), January 13, 2005.

We also know that Christ's sacrifice was more than sufficient to pay the price for our sins. Your really misrepresenting the Catholic faith. That may be how you understand it, but that is not what Catholics believe!

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), January 13, 2005.

Hi Faith,
Here is the entire article from which you spliced your above excerpt.
The Title Pontifex Maximus
This explains the origin of the title "Pontifex Maximus" for the Papacy, written by Mark Bonocore Title "Pontifex Maximus" or "Supreme Pontiff"
<< One of the most amazing aspects about the ascendancy of the papacy is that the church of Rome promotes the pope as the "Pontifex Maximus" or, Supreme Pontiff. The title Pontifex Maximus is mentioned numerous times by the early church fathers (particularly by Tertullian), but it was not applied to a Christian bishop. The early church fathers say that the Pontifex Maximus was the "King of Heathendom", the evil high priest of the pagan mystery religion of Rome. It is certainly not likely that Christ appointed Peter "Pontifex Maximus" of Rome. >>
Of course Christ didn't appoint Peter to be the Pontifex Maximus. And of course the early Church Fathers spoke of the Pontifex Maximus in such derogatory, paganistic ways. Because when the early Fathers were writing, the Pontifex Maximus was the head of the Roman pagan religion, and the Roman Empire itself was pagan. As any student of Roman history knows, the Pontifex Maximus was an imperial office, usually held by the Emperor himself, which made one the "chief priest" of the Roman "state cult."
Now as I said, in the days of the early Fathers, this "state cult" was paganism and Emperor worship. Yet, when Constantine the Great became the first Christian Roman Emperor, the "state cult" changed to Christianity. Now, oddly enough, the first Christian emperors all still retained the title of Pontifex Maximus (a traditional title for Emperors) which, under imperial law (though not Church law), actually made them the "Head of the Church" ! It was by this authority, for example, that Constantine called the Council of Nicaea (325 AD) to settle the Arian controversy.
Indeed, it was not until the Empire split in two, with the Western Empire going to the pious, youthful Emperor Gratian (c. 360 AD) that the Pope was given the title Pontifex Maximus. Indeed, feeling that it was not right for he himself to carry that title (since he was, after all, not a Christian priest) the pious young Emperor bestowed it upon Pope Damasus I, who became the first Pope in history to hold the title "Pontifex Maximus."
Yet, this was only a legal title; and the Popes didn't pay much attention to it at the time, but continued to maintain that their authority came from the Apostle Peter and Peter alone. It was not until the Popes began to conflict with several heretical Eastern Emperors (who, by the way, never relinquished the title "Pontifex Maximus" in the Eastern Empire) that the Popes began asserting their legal authority under imperial law.
This is why the Pope is referred to as the "Pontifex Maximus" or "Supreme Pontiff" today, and not because of any carry-over from paganism. Just as there were pagan Emperors and Christian Emperors, just as there are pagan kings and Christian kings, so there are pagan Pontiffs and Christian Pontiffs. Our critic's anti-Catholic prejudice prevents him from appreciating this.
As for Tertullian's reference to Pontifex Maximus (cited by our critic above), this is most interesting indeed since, despite our critic's spin on things, it is a powerful proof for the authority of the early Roman Papacy. As already described by both the author and myself, Tertullian was (at the time) a Montanist heretic who clashed with Pope Callistus I (c. 220 AD) over Callistus' relaxation of the Church's penitential discipline, allowing repentant adulterers and fornicators back into the Church, even if they were "repeat offenders."
Now, as our critic pointed out, Callistus cited his Petrine authority to "bind and loosen" to validate his decree. In response, the heretical Tertullian has this to say:
"In opposition to this [modesty], could I not have acted the dissembler? I hear that there has even been an edict sent forth, and a peremptory one too. The 'Pontifex Maximus,' that is the 'bishop of bishops,' issues an edict: 'I remit, to such as have discharged [the requirements of] repentance, the sins both of adultery and of fornication.' O edict, on which cannot be inscribed, 'Good deed!' ...Far, far from Christ's betrothed be such a proclamation!" (On Modesty 1, Ante-Nicene Fathers IV:74)
Now Tertullian is obviously being sarcastic in calling Pope Callistus by such names as "bishop of bishops" and "Pontifex Maximus" -- both of these titles, as I said, being imperial pagan ones at this time (c. 220 AD). However, the mere fact that Tertullian (a heretic) is referring to the Pope this way, shows that Pope Callistus wielded authority outside of his own bishopric and throughout the universal Church.
Indeed, Tertullian continues to criticize Pope Callistus, saying:
"I now inquire into your opinions, to see whence you usurp the right for the Church. Do you presume, because the Lord said to Peter, 'On this rock I will build my Church ...[Matt 16-19]' that the power of binding and loosing has thereby been handed over to you, that is, to every church akin to that of Peter? What kind of man are you, subverting and changing what was the manifest intent of the Lord when He conferred this personally on Peter? 'On you,' He says, 'I will build my Church; and I give to you the keys'...." (Tertullian, On Modesty 21:9-10)
So, what does this tell us? While Tertullian (a Montanist heretic, who at this time did not recognize Apostolic succession or any Church authority) criticizes it, the fact is clear that here in 220 AD, Pope Callistus is claiming authority based on his direct succession from St. Peter and using that authority to change a Church discipline that remained changed from then on. This fact cannot be avoided. In other words, the view of the heretic Tertullian was not the view of the rest of the universal Church.
See also the detailed article The Primacy of Peter, the Papacy and Apostolic Succession
Mark Bonocore
*****************

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 13, 2005.

Here is the "home" link to the above article where the entire debate between Mark and Jason is set forth.
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/debate13.htm

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 13, 2005.

Gail, is that Jason Engwer?

-- AndyS ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), January 13, 2005.

Yes, of course! I just had to make the small effort to actually go to the link.

Thanks Gail.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), January 13, 2005.

Gail.,
Your article does not tell us *who* wrote that quote.
I know who did, and I did not take it from the article that you scrounged-up.
My sources are protected--as I have said would be the case from here on out.
The article you posted where this guy Mark tries to refute the truth about the papacy--is hogwash., no offense to you of course!

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 13, 2005.

Ok, Faith!! I'm gonna protect my sources, too. Just like you. Everybody is gonna protect their sources. Let's just protect everything that is posted here. Who cares what sources we use. Hey! let's just make this place another Anarchy Forum!!
Protect the source?! "Baloney!". I think that your sources are just not credible and posting their names would destroy your arguments. Not posting the source practically destroys your post, Faith. But, awe! Let the anarchist have their day.
.......

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 13, 2005.

Faith, you could at least have the decency to type "anonymous" at the tail end of your excerpts so as NOT to give the impression that YOU wrote it.
At any rate, it's a good website where at least you can see both sides of the debate.

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 13, 2005.

Don't be silly rod,
We know you don't use sources.

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 13, 2005.

I was doing that Gail--
And that even stirred up non-related debate. I want to avoid throwing the thread off on a non-related tangent.
That is of course, why you do what you do, isn't it? By focusing in on the author or lack there-of, everyone forgets the important truth-- such as the fact that the papacy is a pagan seat.

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 13, 2005.

Faith, lets not start the Pagan Myth idealogue again shall we? You clearly have no evidence for this cliam. Other than a few discedited books and personal feeling, of coruse...

-- zarove (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 13, 2005.

"The Catholic Church is the Babylonian Pagan So and So!"(my paraphrase of Faith's view of the Catholic Church). My source is Faith, of course. Yes, I do have a source, Faith. It is you!
See how my post has become discredited??!!
You and Dan Rather should start your own newscast! I hear he may have some free time. I won't reveal my source, though. "LOL!"
............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 13, 2005.

By focusing in on the author or lack there-of, everyone forgets the important truth-- such as the fact that the papacy is a pagan seat. - Faith

But that's the whole point Faith. How can you say it's truth when the source is not credible? It's basic scholarship.

I could post a news story that supports my claim that George Bush is the puppet of Zionists. But how much credibility would you put in that claim if my source was Osama Bin Laden and I didn't want to divulge my source because I was worried it would be a distraction from the truth that George Bush is a Zionist puppet.

Of course, the claim is absurd, but I hope you get my point.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), January 13, 2005.

what, you mean George Bush isn't a Zionist Puppet? ( Bad joke sorry...)

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 13, 2005.

Actually, Andy, I have sorta wondered about that myself!

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 13, 2005.

Andy,
Most of what I post from my sources actually speaks for itself--using Scripture upon Scripture to make the points. I never just post a bunch of claims without backing it with Scripture. Therefore, the posts I make which contain some of my own words and explanations along with snippets from my favorite authors can be weighed by content and thought through and debated. But if I dare mention my source--without fail, my post is disregarded. Even Gail's link did not mention the author of the quote he put in his rebuttal.

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 13, 2005.

But Faith, the posts I'm talking about go beyond Scripture. They make accusations about the Church using things that are extra- Scriptural. They twist historical facts.

We argue the meaning of Scripture and it boils down to your opinion against mine. Your church's interpretation against mine. That's to be expected.

It's the other pseudo-historical "facts" that I'm talking about. In research your sources are always questioned. If the source and its data aren't accurate or respected, why should anyone place any trust in the conclusions?

You might continue to post without sources and that's fine. What you call truth would bear more weight if the sources of your assertions were credible, or you at least allowed them to be scrutinised. If your accusations against the Catholic Church are airtight, there should be no problem with exposing them and their proponents to the light of scrutiny.

Anyone is welcome to question Catholic sources. They are open. The church fathers, popes, doctors of the church, the Catechism, etc. are all open to scrutiny. Wouldn't it at least be fair to allow Hislop, Hunt, White, or whoever to be open to the same scrutiny?

Enough said. I won't push you for sources again. I just hope you consider my points, that's all.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), January 14, 2005.

faith is correct about the eucharist

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), January 14, 2005.

i suggest you all read 'jesus did not invent the RCC' post...
there are all my arguments that jesus did not establish the RCC

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), January 14, 2005.

Faith,
Is sdqa one of your sources? ;)

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), January 14, 2005.

As Zarove would say, bad joke. Sorry.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), January 14, 2005.

hahahhahaha

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.Com), January 14, 2005.

Allow me to practice some of SDQA's anarchy.
"faith is correct about the eucharist."--SDQA.
Faith is wrong about the Eucharist.--rod.
My source? The Book of John and The Catholic Church. I will not reveal my other source. I wish to protect my hide from persecution or something.
..............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 14, 2005.

Ok......Faith and her view of the Eucharist is my source. After listening to her arguments against the Holy Eucharist, I realized that the Catholic teachings made more sense.
................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 14, 2005.

My source? The Book of John and The Catholic Church. I will not reveal my other source.
1/you can't consider the catholic church as a neutral,objective source
2/faith's source is probably also the gospel of john,but you two only have a different interpretation of it
because jesus spoke very very often in metaphores i really doubt that we should take this litarally...faith has already given the arguments about this...

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), January 14, 2005.

Then obviously your choice is to believe what you have learned. I do not subscribe to Faith's or my "interpretations". You reject the Catholic Church because you follow your Anarchy Culture. You do not reject the Church based on your own individual understandings. I have spent some time reading through the Anarchy 2 threads. It is a free for all kind of chaos. The only reason that you would favor Faith's twist on things is because she is more in line with the Anarchy rejection of The Church.
..................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 14, 2005.

someone doesn't have to be an anarchist to know some history and truth...

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), January 14, 2005.

the RCC are liars,they claim that jesus established their church...this is a lie!
read 'jesus did not invent the RCC' that punker posted
there i gave all the arguments that jesus never talked about the RCC,that peter never was a pope...etc

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), January 14, 2005.

But, SDQA, your rejection is not of the Catholic Church. You reject all institutions that "control" the masses. In reality, you reject God. Until you bring yourself to that realization, you can begin to make an understanding of where you stand in society and the real purpose of your existence. Then, hopefully, you will be able to reject those useless things and embrace what is real. In the meantime, you're just blowing smoke. A true believer has only one Master. It isn't a government or a culture. God.
...............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 14, 2005.

And this is why...
Anarchism is a paradox. Anarchism also controls its followers. It is an institution against institutionalism. My questions are:
Does Anarchy take away the freedom to obey God and to have faith in Him through "church", even in an institutionalized one?
Man is both flesh and spirit. Does Anarchism recognize the Source of Man?
Anarchy preaches the non-existence of God, but only as a figment of man's imagined creation. That sounds like Atheism.
...........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 14, 2005.

institutions that "control" the masses.
off course that i am against every institution that controls the masses!
it's pure evil!

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.Com), January 14, 2005.

Do you believe in social order? If so, then how is that achieved without "control" of the masses? How can Anarchy not have control of society by its very existence?
.................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 14, 2005.

'Does Anarchy take away the freedom to obey God and to have faith in Him through "church", even in an institutionalized one? '
if this church isn't contradictory to anarchism,anarchy is not against this church
but if this church is teaching that we must obey our leaders,than i think it's pretty much obvious

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), January 14, 2005.

...look up what the word control means rod
control and keeping things in order aren't the same thing

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.Com), January 14, 2005.

Well, I'm against corruption, chaos, and exploitation. Hey, let's add Taxation Without Representation.
Ok, The Bill of Rights would be a good thing. While we're at it, the Ten Commandments ring true. And, waiting for the bus to come to a complete stop is a good idea.
........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 14, 2005.

Then you don't really preach Anarchism. You preach "selective obedience" to those institutions that you agree with.
..........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 14, 2005.

How can one reject Holy Matrimony? Unless, it is ok to have your spouse leave you for any reason, trivial or grave? Not only is it a contractual union in a secular arena, it goes beyond into a union made by God. Well, there's your Authority figure. Should couples just bounce around from mate to mate? Where does the value and real- ness of love begin? Or, is man merely just another animal? Gosh, I hope not.
.............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 14, 2005.

Should couples just bounce around from mate to mate? Where does the value and real- ness of love begin
it depends if they both agree with that and want an open relationship or pormise each other to be commited...
it's a question of the way how you decide about this and a question about love,not authority

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), January 14, 2005.

and i don't believe in holy martimony...
many times it happens out of much less holy reasons

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), January 14, 2005.

Should couples just bounce around from mate to mate? Where does the value and real- ness of love begin it depends if they both agree with that and want an open relationship or pormise each other to be commited...
Then, we shouldn't really complain about those sexuality transmitted diseases and AIDS, which also afflict the innocent people as a result of other's open relationships.
it's a question of the way how you decide about this and a question about love,not authority
It is a question of truth and what is real.
and i don't believe in holy martimony... many times it happens out of much less holy reasons
I'm sure that statistically people get married for much less holy reasons. But, that's my point. That lack of obedience changes the real-ness of true love. That's the decay I speak of.
.................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 14, 2005.

SDQA,
How do you keep the pedophile from afflicting a child?
How do you keep a man from murdering his woman?
How do you keep a woman from murdering her man?
How you keep the a parent from abusing their child?
Or do you?

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 14, 2005.

by laws

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), January 14, 2005.

That's the whole idea with Judaism--the Law. But, you see, all true Law is given by God, not man. So, when you say "by law", what are you actually saying? Are you to obey man-made law or God's will?
Anyway, people also suffer because of laws. Hey, some have to suffer in order to protect the law abiding citizen.
............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 14, 2005.

Let's not forget that in an Anarchy the law becomes the institution-- the ruling king.
............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 14, 2005.

the only 'power' the ""ruling king"" should have is too see if everyone nicely keeps the laws,he can't stands above someone else and have the right to have more power,rights,privileges,social status or anything else that makes them unequal
the people are the ones who should rule the country

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), January 14, 2005.

Well, yes. I too am against corruption. But, look at the power that someone like Bill Gates has. How did he achieve that power, wealth, and impact in this society--the world?
............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 14, 2005.

BECAUSE WE LIVE IN A CAPITALISTIC SYSTEM AND HE ONLY HAS FINANCIAL POWER

-- PUNKER & SDQA (GREG_PISAHOV@HOTMAIL.COM), January 14, 2005.

Actually, it is man's nature to progress or evolve. His government is only a symptom of man's dominion over his world.
..............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 14, 2005.

Man's ultimate destination is to transform and to be with God. It isn't about man becoming god.
...........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), January 14, 2005.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ