Question for Freeper Catholics

1/27/04 | LS

[Cronos]

The Coptic, Ethiopian and Nestorian churchs are not Orthodox churchs like the Russian, GReek etc.

The Coptic church is a Monophysite church -- They believe in ONE Nature of Christ -- wholly divine.

So, this is why I say it's best if we read the early history of the church to understand why the Catholic church teaches what it teaches -- it IS confusing but the best place to read it is at ww.newadvent.com

[Cronos]

And we'd know a whole lot more about this if the heretics were allowed to live and their writings weren't destroyed.

Oh, they weren't destroyed. There are still Monophysites -- the Coptic and Ethiopian Churches. There are still Nestorians in Persia and India. There are no Arians or Gnostics though. To be honest, from whatever I've read, the difference between Monophysites, Nestorians and Orthodox (the modern Orthodox+Catholic+mainstream Protestant church) seem to be differences in interpretation, not in the central theme of Christianity, so I have no hesitation in accepting Copts or Chaldeans or Ethiopians as Christian.

Arians, well, I would hesitate since they seem to emphasise that Christ's body was just a tool. I denounce Gnostics, for the reasons I've stated in an earlier post. Gnostics most definitely were NOT Christian,

[Cronos]

Blah blah blah.

If you want to debate on these points you MUST read the arguments for and against. Otherwise it just seems that you like Gnostics because "they're cool, dude" without knowing anythign. The same reason as why folsk join the Hare Krishna's -- "they're cool dude".

The differences are highly based on words, intrepretations etc, but if you don't bother to understand them, you cannot argue about them. It's like someone arguing that the Germans should have occupied Poland because it was wrong to split Prussia -- they haven't read the history BEFORE that, so an argument would be an argument with an ignorant person.

[Cronos]

Gnostics had some good ideas as did adoptionists, ebionites, Netzarim, coptics etc etc. No reason for the Orthodox to get their underwear in wad. But when we witness how their descendants carry on its certainly understandable

Islam is also a heresy, so I suppose you'd also say there's no need to get mad about it? Christ's teachings are powerful and when twisted by the enemy they become dangerous as in the case of slam

[Cronos]

The council at Nicea

St. Athanasius, a member of the council speaks of 300, and in his letter "Ad Afros" he says explicitly 318 attended.

This figure is almost universally adopted, and there seems to be no good reason for rejecting it. Most of the bishops present were Greeks; among the Latins we know only Hosius of Cordova, Cecilian of Carthage, Mark of Calabria, Nicasius of Dijon, Donnus of Stridon in Pannonia, and the two Roman priests, Victor and Vincentius, representing the pope. The assembly numbered among its most famous members St. Alexander of Alexandria, Eustathius of Antioch, Macarius of Jerusalem, Eusebius of Nicomedia, Eusebius of Caesarea, and Nicholas of Myra.

The emperor began by making the bishops understand that they had a greater and better business in hand than personal quarrels and interminable recriminations. Nevertheless, he had to submit to the infliction of hearing the last words of debates which had been going on previous to his arrival. Eusebius of Caesarea and his two abbreviators, Socrates and Sozomen, as well as Rufinus and Gelasius of Cyzicus, report no details of the theological discussions. Rufinus tells us only that daily sessions were held and that Arius was often summoned before the assembly; his opinions were seriously discussed and the opposing arguments attentively considered. The majority, especially those who were confessors of the Faith, energetically declared themselves against the impious doctrines of Arius. (For the part played by the Eusebian third party, see EUSEBIUS OF NICOMEDIA. For the Creed of Eusebius, see EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA.) St. Athanasius assures us that the activities of the Council were nowise hampered by Constantine's presence.

The Nicenece creed states that

We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten of the Father, that is, of the substance [ek tes ousias] of the Father, God of God, light of light, true God of true God, begotten not made, of the same substance with the Father [homoousion to patri], through whom all things were made both in heaven and on earth; who for us men and our salvation descended, was incarnate, and was made man, suffered and rose again the third day, ascended into heaven and cometh to judge the living and the dead. And in the Holy Ghost. Those who say: There was a time when He was not, and He was not before He was begotten; and that He was made our of nothing (ex ouk onton); or who maintain that He is of another hypostasis or another substance [than the Father], or that the Son of God is created, or mutable, or subject to change, [them] the Catholic Church anathematizes.

The adhesion was general and enthusiastic. All the bishops save five declared themselves ready to subscribe to this formula, convince that it contained the ancient faith of the Apostolic Church. The opponents were soon reduced to two, Theonas of Marmarica and Secundus of Ptolemais,

So, how can you state that the majority did not believe in deity of Yeshua yet the minority opionion prevailed. ?

The Council of Nicea, furthermore, was against Arianism, NOT Gnosticism, SO ALL WOULD HAVE BELIEVED IN YHWH. Sheesh. Gnosticism was never acknowledged as Christian.
To describe ARianism, I'll quote from newadvent:
First among the doctrinal disputes which troubled Christians after Constantine had recognized the Church in A.D. 313, and the parent of many more during some three centuries, Arianism occupies a large place in ecclesiastical history. It is not a modern form of unbelief, and therefore will appear strange in modern eyes. But we shall better grasp its meaning if we term it an Eastern attempt to rationalize the creed by stripping it of mystery so far as the relation of Christ to God was concerned. In the New Testament and in Church teaching Jesus of Nazareth appears as the Son of God. This name He took to Himself (Matthew 11:27; John 10:36), while the Fourth Gospel declares Him to be the Word (Logos), Who in the beginning was with God and was God, by Whom all things were made.

Arian, though he did not come straight down from the Gnostic, pursued a line of argument and taught a view which the speculations of the Gnostic had made familiar. He described the Son as a second, or inferior God, standing midway between the First Cause and creatures; as Himself made out of nothing, yet as making all things else; as existing before the worlds of the ages; and as arrayed in all divine perfections except the one which was their stay and foundation. God alone was without beginning, unoriginate; the Son was originated, and once had not existed. For all that has origin must begin to be

Such is the genuine doctrine of Arius. Using Greek terms, it denies that the Son is of one essence, nature, or substance with God; He is not consubstantial (homoousios) with the Father, and therefore not like Him, or equal in dignity, or co-eternal, or within the real sphere of Deity. The Logos which St. John exalts is an attribute, Reason, belonging to the Divine nature, not a person distinct from another, and therefore is a Son merely in figure of speech. These consequences follow upon the principle which Arius maintains in his letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia, that the Son "is no part of the Ingenerate." Hence the Arian sectaries who reasoned logically were styled Anomoeans: they said that the Son was "unlike" the Father. And they defined God as simply the Unoriginate. They are also termed the Exucontians (ex ouk onton), because they held the creation of the Son to be out of nothing.

This led to Islam -- the Christians that followed Arianism found Islam but a branch of this and so conversion was not a big deal. The drift of all he advanced was this: to deny that in any true sense God could have a Son; as Mohammed tersely said afterwards, "God neither begets, nor is He begotten" (Koran, 112). We have learned to call that denial Unitarianism. It was the ultimate scope of Arian opposition to what Christians had always believed (as Christ said "I and the Father are one".).

Arianism can still be found in traces in Islam.

[Cronos]

that in the time of Christ, that area was the most concentrated settlement of Israelites on the planet. The Israelites do keep track of their history, unfortunately for you.
Huh? Babylon had a concentrated population of Jews? Wrong. After Cyrus (or was it Darius) allowed the Jews to go back to their ancestral homes, they did so, or haven't you read Nehemiah. The largest concentration of Jews outside Israel before 70 AD was in Egypt.

[Cronos]

Babylon was settled by the Israelites in the diaspora after the Northern Kingdom fell to Assyria

duuuh, that was in 700 BC. In 500 BC, the Zoroastrian Persians allowed native peoples moved by the Assyrians and Babylonians to go back home. And this happened FIVE HUNDRED years before Christ was born

Stop giving ridiculous arguments.

Any more propaganda I should bat aside while we're at it? Peter didn't hold the keys to the kingdom alone. Nor did he hold binding and loosing alone. Paul opened the Church to the Gentiles without so much as a 'by your leave' from Peter. And why? Because it wasn't required

in Heaven??

[Cronos]

Only that you love to use opinions possibilities for facts.
T'is Havoc's objective to obfuscate the truth by saying "Nyaa, nyaa, I told you so, I told you so."

[Cronos]

Furthermore, Hav, you really seem to be jumping about a bit -- first you state that the scriptures are everything (which they are), then you contradict that by saying, no, Petere didn't hold the keys to the kingdom alone. So, you sayign the scriptures are WRONG???

[Conservative til I die]

My fave movie is Mad Max Beyond Martyrdome.

[Conservative til I die]

LOL, game, set, match. You lose.

Polemikos and others keep putting forth reams of interesting, valid evidence for our Catholic beliefs, and all you can do is say "Propaganda" each time.

It's over Johnny, ITS OVER!

[Conservative til I die]

Peter didn't hold the keys to the kingdom alone. Nor did he hold binding and loosing alone...Peter was nobody important next to the other apostles...

You're kidding me, right?

[Conservative til I die]

Are you the designated ankle biter for this thread?

Nope. You seem to think this forum works as a monologue. You get to spout anti-catholic trash without a shred of evidence or fact behind it, and no one else is supposed to respond. Sorry, that isn't how it works. If you're going to talk out your a-hole, expect to be called on it.

[Conservative til I die]

So, Ignatius, Dionysius, Irenaeus, Gaius, Clement, Tertullian, Eusebius, are all "lying quacks", and you are telling the truth? I'll have to get back to you on that one.

They must have been 'philosophers'. LOLOLOLOL

Seriously, is Havoc digging a hole or what? In an effort to prove his beliefs, he's now degreaded St. Peter, now Eusebius, and by extension, like you said, Ireneaus, Ignatius, Dionysius, Gaius, Clement, Tertullian, etc.

[Conservative til I die]

I'll be fair conservative -- there were acts committed by both.

Oh, of course. I've never debated that. What I do have a problem with is people like Havoc using that as proof the Church is pure evil, conveniently forgettign that their poop stinks just as much, due to the post-Reformation persecution of Catholics in newly Protestant lands. I'm reading a book on the incorruptible bodies of saints, and it saddens me to see how many of the bodies were presumed lost or destroyed after whatever Protestant army destroyed it and the Church is was housed in.

Also, as you mention later in the post, my problem is with how guys like Havoc exaggerate Catholic atrocities to ridiculous levels (Jesuits ripping babies from wombs, etc.).

[Jonx6]

"Where in the Bible does is state that miracles can be performed through a dead man?"

Mat 27:52-53

[Conservative til I die]

That Jesus didn't speak Greek? That's a revelation to Him I'm sure. A carpenter for most of his life who studied in Hebrew and his trade. The Trade language of the world was Greek. Care to level a charge at the Son of God for being slack in his life and neglecting to learn his own trade? Or considering your clergy's position that Christ is God, you wish to offer that God can't speak Greek. LOL. Boy this stuff is boring.

Pathetic, trying to put words into my mouth. Besides, I already elaborated to Old Reggie that while of course, Jesus could do anything He wanted to, I didn't feel that needed to be re-established here. I'm talking about His practical knowledge, what He would have used in his daily life, depending on where He was and who He was talking to.

Jesus may have used Greek and/or Latin. But when he was in Judea, talking to just His 12 apostles, who happened to be Jewish just like Him? He most likely spoke Aramaic.

Think of it like an immigrant speaking in his house. He's going to speak his native language.

[Conservative til I die]

There are no Arians or Gnostics though

THe Jehovah's Witnesses have a very Arian-like view of Christ's nature.

[LS]

I'm glad we can correspond amicably again.

[AAABEST]

I'm glad we can correspond amicably again.

Yes, I've been dying to yell at you for some time now!!!

HAHAHAHAHA