Posted on 02/07/2008 2:22:50 PM PST by Pyro7480
[Roman 3:1-2] What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.
Like I said....when the Lord canonized the Old Testament scriptures [Luke 24:44] He did not include the "Deuts". The Council of Jamnia saw to it that these spurious Alexandrian Greek writings were removed from the Hebrew canon and restored to that canon which had been set by Ezra and Nehemiah.
Jerome himself, wanted to leave them (Deuterocanonicals) out of the Vulgate but under pressure from superiors left them in his translation. The question in my mind is: who do you think had the authority.....Your Synods and Councils....or The Lord Himself? You folks saw to it they were finally canonized! You were wrong to do so.....and still are!
This is why your claim to canon authority is so pitiful.
You make some good points....as usual!
Of course, Irenaeus also considered certain non-canonical works (e.g., The Shepherd of Hermas and 1 Clement) to be scripture, so things were hardly settled by the time of Irenaeus.
My sentiments exactly.
There are, of course, many examples. This one comes to mind.
Here are third and fourth generation Christians....late second century.....still celebrating Passover as the Apostle John had taught them. And they are celebrating it on the 14th of Nisan/Abib....according to the scriptures.[Leviticus 23:5].
Your organization, in it's zeal to eliminate anything Hebrew from your worship, changed the day of Passover and then even changed the name.....to Easter. You folks finally got the Churches of the East to go along.....but to their credit they attempted to observe God's Feast Days and Sabbaths as the last living Apostle had taught them.
You will find that the true Church of the New Testament still observes God's Festivals and Sabbaths. You will even find members of God's Church here on FReeRepublic.
You rely on this verse to justify your reliance on a council with no authority? Their whole structure was destroyed on Calvary. The veil in the Temple was torn. The council didn't believe in the saving power of Jesus' Name either.
LOL
Well.....I've already shown you that their canon (Jamnia's) was the same canon Our Lord showed us.....and your canon is different!
Who should I believe?
Actually, we changed the name to Dominica Resurrectionis, Festa Paschalis Domini Nostri Jesu Christi. ("Lord's Day of the Resurrection, Paschal Feast of Our Lord Jesus Christ")
Please ... make a note of it.
From The New Advent under the heading of "Historical Appreciation".
Constantine can rightfully claim the title of Great, for he turned the history of the world into a new course and made Christianity, which until then had suffered bloody persecution, the Religion of The State.
Yup....there it is from your own Catholic Encyclopedia. Prior to Constantine there was no state religion. He founded it and it is basically the same thing today. A super powerful State/Religious system that is not scriptural in the slightest!
Duly noted and very appreciative of your kind instruction.
But Jesus taught us to pray as Jews.
Hey genius. “Dialogue” doesn’t mean you get to tell us how to pray or do anything else for that matter. If that’s what you think “dialogue” is, perhaps it’s better we don’t talk.
Diego, thank you so much for proving you have no evidence whatsoever for your claim. Let’s look at what you posted:
“Constantine can rightfully claim the title of Great, for he turned the history of the world into a new course and made Christianity, which until then had suffered bloody persecution, the Religion of The State.”
And, of course, that is untrue. Even the editors of Catholic Encyclopedia made mistakes and this is one of them. They later corrected the mistake when they wrote: “A great part of the emperor’s activity was now spent in establishing the Catholic faith and repressing Arianism. In February, 380, he and Gratian published the famous edict that all their subjects should profess the faith of the Bishops of Rome and Alexandria (Cod. Theod., XVI, I, 2; Sozomen, VII, 4)” -— only they weren’t talking about Constantine. They were talking about the man who really did make Christianity the official religion of the empire - Theodosius the Great.
Also, you might have noticed that I asked you to prove this claim: “Nope....your friend Constantine did that....and the Church he founded...” (post 59)
Instead of providing any evidence of that at all, you posted a factually incorrect statement that Constantine made Christianity the official religion of the empire. I didn’t ask you to prove that. I asked you to prove he founded a church - any church at all. You utterly failed, of course, because he did no such thing.
“Yup....there it is from your own Catholic Encyclopedia. Prior to Constantine there was no state religion.”
What? Ever here of the official Roman religion? Jupiter was their greatest god. Ring a bell? It was the official religion of the Roman state government. You really have no idea of what you’re talking about.
“He founded it and it is basically the same thing today. A super powerful State/Religious system that is not scriptural in the slightest!”
Hilarious. You present no proof whatsoever. You think a mistake is the truth. You can’t even be clear that founding a church is not the same thing as a head of state declaring an official state religion. And now you think you have a clue?
Thanks so much for showing us the intellectual inability of anti-Catholicism.
Vatican Hill was a pagan cemetery and contained the bones of Simon Magus who was known by the Romans of the first century as "Simoni deo Sancto", the holy god, Simon. You will read this in Justin's first apology. Simon was revered by the Romans, treated like a god and had many converts to his Babylonian style Christianity. He even had a statue erected in his honor and it was still standing in the second century when Justin Martyr wrote about him.
He was known as Simon "Pator". In the ancient religions of Greece, Rome, Egypt and Babylon gods were often given the name of Peter, Pator, Petra or some derivative of that. This is where the false tradition of Simon Peter being in Rome originated. If you read Justin (152 A.D.) you will find no mention of the Apostle Peter (Simon Peter) ever being in or about Rome. Like I said....folks later on confused this issue with the fact that "Simon Pator" Magus [Acts 8] had heavily influenced the Roman Populace. They called themselves Christians but it was a blend of Babylonian paganism and Christianity.....and it still exists today!
I'm sure this is one of the main reasons the Basilica was built there.....don't you think?
Oh....I stand corrected. I had no idea that Constantine had nothing to do with setting up a church/state. The idea! Where in the world would I have ever make that connection? Silly me!
The fact that the Roman Catholic Church is a State Run organization....a Church/State within its own political boundary. Where would I ever get that idea. And prior to Constantine it must have had its own little country somewhere else......right?
Give me a break!
You wrote:
“Oh....I stand corrected. I had no idea that Constantine had nothing to do with setting up a church/state. The idea!”
Gee, I’m glad you so readily admitted your error since it’s so obvious to anyone who has actually studied history.
And again, you provided ZERO evidence that Constantine established a church - and that’s the evidence I asked for.
“Where in the world would I have ever make that connection? Silly me!”
You would make the connection in the fantasy life known as anti-Catholicism where fairy tales are created and disseminated to appease the appalling lack of historiocity of Protestant sects by inventing a history that never was.
And again, you provided ZERO evidence that Constantine established a church - and that’s the evidence I asked for.
“The fact that the Roman Catholic Church is a State Run organization....”
Uh, no, the Catholic Church is a Church that also has a leader who runs a state. The pope has not always been a leader of a state. Certainly that was the case before St. Gregory the Great, for instance - and yet he born 200 years after Constantine died. So much for your whole thesis.
And again, you provided ZERO evidence that Constantine established a church - and that’s the evidence I asked for.
“a Church/State within its own political boundary. Where would I ever get that idea.”
Apparently you borrowed it from other ill-informed, less than savvy anti-Catholics. You certainly didn’t get that idea from the Catholic Encyclopedia no matter how much you might claim so.
And again, you provided ZERO evidence that Constantine established a church - and that’s the evidence I asked for.
“And prior to Constantine it must have had its own little country somewhere else......right?”
Did the pope run any country in the two centuries AFTER Constantine? NO. That came much later - at least 200 years later and even then it was not claimed to be a country but a city, and was not thought of as the patrimony of the pope. You see, when you actually study history - rather than make it up out of then air as you and your anti-Catholic buddies do - you don’t make such mistakes.
Here are the facts:
1) Constantine did not establish a Church, nor did he try.
2) Constantine did not make Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire.
3) Constantine did try to co-opt the Church so that he could control it, but he failed and then tried to co-opt the Arians before his death.
4) No pope in Constantine’s day ran any country or city anywhere, anyhow.
5) Even after Constantine’s death, no pope ran any city or country in the fourth or fifth or early sixth century.
6) During the time of Pope Gregory the Great - who was born 200 years after Constantine died - the pope became the de facto administrator of Rome because there was no one else left who had the where-with-all to accomplish such a large task.
7) Gregory the Great never claimed that the city belonged to the papacy or the Church or to himself personally.
Thus, what you have claimed, you have utterly failed to prove. You haven’t even attempted a serious proof yet.
“Give me a break!”
No. I see no reason to stand by why someone makes things up or parrots rubbish like what you posted. There’s simply no cause for ignorance in a world filled with good, sound books and easy access to them.
Rom 11:7 What then? Israel failed to obtain what it sought. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened,
Rom 11:8 as it is written, "God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that should not see and ears that should not hear, down to this very day."
Rom 11:9 And David says, "Let their table become a snare and a trap, a pitfall and a retribution for them;
Rom 11:10 let their eyes be darkened so that they cannot see, and bend their backs for ever."
Rom 11:11 So I ask, have they stumbled so as to fall? By no means! But through their trespass salvation has come to the Gentiles, so as to make Israel jealous.
Rom 11:12 Now if their trespass means riches for the world, and if their failure means riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their full inclusion mean!
As Catholics, we pray for the fulfillment of Rom 11:12 and Rom 11:25, which you cited.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.