Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Removing Jesus
White Horse Inn ^ | June 1, 2014 | Timothy F. Kauffman

Posted on 06/25/2015 1:13:01 PM PDT by RnMomof7

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 281-285 next last
To: Mrs. Don-o

“don’t want to rattle on too long here, I just to point out that there’s a lot there that is neither pagan nor fraud. It’s Apostolic. You’re got to take the whole dimensions of ancient Christianity into account.”

1. It isn’t inspired.
2. At best, it is second hand with no inspiration.

You are claiming that a purportedly important doctrine never made it into Sacred Scripture-that God somehow never inspired it... Nor any apostle taught it before 100 ad. Sorry, without prebelief, no one would buy any of the gymnastics your earlier post went through to find a possible rationale for this idea.

Apostles (briefly) taught, as did pastors and teachers. Their teaching was not equivalent in authority to Inspired Scripture.

What we do have in Scripture was by definition, inspired as the Holy Spirit moved men to write. There is a reason why He chose certain things and not others.

So much of the Catholic acretions are pagan in origin and do not show up in history until hundreds of years later. Many popes had histories of paganism. I am still waiting for your evidence from before 100 ad. Actually, I’m asking for it, but I don’t think it exists. Still I keep an open mind.

Best


201 posted on 06/27/2015 6:18:35 PM PDT by aMorePerfectUnion ( "Forward lies the crown, and onward is the goal.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: metmom
"She was puzzled about how she could be pregnant or become pregnant without having sex.

Not at all. At Luke 1 v. 34 (the "perplexity" verse) she doesn't yet know that it's "without having sex". She doesn't yet know she's going to be overshadowed by the power of the Most High. Why would she think it would be "without having sex" if she fully expected to have sex with Joseph?

Why wouldn't she assume she'd be like Sarah, Hannah, Samson's mother, etc. and have a marvelous baby with her husband? That's the part that's NOT clear or even explicable. That is, her perplexity is explicable only if she knew she was going to remain a virgin.

The Angel Gabriel did NOT say her pregnancy was going to happen right away: he left this in the undefined future. For all she knew, she could be long-married to Joseph, like Sarah was long-married to Abraham, when they'd have this angel-announced baby together. She'd expect that she'd have the baby with Joseph. This absolutely makes sense. But she didn't expect that. Isn't that odd? And why not?

"The idea that God let Mary become betrothed and then told Joseph to marry her but don’t touch, forces Joseph into a sexless marriage that he clearly wasn’t anticipating."

Nobody's forcing Joseph to do anything here.

The more likely explanation is that Joseph knew he was to safeguard Mary's virginity because it was a vowed thing. It was vowed before they were betrothed: he knew she was vowed to God. It's "more likely" because otherwise, the solution to the "problem" would be simple: he would have just promptly taken the newly-pregnant Mary into his home, and let people assume the baby was his.

"There is not one reason in the world for Mary to have remained a virgin after the birth of Christ when the prophecy that a virgin shall bear a son, was fulfilled."

Well, yes there is, if God's choosing Mary had something to do with a Covenant --- a permanent Covenant of love-- and not just using her instrumentally, using her like the slave Hagar, a borrowed reproductive unit.

You really think that's OK? That's the part I don't get. It only contradicts every love, spousal, fidelity, covenant thing that's taught, sung, or celebrated in the entire Bible. That's all.

For a moment, suspend your modern POV and look at it in the framework of the historic Judeo-Christian culture. The Covenant theme was central to their understanding of the whole of Scripture. This is why nobody, for a millennium-and-a-half, neither Catholic nor Orthodox nor even Protestant up to and including Luther, would have countenanced the idea that God would do Mary that way. That He would make Mary the mother of His Son without a personal, exclusive, and permanent covenant. That He would dishonor His Beloved, Blessed-among-women, by treating her like a borrowed breeder-utility, a rented wench.

I think if you throw out the idea of a permanent covenant, involving Mary's permanent fidelity to God the Father of her Child, belonging to Him only, you're throwing out the every single spousal image, type, and prophecy in the Old Covenant. You're writing her out of the "covenant" framework entirely. It makes all that love-fidelity-talk in Hosea, Isaiah and Ezekiel irrelevant. She might as well be Hagar.

T'ain't fittin, metmom. Just t'ain't fittin.

This whole chapter of Salvation History is not about the base usage of a concubine but about God's magnificent gifts of love and fidelity.

This is why Mary remained a virgin. Not because sex is dirty, but because fidelity is holy. And Mary's reserving herself from any man's embrace was based n Mary's realization that she, blessed among women, was that Beloved, that Blessed one, that Highly-favored one, that Daughter Zion. She didn't merit it, but He chose her. He did great things for her, unprecedented things, matchless things, ineffable things --- and she knew she belonged to God alone.

202 posted on 06/27/2015 7:15:35 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o (Stand firm and hold to the traditions you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: aMorePerfectUnion
First, a thing can be historically true without being an inspired Scripture.

Second, the teachings of the Apostles were and are inspired, even when they were oral, preached, spoken. Everything Paul taught was inspired before he wrote it down, wasn't it? After all, he was preaching in Damascus immediately from his conversion around 36 AD, (Acts 9) but he didn't do any writing that we know of before about 51 AD, (1 Thessalonians.)

You wouldn't say that none of his teachings were inspired during those 15 years, just because they weren't written --- would you?

The same is true of Peter, James, John, all the Apostles. Their teachings were all inspired, both what was preached and what was written. In fact, ALL of it was preached, and authoritatively so, years or decades before it was written.

In every one of the Epistles written by St. Paul, he exhorts the believers to believe in, live by, cling to, be faithful to the "Gospel" --- all before a single Gospel was written!

Paul insists on the authority of his preaching far, far more, dozens of times more, than his writing.

2 Thess. 2:15
"So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter."

John, too:

John 21:24-15 - "There are many other things that Jesus did, but if they were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world could contain the books that would be written."

Do you think these "things" were not inspired, just because they were not written down?

And do you think John and the other Apostles never spoke of them?

2 John 1:12
(Repeated a 3 John 1:13-14)
"Although I have much to write to you, I do not intend to use paper and ink. Instead, I hope to visit you and speak face to face..."

This, too, is inspired teaching.

So don't scorn Apostolic oral teaching, It has authority equal to that of Apostolic writings.

And what we know about it is not esoteric, weird, secret or hidden. It's in the living practice (now written down!) of the most ancient Christian communities. It forms the framework within which all the NT Scriptures were written, and by which those Scriptures are correctly interpreted.

203 posted on 06/27/2015 7:57:47 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o (Stand firm and hold to the traditions you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

“So don’t scorn Apostolic oral teaching, It has authority equal to that of Apostolic writings.”

1. If God chose not to inspire the teaching in written Scripture, it is not equal to a scripture.
2. If it is not in Scripture, it is second hand or further removed - hear-say.
3. Authority to carry out the authority of the limited office of the Apostles is not identical to Scripture.
4. Historical, factual truth is not equal to inspiration.
5. Teaching, at the time was authoritative, but obviously not inspired or we would have it in Scripture.
6. Apostolic writings are different than Scripture inspired by God’s Spirit.
7. Ancient is not equivalent to earliest, or you’d be finding evidence from before 100 ad.
8 making any other source equivalent to the unquestioned authority of that which was inspired by God in Scripture as the basis for doctrines, opens Pandoras Box and results in accepting paganism into his Church- as we see in the accretions of Rome.
9. There is no Doctrinal Blank check that can be written and drawn on the Truth account.

Best to you


204 posted on 06/28/2015 5:07:20 AM PDT by aMorePerfectUnion ( "Forward lies the crown, and onward is the goal.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
This is why Mary remained a virgin.

No; it is NOT why Rome has chosen to tell this lie about Mary.

205 posted on 06/28/2015 5:34:39 AM PDT by Elsie ( Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
And what we know about it is not esoteric, weird, secret or hidden. It's in the living practice (now written down!) of the most ancient Christian communities.

Like the seven Catholic ones in Asia John wrote about???

You need more straw as the current is increasing!

206 posted on 06/28/2015 5:35:52 AM PDT by Elsie ( Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

She said, *since I know not a man*, not *Because I will never know a man*.

It’s only an assumption that she meant a vow of perpetual virginity, and since she was a betrothed woman, that assumption is not a valid one.


207 posted on 06/28/2015 5:37:56 AM PDT by metmom (...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7

One of the worst articles I’ve ever read.

There may be valid conclusions to the arguments poised, but the entire article is preoccupied with presenting blasphemous positions and then debating them.

IMHO, it’s without fruit. A lust for approbation.

I confess, I could only make it through about 5 paragraphs and scanned several more throughout the article and found no change in thinking of the author.


208 posted on 06/28/2015 6:14:56 AM PDT by Cvengr ( Adversity in life & death is inevitable; Stress is optional through faith in Christ.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: metmom
That would only make sense if the angel said she was pregnant RIGHT NOW or would be pregnant before she and Joseph lived as husband and wife. The angel didn't say that. He left the actual timing of the pregnancy in the indefinite future. So the "perplexity" problem remains unanswered.

I understand it seems obvious to you, which only raises the other question: why did nobody interpret i your way for 1500 years?

There's a huge cultural and interpretive gap here, I think, stemming from the modern failure to read the many "lifelong covenant" passages of the OT as context and prophecy. You also don't understand that covenant means honor, and concubinage dishonor. You achieve clarity by omission.

209 posted on 06/28/2015 7:06:27 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o ("God, in destining Mary to be the Mother of his Son, granted her the highest honor." - John Calvin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
http://www.mentalhealth.gov/get-help

http://www.helpguide.org/articles/anxiety/obssessive-compulsive-disorder-ocd.htm

https://www.stalkingriskprofile.com/what-is-stalking/stalking-and-mental-illness
210 posted on 06/28/2015 7:10:45 AM PDT by StormPrepper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
My, a striking inconsistency on the non-Catholic side of the polemic, by Freepers-Who-Will-Not-Be-Named. On the one hand, the claim that the Catholic Church didn't even exist until Constantine (mid-4th century); on the other, an assumption that any error in 1st century central Anatolia must have been Catholic error.

Things that make you go "hmmmm..."

Must have been those Laodicean Baptists, huh?

211 posted on 06/28/2015 7:17:35 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o ("God, in destining Mary to be the Mother of his Son, granted her the highest honor." - John Calvin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

“So the “perplexity” problem remains unanswered.”

To you it is an issue because, perhaps it is perceived to open the door to prebelief? In the end, there is no passage of Scripture at all that says Mary remained a virgin.

“I understand it seems obvious to you, which only raises the other question: why did nobody interpret i your way for 1500 years? “

This is a very big assumption, since you’ve yet to demonstrate it was believed before 100 ad, MDO.

More importantly, if something is falsely believed, regardless of how long, it remains false. In this case, no evidence it was taught by the Apostles before 100 ad. No declaration in the inspired Scriptures.


212 posted on 06/28/2015 8:38:01 AM PDT by aMorePerfectUnion ( "Forward lies the crown, and onward is the goal.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: aMorePerfectUnion
Good morning, AMPU! I really appreciate well-organized posts, and what you've sent me is rather a treat. Here's my response:

1. Since God chose to inspire His teaching in oral form years or decades before it became written Scripture, the Apostles' oral teaching is equal to Scripture.

2. Non-Scriptural sources of Apostolic truth can be discerned in the continuity and consensus of beliefs and practices of the most ancient Apostolic-founded churches.

3. Authority to carry on the office of the Apostles is found in Scripture.

4. Historical, factual truth, while not identical to inspired truth, is still truth. All truth has its own proper authority.

5. Apostolic oral teaching was authoritative at the time it was spoken, and thus was inspired even before it was transcribed.

6. Apostolic writings are inspired by God’s Spirit. (I add here that the canon of Scripture closed at the death of the last Apostle.)

7. Ancient is equivalent to earliest, since we have evidence from before 100 A.D.

8. Recognizing other sources equivalent to Scripture, such as Sacred Tradition, Natural Law, and the teaching office of the Church, as the basis for doctrines, is required by the unity of Truth, and the authority of the Holy Spirit who leads us into all Truth. This results in consistent continuity in the development of doctrine, as we see in the Catholic Church.

9. Many checks can be written and drawn on the Truth account, since we know that Christ teaches us through His Church --- as Scripture itself acknowledges.

OK, you established your points by mere assertion; and I refuted them the same way.

Omitting sources and argumentation sure conserves space and time :o) Have a good Sunday.

213 posted on 06/28/2015 9:02:25 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o ("If they refuse to listen even to the Church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

“Good morning, AMPU! I really appreciate well-organized posts, and what you’ve sent me is rather a treat. Here’s my response:”

Back at ya. After a weekend with two grandkids and not much sleep, a list was all the energy I had.

1. Since God chose to inspire His teaching in oral form years or decades before it became written Scripture, the Apostles’ oral teaching is equal to Scripture.

It was. We no longer have it firsthand. It no longer exists as oral teaching.

2. Non-Scriptural sources of Apostolic truth can be discerned in the continuity and consensus of beliefs and practices of the most ancient Apostolic-founded churches.

No, because that makes the assumption that what they hold today is equal to what was originally believed. That would require proof. I asked for any of multiple kinds, but haven’t seen it yet.

3. Authority to carry on the office of the Apostles is found in Scripture.

The authority to continue the limit of Apostles as the foundation of the church is not found in Scripture.

4. Historical, factual truth, while not identical to inspired truth, is still truth. All truth has its own proper authority.

Truth with a capital T, meaning authoritative and inspired is different than little-t truth.

5. Apostolic oral teaching was authoritative at the time it was spoken, and thus was inspired even before it was transcribed.

I think we agree. Where it appears we disagree is that we no longer have the oral teaching. It was never inspired by God as Scripture.

6. Apostolic writings are inspired by God’s Spirit. (I add here that the canon of Scripture closed at the death of the last Apostle.)

No. They are not equivalent to Scripture that was inspired.

7. Ancient is equivalent to earliest, since we have evidence from before 100 A.D.

We do not. It has not appeared on this thread either.

8. Recognizing other sources equivalent to Scripture, such as Sacred Tradition, Natural Law, and the teaching office of the Church, as the basis for doctrines, is required by the unity of Truth, and the authority of the Holy Spirit who leads us into all Truth. This results in consistent continuity in the development of doctrine, as we see in the Catholic Church.

No we will disagree. General revelation, “natural law”, etc. are not equally authoritative. They neither carry the Gospel nor what is required for authority. Tradition is not sacred. It is an amalgamation of accretions throughout history that are far from authoritative. This is how error gets codified. This is how Christianity became religion in your denomination. This is how grace became a hamster wheel of works.

9. Many checks can be written and drawn on the Truth account, since we know that Christ teaches us through His Church -— as Scripture itself acknowledges.

Christ gave us teachers to expound the word. Not to add to it. The Holy Spirit illumines His word.

“OK, you established your points by mere assertion; and I refuted them the same way.”

Again, sorry. Sleep deprivation. A happy cause of sleep deprivation, but not enough energy to do anything by general refutation.

Best.


214 posted on 06/28/2015 9:53:50 AM PDT by aMorePerfectUnion ( "Forward lies the crown, and onward is the goal.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 213 | View Replies]

To: aMorePerfectUnion
On the "perplexity of Mary" problem:

Your argument would be dispositive if we were arguing on the basis of Sola Scriptura; but we can't accept that principle, because it's historically untrue and logically impossible.

There was a NT Church for almost two decades before even the first book of NT Scripture was written (1 Thessalonians, around 51 AD at the earliest), and there were hundreds of Christian ecclesial communities comprising tens or hundreds of thousands of believers before the canon of the NT was closed (around 96 - 100 AD) --- and even then, most had never even seen a written copy.

The spread of the Holy Church far outstripped the writing, translation, copying and publication of Holy Text. The Church was based on Oral Tradition--- Apostolic preaching --- as the Written Tradition (Scripture) itself demonstrates.

The authority of Written Tradition itself is founded on the reliability and authority of the Oral Tradition which preceded it, sourced it, and provided the hermeneutic context for its correct interpretation.

Remember that even the canonization of the Written Tradition was based on the practice of the churches: the faith of the church was the exclusive source of the canon; the canon of Scripture was not the exclusive source of the faith of the church.

What are the principal truths we have from Oral Tradition? The basics of Sacraments, Liturgy, Apostolic Succession and hierarchy, the veneration of the Saints and of Mary, and the Canon of Scripture itself.

I think this does not interest you because it is not Sola Scripture. But as I said, Sola Scriptura is not tenable, and is not supported by the Bible itself.

In short, "Sola Scriptura" is un-Biblical. It's one of those troublesome "traditions of men". :o!

BTW, if you're ever in Rome, here's an inscription you can see for yourself in the 1st - 2nd century catacombs:

"Beata Maria Semper Virgine" (= "Blessed Mary Ever Virgin")

215 posted on 06/28/2015 10:02:13 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o ("If they refuse to listen even to the Church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
On the one hand, the claim that the Catholic Church didn't even exist until Constantine (mid-4th century);

Well?

Where is YOUR data showing it DID??


on the other, an assumption that any error in 1st century central Anatolia must have been Catholic error.

DUH!

It is Catholics who make the claim that ALL churches were Catholic from Day One; so how can it NOT be so?

216 posted on 06/28/2015 12:26:48 PM PDT by Elsie ( Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 211 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
"Blessed Mary Ever Virgin"

I can hear Mary's mom now:

"Girl... when you ever gonna give me some more grandchillen?"

217 posted on 06/28/2015 12:28:14 PM PDT by Elsie ( Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 215 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

“Your argument would be dispositive if we were arguing on the basis of Sola Scriptura; but we can’t accept that principle, because it’s historically untrue and logically impossible.”

First, it is not historically untrue, as we will examine below. Second, your specific claim is that a major doctrine was left out of God’s Word - that same inspired Word that came directly from God.

Now, on to your additional observations and claims.

“There was a NT Church for almost two decades before even the first book of NT Scripture was written (1 Thessalonians, around 51 AD at the earliest), and there were hundreds of Christian ecclesial communities comprising tens or hundreds of thousands of believers before the canon of the NT was closed (around 96 - 100 AD) -— and even then, most had never even seen a written copy.”

Before you hurry on to the NT Scriptures, I pause to tell you that the Hebrew Scriptures were in every major city and according to the Apostle Paul, they contained what was needed to understand Messiah and salvation.

Now, the NT canon began early and closed before the end of 100 ad. During the years before and during the completion of the canon, God did not leave his gatherings without instruction. First, they continued to have the Hebrew Scriptures, they had the Holy Spirit to give them understanding, they have God’s gift of living Apostles, pastors and teachers and they had circulating letters from the Apostles. They heard the Word. They heard the word taught.

“The spread of the Holy Church far outstripped the writing, translation, copying and publication of Holy Text. The Church was based on Oral Tradition-— Apostolic preaching -— as the Written Tradition (Scripture) itself demonstrates.”

It was not simply “oral tradition” as you are claiming. It was oral teaching of what was inspired, and teaching exposition of what was written.

“The authority of Written Tradition itself is founded on the reliability and authority of the Oral Tradition which preceded it, sourced it, and provided the hermeneutic context for its correct interpretation.”

The Scriptures are more than “written tradition”. If you really believe that is all that inspiration means, you are expressing a particularly low view of inspiration. The Authority of Scriptures does not come from oral tradition. It comes from God.

“Remember that even the canonization of the Written Tradition was based on the practice of the churches: the faith of the church was the exclusive source of the canon; the canon of Scripture was not the exclusive source of the faith of the church.”

The canonization of the Word in both testaments was based on a number of things, including what was already known to be from Apostles and some from Peter’s declaration that includes Paul’s inspired books with “the rest of scriptures.”

The source of the inspiration, preservation and canonization was God. Again, this is a rather low view of God’s sovereign work and an exaltation of men.

Later Churches have reexamined the canon and corrected the few errors that remained.

“What are the principal truths we have from Oral Tradition? The basics of Sacraments, Liturgy, Apostolic Succession and hierarchy, the veneration of the Saints and of Mary, and the Canon of Scripture itself.”

The sacraments - baptism and the memorial of the Lord’s supper do not save. The liturgy is not inspired and is not necessary. Apostolic succession is not biblical. Never commanded. Hierarchy is a failure. Idolization of saints and mary is a falsehood and pagan. The canon was completed on multiple factors from a human point of view, but again, if you have a rather low view of the attributes of God, you have larger problems to deal with. You did not mention one “truth” in this paragraph that provides what is needed to save and mature a Christian. Only God’s inspired Word can do this.

“I think this does not interest you because it is not Sola Scripture. But as I said, Sola Scriptura is not tenable, and is not supported by the Bible itself.”

It is and is supported by hundreds of verses in the Hebrew Scriptures and NT. What God reveals about the Scriptures is never said of tradition.

“In short, “Sola Scriptura” is un-Biblical. It’s one of those troublesome “traditions of men”. :o!”

I will disagree. Holding God’s inspired Word at the level of ultimate authority over the actions and traditions of man, holding it as the ultimate authority in every doctrine, prevents tragic failure. It is when churches elevate the teachings of man to equality with Scripture - or completely “dethrone” Scripture, that heresy arises. At that point, paganism rules. Idolization occurs. Sin is accepted. Hierarchies are built. Costumes are sewn. The Spirit leaves.

“BTW, if you’re ever in Rome, here’s an inscription you can see for yourself in the 1st - 2nd century catacombs: “Beata Maria Semper Virgine” (= “Blessed Mary Ever Virgin”)”

So we agree that idolization happened as early as the 200s ad. I will assume that is the best you can find in your quest to claim “it was always believed until 1500.”

And on what authority do you claim a scared believer in the catacombs wrote this? No authority.
By which Apostle do you claim they heard it? No Apostle.
Which inspired Scripture did they read this in? No Scripture.

Best, as always.


218 posted on 06/28/2015 1:55:31 PM PDT by aMorePerfectUnion ( "Forward lies the crown, and onward is the goal.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 215 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
"On the one hand, they claim that the Catholic Church didn't even exist until Constantine (mid-4th century);"...
Well? Where is YOUR data showing it DID??

You actually succeeded in making me laugh there!


For primary sources, you'll want the ante-Nicene Fathers, especially Polycarp and Irenaeus. Google that. Here's a good FReeper resource list with clickable links (See, I'm making it easy for you).


For near-contemporary but secondary sources -- that is, historians of late antiquity --- you'll want Eusebius of Caesarea and Hippolytus of Rome. Google.


Here's a little standard history from a modern scholar:


History of the Catholic Church"The Catholic Church is the longest-enduring institution in the world. Beginning with the first Christians and continuing in our day..." (For heaven's sake, do look up the rest of it...)


Here are citations from non-Catholic sources.


Encyclopaedia Britannica, Catholicism "The Christian church that has been the decisive spiritual force in the history of Western civilization. Along with Eastern Orthodoxy and Protestantism" ...The Catholic Church; When was it founded..."


"ROMAN CATHOLICISM. The largest of the Christian denominations is the Roman Catholic church. As an institution it has existed since the 1st century AD...The name of the church is derived from its base in Rome and from a Greek term meaning "universal." The word Catholic refers to the wholeness of the church, and for many centuries the Roman church claimed to be the only true Christian denomination."b>(Compton's Interactive Encyclopedia © 1996)


ROMAN CATHOLICISM: "Christian church characterized by its uniform, highly developed doctoral and organizational structure that traces its history to the apostles of Jesus Christ in the 1st century C.E." (Merriam-Webster's Encyclopedia of World Religions © 1999, page 938 )


"The history of the Roman Church, therefore, in relation to the ancient oriental churches, is in fact, the history of this claim to supremacy... historians trace to this acknowledgment of the superiority of that see, the numerous references to Rome on matters of doctrine or discipline; the appeals from other churches, even those of Alexandria, Antioch, and Constantinople; the depositions or nominations of bishops, examination and condemnation of heresies. . .

In all the controversies on the Incarnation---the Arian, the Nestorian, the Eutychian, the Monothelite---not only was the orthodoxy of Rome never impeached, but she even supplied at every crisis a rallying point for the orthodox of every church. "(Imperial Encyclopedia and Dictionary, Volume 32 © 1903)


"The Church of Rome is the earliest of Christian organization; after three centuries of persecution, it was given freedom by the edict of Constantine and Licinius and acquired increased influence. Bishoprics were established in various parts of the empire, but the one at Rome remained supreme, and in time the title of Pope, or father originally borne by all the bishops indiscriminately, began to be restricted to the bishop of Rome."(The World Book Encyclopedia © 1940, Page 6166, Volume 14,)


"The attention of every historian has been attracted by the endurance of the Papacy through centuries that have seen the downfall of every other European institution that existed when the Papacy arose, and of a number of others that have originated and fallen, while it continued to flourish. The Roman Catholic offers these facts as evidence that the Church is not merely a human institution, but that it is built "upon a rock" (The World Book Encyclopedia © 1940, Page 5730 Volume 13)


"Historical Notes. The Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church recognizes the Bishop of Rome, the Pope, as the Vicar of Christ on this earth, and as the Head of the Church. It traces its origin from the naming of the Apostles Peter by Jesus as the chief of the Apostles . The authority of Peter as head of the Church is exercised by his successors as the Bishops of Rome. The doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church come from the faith given by Christ to his Apostles." (World Religions, By Benson Y. Landis, © 1957 Page 110)


"For nearly a thousand years the Christians remained practically one great community. Then the Greek Catholics broke away from the Roman Catholics." (The World Book Encyclopedia ©1940, Page 1413 Volume 3)


"(The Catholic) Church... traces an unbroken line of popes from St. Peter in the 1st century AD to the present occupant of the papal throne. During this nearly 2,000-year period there were more than 30 false popes, most notably during the late 14th and early 15th centuries. These men were merely claimants to the position. There have rarely been periods when a genuine pope was not ruling the church. In 1978 John Paul II became the 264th true pope." (Compton's Interactive Encyclopedia © 1996)


"The Roman Catholic church ... the only legitimate inheritor, by an unbroken episcopal succession descending from Saint Peter to the present time, of the commission and powers conferred by Jesus Christ...Until the break with the Eastern church in 1054 and the break with the Protestant churches in the 1500s, it is impossible to separate the history of the Roman Catholic church from the history of Christianity" (The Encarta Encyclopedia © 1997)"


"33-40 A.D.The Roman Catholic Church is founded by Jesus Christ"(The Timetables of History © 1975)


"St. Peter, of Bethsaida in Galilee, From Christ he received the name of Cepha, an Aramaic name which means rock. Prince of the Apostles, was the first pope of the Roman Catholic Church. He lived first in Antioch and then in Rome for 25 years. In C.E. 64 or 67, he was martyred. St. Linus became the second pope." (National Almanac © 1996)


"ROMAN CATHOLICISM The largest of the Christian denominations is the Roman Catholic church. As an institution it has existed since the 1st century AD, ..." (Comptons Encyclopedia ©1995)


"Roman Catholic authority rests upon a mandate that is traced to the action of Jesus Christ himself, when he invested Peter and, through Peter, his successors with the power of the keys in the church. Christ is the invisible head of his church, and by his authority the pope is the visible head." (Encyclopedia Britannica ©1999)


"Roman Catholicism Christian church characterized by its uniform, highly developed doctrinal and organizational structure that traces its history to the Apostles of Jesus Christ in the 1st century AD." (Encyclopedia Britannica ©1999)


ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH, the largest single Christian body, composed of those Christians who acknowledge the supreme authority of the bishop of Rome, the pope, in matters of faith. The word catholic (Gr. katholikos) means "universal" and has been used to designate the church since its earliest period, when it was the only Christian church." (Funk & Wagnalls Encyclopedia ©1998-2000)


"The doctrine of apostolic succession, that is, the continuous transmission of ministry from the time of Jesus until today. The doctrine is found as early as the Epistle to the Corinthians (c. 96) of Pope Clement I."(Funk & Wagnalls Encyclopedia ©1998-2000)


I expect I'll be criticized for not putting in enough, and for putting in way, WAY too much. (I know that cut-and-paste makes the eyes grow weary.) Anyhow I figure there's enough here to get a person rolling who's really itnersted in digging out the truth.

I don't have time right now to make a pre-cooked, pre-sliced, pre-chewed and pre-digested version for everybody along the lines of "My Weekly Reader." I have to clean my kitchen and work some more on my long-neglected parish newsletter.

Grr, grr, grr.

See, I do have a life outside of Free Republic.

219 posted on 06/28/2015 7:10:43 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o ("The Catholic Church is for saints and sinners only. For respectable people, the Anglicans will do.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 216 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
"... on the other, an assumption that any error in 1st century central Anatolia must have been Catholic error."
DUH!
It is Catholics who make the claim that ALL churches were Catholic from Day One; so how can it NOT be so?


EXACTLY! That's exactly the point.

IF all the Christian churches were Catholic from Day One (and "catholic" = the church "according to the whole," all the churches together)--- then the Seven Churches of Asia in John's Revelation are indeed erring Catholic churches, and they are being reprimanded by a Catholic Apostle/Bishop (John).

And that's fine. There were at least 40 local churches by 100 AD, and some needed correcting by St. John, which is exactly what he should be doing as a good Catholic leader: teaching, correcting, governing.

Meddling.

On the other hand, IF the early Church was Baptist or Pentecostal or Non-Denom or something else, as claimed by some FReepers, then the Seven Churches are erring Bapt-Pent-Nondenom churches.

Except as I understand it, Baptist churches don't cotton to "authoritarian hierarchies" and outside interference upon the local congregation, so I suppose they'd just shrug off the correction and go their merry way.

Which explains why there are so many whackadoo Baptists in central Greece.

:o)

"That's a joke, son." (Quote from Foghorn Leghorn)

220 posted on 06/28/2015 7:35:07 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o ("The Catholic Church is for saints and sinners only. For respectable people, the Anglicans will do.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 216 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 281-285 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson