Posted on 09/06/2016 11:16:34 PM PDT by Arthur McGowan
What was the role of the Catholic Church in building Western Civilization? While the typical mainstream narrative depicts the church as hostile to science and philosophy, it appears that once again the truth about history has been stolen from us. Dr. Duke Pesta joins Stefan Molyneux to discuss the unspoken truth about the impact of the Catholic church on scientific inquiry, philosophy and Western Civilization overall.
(Excerpt) Read more at youtu.be ...
Agree w/your assessment of the ascendance of Roman Catholicism on the eastern side of the Saudi Peninsula, in the 6th century, but not in Mecca and Medina.
It wouldn't have had to be ascendant - just influential in the right whirling circles:
I don't see mention of Islamic Convents today -- that's probably because...
Islam
Islam forbids the practice of monasticism and is critical of its practice.
So presumably they were outlawed after the locals sacked the movement of the profit.
So now the question becomes:
Did Kadija and her cohorts set up this system (that remarkably resembles the Roman enterprise) as a collaborative effort with Rome - OR, were the Kadijans operating independently - as Joseph Smith appears to have been doing when he concocted the Mormon fraud?
“I’d think we’d be giving credit to the Holy Spirit on this.’
I already did: Post 478: “The simple fact is the Church came to that conclusion with the Holy Spirit’s guidance.”
Care to try again?
You are floundering, I just pray it is not 'hopelessly lost'.
“Amazing disconnect you have there.”
Nope.
“You accredit Holy Spirit guidance for the compiling of the New Testament Bible, yet you ignore the Holy Spirit guidance at the first great Apostle’s Council where the issue of eating/drinking blood was specifically addressed in the Letter!”
No, I don’t ignore at all. But I can see why an apparently uniformed person who apparently cares nothing about the truth might come to such a bizarre conclusion about me out of apparent ignorance. I simply understand the letter properly unlike some people who post here.
First, it must be remembered that the pronouncement made at the Jerusalem Council was not a doctrine, but rather a discipline of the Church. Why was such a disciplinary rule made? The clue is in the mention of “pollution of idols” (15:20) - strangled foods and blood were often part of pagan ceremonies in the ancient world. Additionally, the Jewish converts to Christianity had lived their whole lives without eating these foods and found them to be particularly repulsive - much like a Muslim today (or a Jew for that matter) regards pork. The Council of Jerusalem sought to ease the integration of Gentiles and Jews into one Church. By establishing the disciplinary rule that foods which Jewish converts found repulsive should be shunned within these mixed communities the Church was ensuring that there would be no cause for division. (One must remember that people ate a meal together when they convened for worship) And the wording of the letter in Acts 15 tells us that that was exactly their intention: “...that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity.” Note that it says “abstain from what has been SACRIFICED TO IDOLS”? And BLOOD? And STRANGLED? And from UNCHASTITY? Unchastity is sinful in any case. The other items are disruptive and upsetting to Jews and Jewish converts to Christianity.
Once these concerns about unity between Jewish and Gentile converts lessened the Church lifted these restrictions. In 1 Corinthians 10 St. Paul speaks about how it is now permissible to eat the flesh of animals sacrificed to idols, warning the Corinthians to only be concerned about causing scandal, rather than any sin or wrongdoing which might be attached to eating the food itself. This clearly shows that the decision of the Council of Jerusalem to avoid certain foods was not doctrinal, but rather a disciplinary one. And no one should forget that other verses show that all foods were made clean in themselves (Mark 7:19; Acts 10:15).
You might want to read the following - if you actually care about truth that is: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/are-christians-forbidden-to-consume-blood
http://www.cuf.org/2004/04/eat-drink-and-be-catholic-the-biblical-prohibition-of-eating-blood/
“You are floundering,”
Not even remotely.
“... I just pray it is not ‘hopelessly lost’.”
No, I am not lost and not a Protestant. I am truly found - a Catholic Christian.
You are one of the saddest cases I have ever come across.
I would not want you folks to miss this post. So revealing ...
“You are one of the saddest cases I have ever come across.”
Since everything I said is true, and what you said about me is completely false - and clearly based on no facts about me at all - you would seem to be a much more sad case than I could ever be.
Let me make sure I understand, are you saying that the "church" (I guess you mean the Roman Catholic church) is who determined which books were "inspired" and belonged in the canon/rule of faith? Do you mean to imply that this puts the church in authority OVER and ABOVE the word of God? I can imagine a scene where a group of clergy are sitting around with a pile of scrolls telling God which writings HE inspired they would accept and which ones they reject! NOPE.
I noticed, though, that you hedged your bets by saying "there are no verses that tell us specifically much". So, you acknowledge that there IS some, maybe not "much", but some? How many would convince you? Like I said, the principles that determined Divine inspiration for the Old Testament are the same for ALL of the Bible. It is why we know that the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical books are NOT inspired and don't belong in the same category as the universally recognized canon.
And this poor soul cannot discern the duplicity he/she/it is defending in order to defend the Catholic Mass blasphemy.
Let me add, Paul said to Timothy:
But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. (II Timothy 3:14-17)
He was talking about the Old Testament holy scriptures Timothy had learned in the first part but then he said "all scripture" is given by inspiration of God - meaning ALL. Peter taught:
We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. (II Peter 1:19-21)
Holy men of God spoke as they were moved or carried along by the Holy Spirit, they didn't speak from their own interpretation but as the Holy Spirit led them. Peter called Paul's writing Scripture (see II Peter 3:16). The same principle applied and it is why we know we have a more sure word of prophecy - the word of God, not men.
“Let me make sure I understand, are you saying that the “church” (I guess you mean the Roman Catholic church) is who determined which books were “inspired” and belonged in the canon/rule of faith?”
The Catholic Church - with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
“Do you mean to imply that this puts the church in authority OVER and ABOVE the word of God?”
Nope. The fact that that is (apparently) your knee-jerk response says much about your thinking and nothing about my beliefs. The Church is the guardian of interpretation - under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a3.htm
“I can imagine a scene where a group of clergy are sitting around with a pile of scrolls telling God which writings HE inspired they would accept and which ones they reject! NOPE.”
Well, once again we see that your imaginings are wrong. Do you ever ask yourself why you make mistake after mistake in regard to the Catholic faith but apparently believe you’re in a position to attack it?
“I noticed, though, that you hedged your bets by saying “there are no verses that tell us specifically much”. So, you acknowledge that there IS some, maybe not “much”, but some?”
I never hedge my bets. I simply try to get it right each time. I don’t always succeed, but I made no mistake there and did not hedge my bets. Another error on your part. Try again.
“How many would convince you?”
Any. But what I assume will happen - because it happens so often - is that one thing will be falsely presented as another.
“Like I said, the principles that determined Divine inspiration for the Old Testament are the same for ALL of the Bible.”
I know you said that. . . but that doesn’t answer my question.
“It is why we know that the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical books are NOT inspired and don’t belong in the same category as the universally recognized canon.”
That’s what you say. That’s not what the Bible says. That’s not anything the Apostles said. That’s not anything that the Church decided. That’s not anything that the other historical Churches decided. Only Protestants believe it - and that might be accidental more than anything else.
What you’re posting doesn’t answer the question I asked.
It is your "apparent" knee-jerk responses that says much about your thinking and nothing about my beliefs. It seems that you won't accept ANY answers because your mind is already made up. The church RECEIVED the writings from the Apostles as the word of God and it was their authority that gave the believers the assurance that they were being taught the truth and that their obedience to them was expected. The church was not the arbiter of what would be acceptable to them. They were in submission to the Lord and His word and to those who denied the authenticity and authority of the word, "And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. (II Thess. 3:14)
Sure it does. It answers it specifically and completely.
Hoss :D
I didn't see post 478.
“It is your “apparent” knee-jerk responses that says much about your thinking and nothing about my beliefs.”
No. Your posts speak for your beliefs. And in those posts you REPEATEDLY get things that are dead wrong:
[In your last post]: “Do you mean to imply that this puts the church in authority OVER and ABOVE the word of God?”
[And]: “I can imagine a scene where a group of clergy are sitting around with a pile of scrolls telling God which writings HE inspired they would accept and which ones they reject! NOPE.”
[And]: “I noticed, though, that you hedged your bets...”
Those are all errors on your part - and those are just three - that are more in the post!
“It seems that you won’t accept ANY answers because your mind is already made up.”
If my mind is made up, it’s because the truth is already known. Remember how I’ve asked in various threads about Biblical proof that Matthew wrote an inspired book? Did anyone ever post any evidence of that? No. There is no such verse. None. It doesn’t exist. That’s just the fact and it will NEVER change.
“The church RECEIVED the writings from the Apostles as the word of God and it was their authority that gave the believers the assurance that they were being taught the truth and that their obedience to them was expected.”
The Church WROTE the writings first under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. And the Apostles do not restrict the Word of God to what is written - Paul makes that clear in his own written words!
“The church was not the arbiter of what would be acceptable to them.”
The Holy Spirit guided the Church.
“They were in submission to the Lord and His word and to those who denied the authenticity and authority of the word, “And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. (II Thess. 3:14)”
You still failed to answer my question. There are no such vesres anywhere in the NT. Never have been. Never will be.
Not even remotely.
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.
