Catholism

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Flame

I dont understand the Cartholic faith. The Bible says not to call any man "father" because God is our father, yet the CC says different. The Bible says that Jesus alone is the one that can forgive sins, but the CC says different. It seem to me that they have a few things confused.

What do you call your sire? Why do you call your sire what you call him? Is that a sin?

[Flame]

Huh? Whats this have to do with my questions?

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Flame

Huh? Whats this have to do with my questions?

Catholics call the leader of the Parish church "father" in much the same way we call our own parent (male), father. Out of respect, out of reverence, and out of love. Pretty simple really.

v/r

Q

[Flame]

The Bible says NOT to call anyone father, in context of religion/faith. It had nothing to do with our earthly fathers.

Pretty simple, really.

[Abogado del Diablo]

Originally Posted by precept

Not so fast! Abogado.....A quick exit by no means make your point. You refer to pseudographical writers[false writers] of God's holy word as if His word was written by mere men who chose to remain anonymous for unclear reasons. This you choose to do when you are found "without legs". You are again "without legs" to explain how the word of God itself speaks, not only of its "not being of private interpretation" but that the word of God is perfect"...Psalm 19:7-8. How can you pontifically say that the word of God contradicts itself as in Paul contradicting himself re [the]his writings in the book of Acts; yet have God's handpicked prophet David saying that the word of God is "Perfect"?

Does the Psalm mention "The Acts of The Apostles"? Didn't think so.

Originally Posted by precept

If the choice is given between accepting the "Word of scholars" who thmeselves are without understanding of God's word in the slightest; and between accepting the "Word of God's prophet" who so understands God's word that he is proclaimed by God Himself as a "man after God's own heart"; whose "word, Abogado...would you, without a doubt, choose to believe?

Neither. Since what you are using as a reference to the authenticity of "The Acts of the Apostles" from the Psalmist doesn't even mention the "Acts" and couldn't have because the Psalm was written centuries before "Acts" was fabricated.

Originally Posted by precept

Your proposition that the book of Acts "was probably written between 150AD-200AD makes Gentile the author/authors of the book of Acts.

No. It makes proto-orthodox Christians hopelessly trying to mesh the teachings of the Ebionites with the teachings of the Marcionites the authors of Acts. They failed.

Originally Posted by precept

This is an impossible proposition; if only because the Gentile Christians took over the leadership of the Christian church in 130AD after the Jewish Christian leadership was forcibly removed by the emperor Adrian from the very Jewish Christian church centered in Jerusalem.

Not impossible at all. The authorship of the orthodox canon and the proto-orthodox leadership in the latter half of the second century was centered in the churches in Rome and Lyons - not the Jerusalem Church. It's Hadrian, BTW.

Originally Posted by precept

You make gentile author/authors glorify the Jewish Acts of the Apostles when in fact the opposite was true[the Christian Gentiles were busily preoccupied in distancing themselves from their very Jewish origins;

You haven't read the apologists and proto-orthodox church fathers of the second half of the second century then. They were busy trying to integrate the Jewish Chrisitianity of the Nazoreans and Ebionites with the writings of Paul to try to pull the rug out from under Gnostics like Marcion. It was out of this soup of ideas that Catholicism was born under the direction of the Bishop of Lyons.

Originally Posted by precept

Yet would have gentile writers commanding Paul to adhere to Jewish rituals and Jewish laws;

Yes, they would. What you are missing is that Catholicism carried forward a lot of Judaism. That's why I asked you to do an exercise of comparing Tevilah to Catholic use of water. But since you don't want to answer questions, you never got there. Other examples: Catholics traditionally practice circumcision, they also have an established priesthood that acts as an intermediary between the people and God. The irony continues to be that you are actually defending Catholicism and you don't know it!

Originally Posted by precept

"early church fathers"[/b]ESTABLISHING PAUL'S AND THUS JEWISH SABBATH OBSERVANCE; BUT YOU ALSO HAVE THE SAME GENTILE WRITER SAYING THAT HIS FELLOW GREEK GENTILE CHRISTIAN ALSO ATTENDED SYNAGOGUE ON THE SABBATH! Acts 18:4.

You also have this same gentile writer saying that Paul had Timothy circumcised! Have you read Galatians recently? Take a look at Paul's account of his second (of two) trips to Jerusalem and his fervent defense of his refusal to let the "mutilators of the flesh" circumsicse Titus. Sorry, the author (whoever it was) of Acts has it wrong when it comes to Paul. This author has a completely different account of Paul's conversion from the one Paul himself relates. Take a look - compare them - I dare ya' (Galatians 1:15-24 vs. Acts 9:1-31, BTW).

Heck, Acts even contradicts itself! Compare Acts 9: 3-19 & 22:5-16, where Paul was made helplessly blind by the revelation and was ignorant of its meaning, that the voice in the revelation tells him to enter Damascus to learn the meaning of the revelation. And where those with him had to lead him by the hand into Damascus, where his sight is restored after being baptized by Ananias, who tells Saul the meaning of the revelation. Meanwhile, Acts 26:12-20 Paul is not made helplessly blind by this revalation, nor is he ignorant of its meaning. In this account he doesn't have to enter Damascus to be baptized by Ananias and learn the meaning of the revelation, for its meaning is revealed to him in the revelation itself, before entering Damascus.

Originally Posted by precept

Is the dilemna mine or is it still yours?

The "dilemma" is definitely yours, my friend. Even accepting "Acts" as true, you still don't get where you are trying to go. Paul did not teach non-Jewish Christians they had to follow Jewish customs and practices. He taught the opposite of your proposition. Even with your best argument you aren't even close to supporting what you want to prove.

Originally Posted by precept

[b]The scriptures to which Peter refers is "All scripture is written by inspiration of God" Paul:2 Timothy 3:16. Which annuls your supposition that the book of Acts was "probably written by sinful men".

Absolutely wrong. The only thing it annuls in any belief that I'll accept circular logic as a legitmate argument. I won't.

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by Abogado del Diablo

You haven't read the apologists and proto-orthodox church fathers of the second half of the second century then. They were busy trying to integrate the Jewish Chrisitianity of the Nazoreans and Ebionites with the writings of Paul to try to pull the rug out from under Gnostics like Marcion. It was out of this soup of ideas that Catholicism was born under the direction of the Bishop of Lyons.

Oh boy, the last thing I should do is get involved in this discussion! And I have not read the apologists and proto-orthodox fathers but the above begs two questions in my mind. First, why would they try to integrate two disparate religious systems if there was no conncetion between the two in their experience (why not just take say the N-E system and fold in the Suffering Servant come in the flesh?). Second,

It makes proto-orthodox Christians hopelessly trying to mesh the teachings of the Ebionites with the teachings of the Marcionites the authors of Acts. They failed.

how can you consider it "failed" when it has been the main form of Christianity for going on 2000 years? I would say as a religious system it has catagorically succeeded Sure it's far from perfect and prone to tragedy and corruption (as is any institution), but billions of souls have drawn inspiration and comfort and, dare I say, enlightenment, from its shores.

my 2 c,
lunamoth

[Abogado del Diablo]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

First, why would they try to integrate two disparate religious systems if there was no conncetion between the two in their experience (why not just take say the N-E system and fold in the Suffering Servant come in the flesh?).

It's all about "apostolic succession."

Gnostics like Marcion and Valentinus claimed to base their teachings on the writings of Paul. This is why Marcion's Canon (the first cannonical collection of scriptures in Chiristian history) consisted primarily of ten Pauline epistles. Tellingly, Christian writers and apologists prior to Marcion do not rely on Paul's writings. Those afterward, starting in the second half of the second century, do. Iraeneus, the Bishop Lyons, sought to create one unified faith from the chaos of different beliefs in circulation by the late second century. These systems ran the course. There were Jewish messianic movements, which were little more than the continuing practice of Judaism to which was added a belief that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah - i.e. the Ebionites and similar groups (I suspect "precept" would find them most appealing). There were also anti-Jewish groups who rejected anything Jewish in custom or teaching in the Gospel.

Iraeneus adopted one sort of "middle of the road" view of the meaning of the gospel and thereafter branded any disagreement as a heresy. He had a problem though. He had to deal with the Marcionites' and Valentinians' claims that they were successors to the direct oral teachings of Paul and that Paul's vision of Christianity as revealed in his epistles could not be reconciled with Iraneaus' own views. Conveniently, the book of Acts of the Apostles starts showing up on the work of heresiologists starting in the latter half of the second centurty. Low and behold, the book puts speeches into the mouths of Paul and Peter to directly contradict the writings of Paul that Ireaneus and "precept" find so disconcerting. The purpose was not to explicitly integrate Marcionism (Iraeneus was definitely opposed to that). The idea was to steal Paul away from the Gnostics and explain away those parts of his writings that did not fit with the theology of the emerging orthodoxy.

UPDATE: I left off the last part of this. The motive then was to establish that Paul recognized Peter's authority (despite statements to the contrary in Galatians) so that the Roman Bishop (and later, the Pope) could impose the orthodox theology by the old "appeal to authority" and effectively nullify the key problems presented by Paul's own writings. This is the reason for all this nonsense about "apostolic succession."

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Second, how can you consider it "failed" when it has been the main form of Christianity for going on 2000 years?

It hasn't failed in reaching converts. In that regard, it's a smashing (literally sometimes) success. It failed in its attempts to reconcile the writings of Paul with Orthodoxy. As this discussion demonstrates, one has to ignore huge parts of Paul's epistles or perform absurd logical backflips to accept the accounts in Acts. It is on this level that it "failed."

[Abogado del Diablo]

The motive then was to establish that Paul recognized Peter's authority (despite statements to the contrary in Galatians) so that the Roman Bishop (and later, the Pope) could impose the orthodox theology by the old "appeal to authority" and effectively nullify the key problems presented by Paul's own writings.

And this, in turn, is why it's so ironic to me that "precept" thinks he is arguing against Catholicism.

[Bandit]

hmmm

i do not believe the book of Acts was fabricated.

Without Acts you have no record of the New Testament Church & the first sermon ever preached unto eternal life & salvation, witnessing the death burial & resurrection of the Lord Jesus. This took place way before Catholcism was founded. Neither do you have record of the fulfillment of promise of the out pouring of the Holy Ghost which was promised by Jesus & prophesied by Joel, as well as the other signs that Jesus said would follow believers in the 4 gospels.
Jesus declared Peter was the rock His church would start on & the gates of hell would not prevail against it. Out of Peters mouth first, did the gentiles also hear the Word of the Lord.
There is no other writing that speaks of these things that I am aware of.
It can be dated as early as 60-70A.D.
Acts is also historically & archaeologically sound.
It is one thing to study the bible from History & Scholarly perspectives, it is another thing to study it and live it by faith & then to know it is the Word of the Lord.


I am not catholic, but If it were not for the efforts of the Catholic Church, there would most likely be no bible for us today.

Acts is my favorite book. Like I always say, if someone does not like the books in the bible, they can always put together there own.

Whatever flips your skirt..just my 2 pennies.

[didymus]

I am having a difficult time foolowing this debate. Maybe I am ADD or something. Why are we disputing what Paul said about the law. Quite frankly I don't care what Paul said. Let's look at what Jesus said about it. To me the 10 commandments are a basic guide to morality. I don't think they were put there to show us we can't live up to them. They are there to give us something to strive for.

Matthew 5:17, Jesus stated he came to fulfill the law not abolish it.

Luke 11:52; "woe to you experts in the law, because you have taken away the key to knowledge. You yourselves have not entered, and you have hindered those who were entering."

Matthew 22: 37-40 Jesus preached the 2 greatest laws and stated all the prophets and the Law hang on them.

To me Jesus came as an exemplary manifestation of the perfect Law through a human being. Jesus preached the Law and lived by it. He encouraged others to do it likewise.

Read Luke 18:18- 20
Jesus is asked by a rich ruler how to inherit eternal life. Jesus responds by telling him to obey the commandments.

[didymus]

(how can you consider it "failed" when it has been the main form of Christianity for going on 2000 years? I would say as a religious system it has catagorically succeeded Sure it's far from perfect and prone to tragedy and corruption (as is any institution), but billions of souls have drawn inspiration and comfort and, dare I say, enlightenment, from its shores.)

Luna, I have been reading a book; Constantine's Sword. It is very disturbing. The history of Christianity is mired in violence and forced conversions. Thousands were forced to convert to Catholicism or face death and torture. Jews were tortured and forced to admit they were guilty of crimes they didn't commit in order to further the Christian cause and cast doubt on the Jewish as evil. They were even blamed for the Black Plague. Christianity has been shrouded in "evil" ever since people tried to claim control and authority over it.

Yes, I know there are many souls that were lost and found peace, love and salvation in Christianity and millions of Christians have done countless kind things over the years. I too have felt God's presence in Christianity. This goes without saying. I just had to point out that Christianity is not where it is today because people embraced it and came to it voluntarily. It has been forced upon western culture over the past 2000 years.

[lunamoth]

Hi didymus, yes I am aware of the brutalities, oppression and injustices associated with the highjacking of Christianity for political reasons over the centuries. It is very disturbing to me as well. But where does that leave us? Do we reject 2000 years of wisdom and the saving grace of Christ's life, teachings, and Spirit among us? I think of religion as a living, evolving thing. Christianity has passed through some very ugly stages and there are aspects of Christianity today that are still ugly, exclusive, oppressive. We still don't get it. But I would say we get it better today than at any other time in the history of Christianity (besides perhaps the very first generation of believers).

Here is a question for anyone following this thread. If you had been present in those formative years of Christianity, witnessing what Abogado describes as the proto-orthodox period, what do you think you would have done. Suppose you were in a community where previously all Christians worshiped together, including those with Gnostic ideologies, those from Jewish background, those from Gentile, and suddenly many of the things you believe are being labeled heresy and someone is claiming infallible authority and saying "it must be this way or you are not really a Christian." What would you do? I'm not asking if you lean toward alternative or orthodox Christianity as it is defined today. I'm asking what you would do about (how would you protest against) the persecutions that were starting to take place. Would it shake your faith?

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Hi didymus, yes I am aware of the brutalities, oppression and injustices associated with the highjacking of Christianity for political reasons over the centuries. It is very disturbing to me as well. But where does that leave us? Do we reject 2000 years of wisdom and the saving grace of Christ's life, teachings, and Spirit among us? I think of religion as a living, evolving thing. Christianity has passed through some very ugly stages and there are aspects of Christianity today that are still ugly, exclusive, oppressive. We still don't get it. But I would say we get it better today than at any other time in the history of Christianity (besides perhaps the very first generation of believers).

Here is a question for anyone following this thread. If you had been present in those formative years of Christianity, witnessing what Abogado describes as the proto-orthodox period, what do you think you would have done. Suppose you were in a community where previously all Christians worshiped together, including those with Gnostic ideologies, those from Jewish background, those from Gentile, and suddenly many of the things you believe are being labeled heresy and someone is claiming infallible authority and saying "it must be this way or you are not really a Christian." What would you do? I'm not asking if you lean toward alternative or orthodox Christianity as it is defined today. I'm asking what you would do about (how would you protest against) the persecutions that were starting to take place. Would it shake your faith?

Well now, the million dollar question. What would one do? That I think depends on the individual. It depends upon their personal strength, strength of faith, and willingness to trust in the Lord, that all things would come to ultimate good. And you know what? You wouldn't know for certain until it stared you in the face, and you had to choose.

Acts shows how Stephen handled his ultimate demise. He knew his death was nigh, yet he spoke boldly against the hypocracy of the Sanhedrin. And even in the waning moments of his life while suffering the barrage of stones, he asked the Lord to accept his spirit, and asked the Lord to forgive his agressors' actions. (the prayer of Stephen).

v/r

Q

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, lunamoth!

What an excellent question!

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Here is a question for anyone following this thread. If you had been present in those formative years of Christianity, witnessing what Abogado describes as the proto-orthodox period, what do you think you would have done. Suppose you were in a community where previously all Christians worshiped together, including those with Gnostic ideologies, those from Jewish background, those from Gentile, and suddenly many of the things you believe are being labeled heresy and someone is claiming infallible authority and saying "it must be this way or you are not really a Christian." What would you do? I'm not asking if you lean toward alternative or orthodox Christianity as it is defined today. I'm asking what you would do about (how would you protest against) the persecutions that were starting to take place. Would it shake your faith?

What a time to not have my history notes handy...so I'm gonna play this by ear. I'll probably hit a few sour notes, so please correct me where I am mistaken.

I want to say first, that this is the first I have heard of Acts being a later addition. I have heard of other additions and insertions, but not a whole book. I haven't had time to look into it yet, so for now I will take Abogado at his word (he hasn't let me down yet). Now, I am not very familiar with the language yet, but I understood Acts was written by the same author as the Gospel of Luke. Something to do with frequent use of medical terminology, as Luke is presumed to be a doctor. So, I am not sure how Acts could be a later addition if the writing style of the author matches that of Luke...

To luna's question: being a Christian early on, say around the end of the second century but before Christianity was made the official state religion of Rome, would be a hazardous undertaking. While there were times of relative tolerance, Christians were often hunted down like common criminals. There were at least 3 or 4 times as I recall, when one could be legally thrown to the lions or used as game in bloodsport. At least once, Christians were placed in vats and set alight (while alive!) as torches for one of the Ceasar's parties. Being a Christian was a huge social step backward, at least in the major cities.

So it has always amazed me, the resolve the early church fathers must have had in order to maintain a congregation under such circumstances. If I remember correctly, Emperor Constantine came into power in 312 AD, and the council of Nicea(?) took place in 325 AD, when Christianity consolidated under Constantine. Any time prior to this, Christians were subject to persecution. The reasons are many and would take too long, my point is that it was WAY difficult to even be a Christian prior to this point in time.

I am thinking that a lot of the different interpretations, or schools of thought, in Christianity developed from the different applications. As the Word spread to those accustomed to a particular way of thinking and dealing with things, such as mystics for example, then those people would bring mystical interpretation to the Word. Once you get 4 or 5 competing schools of thought, the whole thing gets a little fuzzy and hard to see. I think Constantine saw something like this, so when he made Christianity legal, he also made it a point to agree what that Christianity should look like. Some schools of thought were ignored or dismissed, others had to merge into a unified whole. And the Catholic Church was born...

As for prior to that time, if one were brave enough to even be considered a Christian, one would of necessity have to be very discrete. Likely, meetings were secretive and held in private. There would have to be an air of trust between members of the group. Newcomers would be suspect at first. So I am thinking Christianity was a counter-culture reaction as much as anything. A typical Christian probably went through a regular day trying to look and act in a manner so that "he" fit in without drawing suspicion. The deeper discussions concerning what would become dogma and doctrine probably took place among the more learned people who led these groups, and probably stemmed from questions arising from practical application. As for how news would be received about one group being favored over another, it would not matter at the local level. A particular group would continue doing its own thing, because all are still illegal at this point. No one group prior to Constantine held sway over the others. They were still jockeying for their precarious political positions. So from a layman's perspective of this period of time, it seems kinda like a "he said, she said" argument. If my group agrees, I'll agree. If not, I don't. So for a Greek group it probably didn't make a lot of difference how an Egyptian group interpreted the Word, and the Egyptians didn't care about the Greeks. At least until Constantine.

My two cents. Or maybe four tonight...

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Well now, the million dollar question. What would one do? That I think depends on the individual. It depends upon their personal strength, strength of faith, and willingness to trust in the Lord, that all things would come to ultimate good. And you know what? You wouldn't know for certain until it stared you in the face, and you had to choose.

Acts shows how Stephen handled his ultimate demise. He knew his death was nigh, yet he spoke boldly against the hypocracy of the Sanhedrin. And even in the waning moments of his life while suffering the barrage of stones, he asked the Lord to accept his spirit, and asked the Lord to forgive his agressors' actions. (the prayer of Stephen).

v/r

Q

Hi Q, I agree with what you've said, but the example of Stephan is a bit different in that he was martyred by those outside of Chrsitianity. But what I'm talking about is the divisions that started to arise within Christianity. We can't really know how it was, so I'm really asking this based upon conjecture. I don't know, it's late and I'm rambling... never mind.

lunamoth