Catholism

[Abogado del Diablo]

Originally Posted by precept

What you give; you take away! In the first place; yoiu care nothing for the world re-nowned Catholic Christian historian, Eusebius. You call him "Constantine's propagandist's"; yet you accept the counsels and decisions of Constantine, chairman of the first council of the Roman Catholic church in Nicea! How odd!

You do realize that I'm not Catholic, right?

I don't accept any counsels or decisions of Constantine (or Eusebius, or Irenaeus, or Athanasius, or Tertullian, or the Books of Acts, or any Christian dogma or doctrine for that matter). You've made a serious error in judgment by assuming you know where I am coming from, and as a result haven't bothered to really read anything I've posted.

This is truly a pointless discussion.

[Abogado del Diablo]

Originally Posted by precept

If you can't believe a qualified, re-nowned historian; and with your supplying no historic record to refute a credible historic historian of your own church; how can any rational, intelligent person, accept a substitute

It should have been obvious to anyone reading my posts in this thread that I'm not Catholic. But . . .

Originally Posted by precept

Examine your own presents! Then examine mine on the same subject. You may just see the lack of understanding, whether on your part or on mine!

I know exactly where the lack of understanding lies.

Originally Posted by precept

Again; examine your logic! If Irenaeus was against the "fabricated book of the Acts of the Apostles as he must; seeing they were "fabricated"[according to you] His stand would be no less vigilant than your own.

Where did I ever say that Ireneaus thought Acts was fabricated? I think I've said about half a dozen times that he specifically did not think anything of the sort. What are you even talking about?!

Originally Posted by precept

He like you would have zero tolerance for the "fabricated" book of the Acts of the Apostles iin his[according to you] "fledgeling Roman Catholic church". As such he would spare no effort to exclude such "fabricated" works from the accepted works. Yet there is no such record of Irenaeus' opposition to the book of Acts.

Of course there isn't. Again, with whom are you arguing?

Originally Posted by precept

Yes there was! Read the Acts of the Apostles, and the Epistles of Paul and you will see the true version of true early Christianity!

Tell us, oh precept, the "true version of true early Christianity" so that we might be enlightened like you.

Originally Posted by precept

Read Eusebius; he documents, while unknowingly, the false version of early Christianity.[the true version of Early Christianity was destroyed by Adrian about 130AD when he banished everything Jewish from Judea; Orthodox and Christian Jew alike. The Gentile Christian leadership transplanted by the pagan Roman emperor turned true Christianity on its head; where it has officially remained eversince.

This is a complete flight of fancy. Elements of Judaism are all over in mainstream Christianity and have been for two millenia. So are pagan elements. In fact, pagan elements are all over in Judaism and have been for millenia. What's your point?

This is definitely one of the strangest forum discussions I've witnessed. You might want to take a moment to read through this conversation and take a stab at figuring out whether you really know where I am coming from.

Just to make it clear - I AM NOT A CATHOLIC.

[Quahom1]

But I am. And I am pleased to be so.

v/r

Q

[Abogado del Diablo]

I'm not knocking being a Catholic. So my apoligies if someone took it that way. Some of the most decent people I know are Catholic. I was trying to get a point across a very wide chasm in communication that doomed this thread from the outset.

[Quahom1]

Wrong person is in apologizes...

and it does not matter.

[Abogado del Diablo]

Originally Posted by Abogado del Diablo

my apoligies

Dang I need to start editing more carefully.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Abogado del Diablo

Dang I need to start editing more carefully.

That was a qualifier, not to be construde as my being insulted (which I am not by any stretch).

v/r

Q

[emconstantine]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

I'd be happy to discuss the Catholic way with you Shepard.

First the Age of Catholic Christianity, (or birth of) commenced between 70 and 312 AD (or ACE). During this time Chirstianity spread throughout the Roman Empire and eastward. This was a rapidly expanding movement which Christians called "catholic", suggesting that it was universal. These were also trying times with the ridicule of the "pagans" and Roman persecution. To face these challenges, Christians turned more and more to their bishops for spiritual leadership. Catholic Christianity, therefore was identified by a universal vision, by orthodox beliefs, and by episcopal church government.

Peter as Pontifex Maximu:

During the first Vatican Council (1870), Jesus Christ (it was declared), established the papacy with the apostle Peter: and the Bishop of Rome as Peter's successor bears supreme primacy over the whole church. Both Eastern Orthodox and Protestant churches deny both of these claims however.

Though the Cahtholic Church lists 43 "Popes" before Leo I (440-461 AD), Leo is a major figure in the Papal process because he provided for the first time, biblical and theological bases of the papal claim (consider the story of successful negotiations between Leo I and Attila the Hun for peace).

How's that for a debate starter?

v/r

Q

Actually the Roman Catholic Chruch did not start not until Constantine became the Roman Emperor. We could trace RCC in 312, and 314 AD RCC became officially the State Religion of Rome.

Emperor Constantine had taken the title the bishop of Rome, and the Emperor of Rome, and all authority as far as the RCC is concerned lies in the hand of the Emperor, not until Silvester was crowned Bishop by Constantine.

Peter was a Jew and not a Roman citizen, and was an apostle of Christ, and the first Christians after the ascention of the Lord Jesus Christ were Jewish people, living Judaism and followed the Lord Jesus Christ teaching and claimed, not Peter.

The first church was conducted in Jerusalem, not in Rome, although when Christians persecution arises both from the Jewish religious leaders, and Rome, many Christians left Jerusalem, and were scattered all over the place, and some flee to Rome. There they preached the gospel of Christ, and they begin to multiply.

So the authentic Christian Chruch did not begin in Rome with Peter as the first pope, but it begun in Jerusalem with the Jews who left Judaism and followed Christ.

This could be substantiated in the books of Acts written by apostle Luke, a medical Doctor at that time.

[BlaznFattyz]

Originally Posted by emconstantine

Peter was a Jew and not a Roman citizen, and was an apostle of Christ, and the first Christians after the ascention of the Lord Jesus Christ were Jewish people, living Judaism and followed the Lord Jesus Christ teaching and claimed, not Peter.

The first church was conducted in Jerusalem, not in Rome, although when Christians persecution arises both from the Jewish religious leaders, and Rome, many Christians left Jerusalem, and were scattered all over the place, and some flee to Rome. There they preached the gospel of Christ, and they begin to multiply.

So the authentic Christian Chruch did not begin in Rome with Peter as the first pope, but it begun in Jerusalem with the Jews who left Judaism and followed Christ.

This could be substantiated in the books of Acts written by apostle Luke, a medical Doctor at that time.

i agree with the first christians and church being jewish and in jerusalem. i half agree with jews leaving judaism, i prefer to say that they went on to learn more of the gospel and continued on and growing mature in their faith, keeping all the things that they were asked to remember, but no longer a requirement by law to obtain grace, but out of love for god inspired by the holy spirit, and by the grace of jesus christ they are saved.

[emconstantine]

Again, debate will never end between the Catholics and the Protestant concerning where did the Church actually begun. But we can solve this debate if we are going to be honest and follow the cronological order of history from the time the follower of Christ were called Christians outside their congregation.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by emconstantine

Again, debate will never end between the Catholics and the Protestant concerning where did the Church actually begun. But we can solve this debate if we are going to be honest and follow the cronological order of history from the time the follower of Christ were called Christians outside their congregation.

In reality, the Christian "church" began three years after the stoning death of Stephen (in 7 AD/ACE). At that point the followers of Jesus pulled away from the Jewish roots and founded their own system of belief. Though it was ramshackle in the beginning, there were enough "mini" congregations to ensure the continuation of the church to the point of official faith status some 326 years later. regardless of his motives, we do have Constantine to thank for that.

v/r

Q