Catholism

[didymus]

Luna, by no means should we reject it. There is some truth in the version of Christianity we have before us. I do take alot with a grain of salt. From studying the early sects of christianity and their forms of worship, prayer and belief you'll see a wide range of views and belief systems surrounding Jesus and Christianity for 300 years. In my opinion no established form of Christianity has the right to oppose their views onto others. And noone can claim authority over God's word. Ironic that God created us and the universe(which we still can't fathom through science and thousands of years here on earth) but yet we boast to know God right down to the claim that we know His very thoughts, words and even his alleged interactions with satan.

So all of this leaves me at a fork in the road. Do I continue to believe what others have decided is truth without question or do I allow God to speak to me as an individual. I choose to listen to God and be guided on a new path keeping in mind all I have learned and experienced for myself and leaving behind that that doesn't speak truth to me.

 

[lunamoth]

Hi Juantoo3, thank you for that very helpful information. Somehow I was getting the impression that the internal conflict within Christian groups arose before Constantine. Do keep those notes handy!

lunamoth

 

[lunamoth]

Hi didymus, I think that ultimately each of us does follow our own path and speak to God personally. That option is there for us at all times, no matter where we are on the path (or at the fork), and for those on a road and those who go four-wheeling.

peace,
lunamoth

 

[Abogado del Diablo]

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).

Thanks. Hopefully I won't disappoint.

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.

Well . . . .maybe. There may have been more than one version of the Gospel of Luke. We know from the anti-heresiologists that the Marcionites also used the Gospel of Luke only their version was shorter and missing a number of things that later writers said were part of that Gospel. Meanwhile, there are not explicit extant references to Luke or its contents prior to Marcion's Canon (the "Evangelicon"). Thus, it is entirely possible that the Gospel of Luke was modified from an earlier version and "Acts" was added as the theological debate began to crytalize between the Gnostics, the Ebionites and the proto-Orthodox in the second half of the second century. That would explain the consistency between the two if Luke were revised by the same hand that wrote Acts sometime around or shortly after 150 C.E.

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...

From what I've read that view of Luke as a Doctor (tradition said he was Paul's personal physician) has been largely discredited. I would recommend JH Cadbury's famous treatise The Style and Literary Method of Luke where he examines this theory in painstaking detail.

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...

Those schools were all still around at the time of Constantine. He had his choice of which religion to make the official state religion of traditionally pagan Rome. He chose Christianity but I don't think it would have ever been any other version than the one chosen because there were certain attributes of that version he chose that made it especially palatable as the religion of a brutal empire. Thus, the real question is: "why did Rome choose the Catholic form of Christianity as the state religion?" My opinion is that the autocratic attributes of Catholicism (moreso of the time than today, certainly) made it especially attractive to an Emperor.

The subordination of personal revelation and the personal search for truth to Church leadership and pre-established doctrines and dogma was perfect for a national Roman religion. The fundamentally violent attitude that this version of Christianity (at that time) held toward any dissenters was especially well-suited to a Roman empire that would have many an occassion to need a justification for permanently silencing opposition - and it did.

It's no accident that Greek philosophy disappeared from the Roman empire only to be rediscovered centuries later after contact with the Arab world through the Crusades. The killing of dissenting beliefs meant the killing off of the philosophers and the destruction of their writings. It is, in a nutshell, the reason for the Dark Ages.

 

[Abogado del Diablo]

One thing I forgot to add with regard to the author of Acts being a disciple or companion of Paul. I find it almost impossible to believe that the author of Acts was personally acquainted with Paul. There is no way that the Paul who wrote the epistles to the Galatians (see Ch.2) or Phillipians (Ch.3, where he refers to those who preach circumcision as "mutilators of the flesh") would have had Timothy circumcised as the author of Acts reports.

No way.

 

[iBrian]

Those schools were all still around at the time of Constantine. He had his choice of which religion to make the official state religion of traditionally pagan Rome. He chose Christianity but I don't think it would have ever been any other version than the one chosen because there were certain attributes of that version he chose that made it especially palatable as the religion of a brutal empire. Thus, the real question is: "why did Rome choose the Catholic form of Christianity as the state religion?" My opinion is that the autocratic attributes of Catholicism (moreso of the time than today, certainly) made it especially attractive to an Emperor.

That's possibly a little harsh - the impression I'm given to is that the human side was also quite important - not least that Athanasius is generally reported to have been a generally personable and polite person, whereas Arius comes across as someone who was happy to disregard authority. Perhaps that's an echo of propaganda writings after Nicaea. However, if not to any degree, then I should have thought this could make for a significant part of the decision-making process as well.

 

[Abogado del Diablo]

- not least that Athanasius is generally reported to have been a generally personable and polite person, whereas Arius comes across as someone who was happy to disregard authority. Perhaps that's an echo of propaganda writings after Nicaea.

I'm sure Athanasius was personable and polite so long as you agreed with him. His anti-heresiololgy writings, though, are full of spite, arrogance and anger. In a letter to Epictetus, Bishop of Corinth, Athanasius says: "I wonder your piety suffers these heresies, and that you did not immediately put those heretics under restraint and propose the true faith to them; that if they would not forbear to contradict they might be declared heretics; for it is not to be endured that these things should be either said or heard amongst Christians." Elsewhere, he says of his opponents "that they ought to be held in universal hatred for opposing the truth." Athanasius contra mundum.

Of course, Athanasius himself was a direct target of other anti-heresiologists and repression at times (he and his teachings were outlawed in the empire by the Arians in 335). Apparently he never saw the irony. Neither did those who murdered men, women and children for not following the good bishop's writings in the centuries that followed.

One need look no further than the Justinian decrees against Jews, pagans, non-Trinitarian Christians and other "heretics" - and the historical outcome of this "anti-heretic" approach to the "faith" - to see where the ideologies of Athanasius (and others like him) carried us.

 

[precept]

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

Unlike you the early True and authentic Christian community had no need of written acknowledgement of any scripture to verify authenticity of a section of scripture that was, in their mind, as clearly as inspired.
"Before the time of Irenaeus, the sacred books of the Christians were in the main the Hebrew bible, 'law, prophets, and writings' or 'Old Testament'.
The traditons of the words of the Lord was largely oral, and even after the canonical gospels were freely circulating, second-century citation of Jesus' teaching often suggest "oral" than written transmission........The 'writteness' of the apostolic tradition was of the accidents rather than the substance of the apostolic proclamation concerning Christ." Illustrated History of Christianity...chp.1; p30-32.

The above traditions of early True Christianity was replaced by the false replacement of Christianity[the further removed from the true must be seen the untrue]. The false replacement, rearing its ugly head proclaimed a variant re inspiration of the sacred word, in the second century....."In the second centuryy a variant of this theme appeared in the assumptions made by writers in the orthodox tradition that onthe essentials all Christians rightly believing are agreed: the cacophony of dissension is a characteristic either of heretics or of pagan philosophers......it is instructive that the Christians of the 'great church' (as a pagan writer,Celsus, called it c.177-80) thought in this way about unity in diversity. There was a pressure towards standardization." Ibid p33.

It therefore stands to any reasonable scrutiny that the True early Christians allowed the true flow of the scriptures to be its own interpreter. They followed the command of God in Isaiah 28:10....that the scriptures must be their own interpreter by comparing "precept upon precept; line upon line; here a little; and there a little." This command by God is further reinforced by His command in Isaiah 8:20..."To the law and the testimony:if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them."

The book of the Psalms reinforce the authenticity of the book of "Acts of the Apostles" by not contradicting any detail of the inspired words of the book of "the Acts of the Apostles"...the book of the Acts of the Apostles does likewise in not contradicting any of the inspired words of the book of the Psalms. The logic is more than apparent; if both books were not inspired; and since both books claim to speak about the same God; contradictions should be rife throught the pages of both books; unless their was collusion between the separate human authors...an impossibility; seeing David the author of the book of Psalms lived more than a thousand years prior to the authorship of the book of the Acts of the Apostles.




[/QUOTE].....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.[/QUOTE]

Your reference to the "fabricated" work; as you describe the book of Acts, is not supported by "your appeal to Irenaeus" and his struggle to reconcile the false doctrines of the Ebionites and the false doctrines of Marcion. Irenaeus did write against these false representations of the True Christian gospel, but certainly not in the context of disclaiming the validity and authenticity of the book of "The Acts of the Apostles".

In the first place the Ebionites[a name of ridicule] "held poor and mean opinions concerning Christ. For they considered him a plain and common man....and who was the fruit of the intercourse of a man with Mary. In their opinion the observance of the ceremonial law was altogether necessary, on the ground that they could not be saved faith in Christ alone and by a corresponding life. There were others however, besides them, that were of tghe same name, but avoided trhe strange and absurd beliefs of the former, and did not deny that the Lord was born of a virgin and of the Holy Spirit. But, nevertheless, inasmuch as they also refused to acknowledge that he pre-existed, being God, Word, and Wisdom, they turned aside into the impiety of the former, especially when they, like them, endeavoured to observe strictly the bodily worship of the law.
These men, moreover, thought that it was necessary to reject all the epistles of the apostle, whom they called an apostate from the law; and they used only the so-called gospel according to the Hebrews and made small account of the rest."[the rest as would include "the book of Acts"] "The sabbath and the rest of the discipline of the Jews they observed just like them, but at the same time, like us, they clebrated the Lord's "days"[as in passover; and an indication that these were Christian Jews who were in error in understanding who Christ was;These Christian Jews also celebrated passover as a memorial of the resurrection of the Saviour.] "Wherefore in consequence of such a course they received the name of Ebionites, which signified the poverty of their understanding. For this is the name by which a poor man is called among the Hebrews". Eusebius of Caesarea: Church History; Book 3.

Marcion on the other hand "listed moral contradictions between the Old and New Testaments, and abominated allegory as a sophisticated device for evading difficulty. But the apostolic writings had been corrupted,[or all the writings of all the apostles..not just the book of Acts] ie he thought,[they were corrupted] by unknown persons determined to keep Christianity Jewish, preserving the new wine of Jesus in old bottles. Marcion felt that even the apostles themselves had seriously misunderstood the intentions of their Master by failing to see how utterly new his message was. He therefore set out to produce a corrected text first of the letters of Paul his hero[ie all of Paul's epistles were corrected] then he also set out to correct the "gospel of Paul's companion Luke(the other gospels being scrapped)....His opinion was that the gospel of Luke was "the work of Paul himself in its original form". History of Christianity...chap.1 pp28-29.

It was a response to Marcion that stimulated the early false Christian church to have authoriized, the canon of scriptures. As previously stated and documented, early true Christianity had the "inspired Old testament and the oral teachings of Jesus as taught by the disciples and their true successors" and they had no need for an authorized canon of scriptures. "Marcion's principle of exclusion gave sharp impetus to the early church's need to define which books did or did not rank as authoritative documents to which appeal could be made. Unlike Marcion, many Gnostic sects welcomed numerous gospels other than the four which were finally included in the canon, and enjoyed producing 'secret' or apocryphal gospels, acts, epistles, and apocaplypses(the choice of these and not other literary genres being a a silent testimony to the existence and currency of the canonical texts)

Many of these 'apocryphal' texts portrayed Jesus as a strenous ADVOCATE OF SEXUAL RENUNCIATION.[sounds familiar?] Some developed the reticent traditiopns of Jesus' infancy to provide stories about Mary's parents, and her miraculous birth and perpetual virginity[origin of the doctrine of immaculate conception, and perpetual virginity of Mary; a Gnostic heretic doctrine!]

"Were the books admitted to the church's canon because they were self authenticating, and a passive act of the community was to acknowledge their inherent authority? Or did the church actively create the canon in response to Marcion and other sectarian leaders whose 'inspired' writings were either more or less than the church accepted? Both questions have to receive affirmative answers, and they are not mutually exclusive......The criterion for admission was not so much that traditions vindicated an apostolic authorship as that the contents of the books was in line WITH THE APOSTOLIC PROCLAMATION RECEIVED BY THE SECOND-CENTURY CHURCHES." Illustrated History of Early Christianity ....chap.1...p29.

In other words, Abogado, the response of the early false church to the Ebionites and to Marcion was to create the canon of scriptures that included the book of Acts; a book that Marcion openly rejected;.. and certainly wasn't any act on the part of Marcion and the Ebionites to authenticate the book of Acts....You couldn't be farther frm the truth in your surmisings!

Eusebius wrote re the early cannonization of scriptures in his History of Christianity book 3....Tatian......."like Marcion and Saturninus, he pronounced marriage to be corruption and fornication[sounds familiar?] Irenaeus at that time wrote thus. But a little later a certain man named Severus put new strength in the aforesaid heresy, and thus brought it about that those who took their origin from it were called, after hjim, Severians. They, indeed, use the Law and Prophets and Gospels, but interpret intheir own way the utterances of sacred scriptures. And they abuse Paul the apostle and reject his epistles[all his epistles]and do not accept even the Acts of the Apostles." Here even your main man Irenaeus disagrees with your erroneus postulate. Irenaeus as you see says that Marcion did not accept the book of the Acts of the Apostles"; which by his saying that Marcion did not accept the book of the Acts of the apostles, meant that he Irenaeus accepted in its entirety the book of the Acts of the Apostles".
If the authority to whom you appealed is in disagreement with you; then you must agree with him to whom you appealed and admit your error in believing that your authority had, like you, condemned the book of Acts as being of human origins.
That said; you have no platform on which to debate the issues if you continue to denigrate the book of the Acts of the Apostles. Your only option is to accept the words of inspired scriptures-the book of the Acts of the Apostles


continued

 

[precept]

The earliest of the move to canonize the scriptures began in the second century; again Eusebius (c290-341)writes "One epistle of Peter, that called the first, is acknowledged as genuine......But we have kearnt that his extant second Epistle does not belong to the canon; yet, as it has appeared profitable to many, it has been used with the other scriptures.....Paul's fourteen epistles are well known and undisputed. It is not indeed right to overlook the fact that some have rejected the "Epistle to the Hebrews", saying that it is disputed by the church of Rome, on the ground that it was not written by Paul.....
Eusebius continues on the subject of canonizing of the scriptures long before the council of Trent:...."Since we are dealing with this subject it is proper to sum up the writings of the New Testament which have been already mentioned. First then must be the holy quaternion of the Gospels; following them the Acts of the apostles".[again; total acceptance of the book of Acts by the false Christian church is not in dispute....The true Christian church has already shown that it needed no canon of the scriptures to rightly identify scriptural truths] Eusebius continues...." After this must be reckoned the epistles of Paul; next in order the extanfinal former epistle of John, and likewise the epistle of Peter, must be maintained. After them is to be placed , if it really seem proper, the Apocaplypse of John, concerning which we shall give the different opinions at the proper time. These then belong among the accepted writings.

Among the disputed writings, which are nevertheles recognized by many, are extant the so-called epistle of James and that of Jude, also the second epistle of Peter, and those that are called the second and third of John, whether they belong to the evangelist or to another person of the same name.

Among the rejected writings must be reckoned also the Acts of Paul, and the so-called Shepherd, and the Apocaplypse of Peter, and in addition to these the extant epistle of Barnabas, and the so-called Teachings of the Apostles; and besides, as I have said, the Apocaplypse of John, if it seem proper, which some, as I said, reject, but which others class with the accepted books. And among these some have placed also the Gospel according to the Hebrews, with which those of the Hebrews that have accepted Christ are especially delighted. And all these may be reckoned among the disputed books.
But we have nevertheless felt compelled to give a catalogue of these also, distinguishing those works which according to ecclesiastical tradition are true and genuine and commonly accepted, from those others which, although not canonical but disputed, are yet at the same time known to most ecclesiastical writers -- we have felt compelled to give this catalogue in order that we might be able to know both these works and those that are cited by the heretics under the name of the apostles, including, for instance, such books as the Godpels of Peter, of Thomas, of Matthias, or of any others besides them, and the Acts of Andrew and John aand the other apostles, which no one belonging to the succession of ecclesiastical writers has deemed worthy of mention in his writings. and further, the character of the style is at variance with apostolic usage, and both the thoughts and the purpose of the things that are related in them are so completely out of accord with true orthodoxy that they clearly show themselves to be the fictions of heretics. Wherefore they are not to be placed even among the rejected writings, but are all of them to be cast aside as absurd and impious."...Eusebius...Church History...book 3. Under the title...chapter..."the Divine Scriptures that are accepted and those that are not"

Evidence in the above re the canonization of New Testament scriptures showed that the book of Acts was completely accepted by the True early church as well as the false early church. Abogado...your contention that the book of Acts was not accepted in the early church and or not probably written under inspiration; whether that of Paul or any other inspired writer, is completely false and without foundation in the process of scriptural authenticty in the early Christian church. The Christian church's earliest historian autheNticates my position that the book of Acts Is the word of God and has always, WITHOUT QUESTION, been accepted as the word of God, by all of Christianity; whether True or False!

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.

Need I comment!

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.

You are right! The Jerusalem Jewish Church no longer existed...Here I quote from the foremost historian of early Christianity....Eusebius..."As the rebellion of the Jews at this time grew much more serious, Rufus governor of Judea, after an auxillary force had been sent him by the emperor, using their madness as a pretext, proceeded against them without mercy, and destroyed indiscriminately thousands of men and women and children, and in accordaance with the laws of war reduced their country to a state of complete subjection. The leader of the Jews at this time was aman by the name of Barcocheba, who posessed the character of a robber and a murderer, but nevertheless,relying upon his name, boasted to them, as if they were slaves, that he possessed wonderful powers; and he pretended that he was a star that had come down to them out of heaven to bring them light in the midst of their misfortunes.

"The war raged most firecly in the eighteenth year of ADRIAN"[note the spelling of ADRIAN].".....ie the war raged most firecly in the eighteenth year of Adrian, at the city of Bithara, which was aa very secure fortress, situated not far from Jerusalem. When the seige had lasted for a long time, and the rebels had been driven tio the last extremity by hunger and thirst, and the instigator of the rebellion had suffered his just punishment, the whole nation was prohibited from this time on by a decree, and by the commands of Adrian, from ever going up to the country about Jerusalem. For the emperor gave orders that they should not even see from a distance the land of their fathers. Such is the account of Aristo of Pella. And thus, when the city had been emptied of the Jewish nation and had suffered the total destruction of its ancient inhabitants, it was colonized by a different race, and the Roman city which subsequently arose changed its name and was called Aelia, in honor of the emperor Aelius Adrian. And as the church there was NOW COMPOSED OF GENTILES, THE FIRST ONE TO ASSUME THE GOVERNMENT OF IT AFTER THE BISHOPS OF THE CIRCUMCISION[the Christian Jewish leaders and all the Christian Jews were banished from ever setting foot again in Judea by the emperor Adrian] Hence the "first one to now fill the vaccuum of Christian leadership was "Marcus" a Gentile Christian.....Eusebius..."And as the church there was now composed of Gentiles, the first one to assume the government of it after the bishops of the circumcision[the Jews] was Marcus."

Need I say more!

It's Hadrian, BTW.

Need I say more!

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.

As has been already documented Marcion, a Gentile christian thought all the writings of all the apostles were corrupted. Which he took upon himself to correct with his own version of the writings of all the apostles. The Ebionites on the other hand were Jews that had accepted Christianity and while accepting all the writngs of Christianity, chose to believe some of teachings and not others. They did not accept that Christ was divine. They believed that he was a mere man, the product of 'intercourse between a man and Mary". They also believed that faith in Christ alone did not assure one of salvation; believing that total adherence to the laws of Judaism together with the acceptance of Christ was necessary to salvation. This position of " adherence to the laws of Judaism together with the acceptance of Christ as Saviour, is not new....it was this same belief of "adherence to the laws of Judaism as well as acceptance of Christ as Saviour" that was the belief position of Christ's disciples. This Christian Jewish faction, therefore, called the Ebionites, was only one of the many different factions of Christianity at that time that twisted the truth of Christianity to their own folly. On the side of Gentile Christianity, are the following Marcion, Nicolaus,Cerinthus and Menander, as well as the Gnostics under their visionary "Mani" , who all twisted the truth of God and also like the Ebionites, to their own folly. Nothing of all the aforementioned "twisters of truth" did, had any connection with the book of "the Acts of the Apostles".

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!

In your above quote, you refer to Catholicism as mimicking[my words]Judaism in some of its eccelsiastical practices such as, for example its priestly ministry...In this you are only partially right! Theirs is a desire to mimic the priestly role of Jesus as written in scripture...and as to "Jesus, the priest" one comes to confess, so to Jesus' assigned representatives[priests] must the faithfull devotees come to receive forgiveness for their sins. The claim of Roman of Roman Catholic priests that they do have the power to forgive sins, that, this claim they trace to that authority being given to Peter, as they trace the authority of their claim to Peter's being tbe leader of the Christian church on earth as they are today. The priests do also mimic the function of Christ. Christ being "between the sinner and His Father God"; with the priest believing that he is the "go between", like Christ is.

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).

You are attempting to re-write history! But history cannot be re-written. History warns everyone 'to not forget the lessons that history teaches...Or you are bound to repeat past mistakes'. You are on such a collision course with history.

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.

As much as I hate saying it....your above presents smacks of "Marcionism".

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.

I again repeat as I have said previously...You must not have read my previous posts on the subject; but again that is not surprising; because if you had, you would have still remained entrenched in folly, no matter the proof to the contrary.

Do pardon an typographical misprints/errors. This was a longer transcript due to the depth of research necessary for a cogent response.



precept

 

[Quahom1]

And you are not Catholic...you don't know but what an outsider knows looking in.

v/r

Q

 

[precept]

And you are not Catholic...you don't know but what an outsider knows looking in.

v/r
Q

Objectivity sees;Then decides to be led.

Subjectivity sees; And is led.


precept

 

[Abogado del Diablo]

Unlike you the early True and authentic Christian community had no need of written acknowledgement of any scripture to verify authenticity of a section of scripture that was, in their mind, as clearly as inspired.
"Before the time of Irenaeus, the sacred books of the Christians were in the main the Hebrew bible, 'law, prophets, and writings' or 'Old Testament'.

So what? The point remains that you are using an inane and logically circular argument. If the Acts of the Apostles didn't exist when the Psalm was written, then the Psalmist wasn't talking about Acts. As far as need a written acknowledgement of any scripture, I suspect you haven't been paying any attention to what I've written in this thread. You might want to review it.

The above traditions of early True Christianity was replaced by the false replacement of Christianity[the further removed from the true must be seen the untrue]. The false replacement, rearing its ugly head proclaimed a variant re inspiration of the sacred word, in the second century.....

I AGREE! That includes "inspiration of the sacred word" you are claiming for "Acts." You are arguing with yourself - not me.

"In the second centuryy a variant of this theme appeared in the assumptions made by writers in the orthodox tradition that onthe essentials all Christians rightly believing are agreed: the cacophony of dissension is a characteristic either of heretics or of pagan philosophers......it is instructive that the Christians of the 'great church' (as a pagan writer,Celsus, called it c.177-80) thought in this way about unity in diversity. There was a pressure towards standardization." Ibid p33.

Yes, there was.

It therefore stands to any reasonable scrutiny that the True early Christians allowed the true flow of the scriptures to be its own interpreter.

No, it doesn't "stand to reason." This is just speculation because nobody really has any clear idea of what the early Christians (first century CE) did or believed.

They followed the command of God in Isaiah 28:10....that the scriptures must be their own interpreter by comparing "precept upon precept; line upon line; here a little; and there a little." This command by God is further reinforced by His command in Isaiah 8:20..."To the law and the testimony:if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them."

Why are you quoting "scripture" to me? You just said that "inspired" scripture and its unquestionable authority was a creation of the second century Church. This is more doublespeak on your part.

The book of the Psalms reinforce the authenticity of the book of "Acts of the Apostles" by not contradicting any detail of the inspired words of the book of "the Acts of the Apostles"

This is just plain lame. They have nothing in common. That's why they don't contradict. The Psalms don't contradict Richard Adams' novel "Traveller" either. It doesn't mean the events in Adams' novel must have actually happened. Your "logic" is absurd.

Your reference to the "fabricated" work; as you describe the book of Acts, is not supported by "your appeal to Irenaeus" and his struggle to reconcile the false doctrines of the Ebionites and the false doctrines of Marcion. Irenaeus did write against these false representations of the True Christian gospel, but certainly not in the context of disclaiming the validity and authenticity of the book of "The Acts of the Apostles".

You aren't reading anything are you? I didn't say Ireneaus disclaimed Acts. I said the absolute opposite - that someone between the time of Justin Martyr and Ireneaus wrote Acts as a polemic against Gnosticism and to try to deal with serious problems created by Paul's letters for the emerging Church.

In the first place the Ebionites . . . Eusebius of Caesarea: Church History; Book 3.

Hmmmm. . . Eusebius . . . first historian of the Catholic Church and Constantine's propagandist . . . are you really going to continue to believe you are somehow refuting Catholicism by relying on Eusebius?

Marcion on the other hand "listed moral contradictions between the Old and New Testaments, and abominated allegory as a sophisticated device for evading difficulty. pp28-29.

So says Eusebius. Who cares?

It was a response to Marcion that stimulated the early false Christian church to have authoriized, the canon of scriptures. As previously stated and documented, early true Christianity had the "inspired Old testament and the oral teachings of Jesus as taught by the disciples and their true successors"

Says you. There is no evidence of what "early true Christianity" was aside from the writings we have.

"Marcion's principle of exclusion gave sharp impetus to the early church's need to define which books did or did not rank as authoritative documents to which appeal could be made. Unlike Marcion, many Gnostic sects welcomed numerous gospels other than the four which were finally included in the canon, and enjoyed producing 'secret' or apocryphal gospels, acts, epistles, and apocaplypses(the choice of these and not other literary genres being a a silent testimony to the existence and currency of the canonical texts)

So are these other oral traditions and their embodiement in written Gnostic gospels, epistles and apocalypses (and other genres) the "scripture" the Psalmist was talking about? You don't know. Nobody does.

Many of these 'apocryphal' texts portrayed Jesus as a strenous ADVOCATE OF SEXUAL RENUNCIATION.[sounds familiar?] Some developed the reticent traditiopns of Jesus' infancy to provide stories about Mary's parents, and her miraculous birth and perpetual virginity[origin of the doctrine of immaculate conception, and perpetual virginity of Mary; a Gnostic heretic doctrine!]

I bet you haven't read the Nag Hammadi texts for yourself. I suggest you do so before you start writing about them. And until you do, I'm not going to waste my time discussing them with you.

"Were the books admitted to the church's canon because they were self authenticating, and a passive act of the community was to acknowledge their inherent authority? Or did the church actively create the canon in response to Marcion and other sectarian leaders whose 'inspired' writings were either more or less than the church accepted? Both questions have to receive affirmative answers, and they are not mutually exclusive......The criterion for admission was not so much that traditions vindicated an apostolic authorship as that the contents of the books was in line WITH THE APOSTOLIC PROCLAMATION RECEIVED BY THE SECOND-CENTURY CHURCHES." Illustrated History of Early Christianity ....chap.1...p29.

Isn't this exactly what I've been saying? Who are you arguing with?

In other words, Abogado, the response of the early false church to the Ebionites and to Marcion was to create the canon of scriptures that included the book of Acts; a book that Marcion openly rejected;.. and certainly wasn't any act on the part of Marcion and the Ebionites to authenticate the book of Acts....

I am now convinced that you haven't read a thing I've written in this thread.

Eusebius wrote re the early cannonization of scriptures in his History of Christianity book 3....Tatian......."like Marcion and Saturninus, he pronounced marriage to be corruption and fornication[sounds familiar?] Irenaeus at that time wrote thus. But a little later a certain man named Severus put new strength in the aforesaid heresy, and thus brought it about that those who took their origin from it were called, after hjim, Severians. They, indeed, use the Law and Prophets and Gospels, but interpret intheir own way the utterances of sacred scriptures. And they abuse Paul the apostle and reject his epistles[all his epistles]and do not accept even the Acts of the Apostles." Here even your main man Irenaeus disagrees with your erroneus postulate. Irenaeus as you see says that Marcion did not accept the book of the Acts of the Apostles"; which by his saying that Marcion did not accept the book of the Acts of the apostles, meant that he Irenaeus accepted in its entirety the book of the Acts of the Apostles".

MY "main man Irenaeus"!? That's hysterical . . .

If the authority to whom you appealed is in disagreement with you; then you must agree with him to whom you appealed and admit your error in believing that your authority had, like you, condemned the book of Acts as being of human origins.

You still aren't tracking this conversation at all. And now you are contradicting yourself as well. You were just relying on Acts and its presumed authority to make your argument that Paul preached to his disciples that they should follow Jewish custom and practice, and now you are attacking the canonization of Acts (which you were just relying on) as a misguided decision by the early Church (which is exactly what I've been saying all along). This is almost surreal.

Your only option is to accept the words of inspired scriptures-the book of the Acts of the Apostles

Not just almost surreal . . .

 

[Abogado del Diablo]

Paul's fourteen epistles are well known and undisputed.

You might want to research this claim a little bit.

Eusebius continues on the subject of canonizing of the scriptures long before the council of Trent

Again . . . it's the Council of Nicaea. Trent was a looooong time after Eusebius.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15030c.htm

Beyond that, I couldn't care less what Eusebius's argument is.

Evidence in the above re the canonization of New Testament scriptures showed that the book of Acts was completely accepted by the True early church as well as the false early church.

Ummmm . . . no, it doesn't. I agree that it was accept by the Orthodoxy beginning in the second half of the Second Century however.

Abogado...your contention that the book of Acts was not accepted in the early church and or not probably written under inspiration; whether that of Paul or any other inspired writer, is completely false and without foundation in the process of scriptural authenticty in the early Christian church.

My contention is supported both by historical method and textual analysis and comparison of the Book of Acts and the other surviving writings, especially the genuine Pauline epistles. My argument - still unrefuted - is set forth above in this thread in detail.

The Christian church's earliest historian autheNticates my position that the book of Acts Is the word of God and has always, WITHOUT QUESTION, been accepted as the word of God, by all of Christianity; whether True or False!

Accck! More Eusebius. Is the Catholic Church right or wrong then? You are talking out of both sides of your mouth.


Need I say more!

Quote:
It's Hadrian, BTW.



Need I say more!

I have a copy of Gibbon sitting open on the desk right now as I write. Gibbon says it's "Hadrian." With all due respect, and given that you don't know the difference between the Council of Trent and Council of Nicaea, I'll take Gibbon's view over yours any day of the week, precept.

Quote:
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).



You are attempting to re-write history! But history cannot be re-written. History warns everyone 'to not forget the lessons that history teaches...Or you are bound to repeat past mistakes'. You are on such a collision course with history.

What!? I'm not re-writing history. I'm quoting from Paul's own writings. We are drifting back into the surreal . . .

Quote:
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.

As much as I hate saying it....your above presents smacks of "Marcionism".

If you understood what that comment meant, I would take it as a compliment.

I again repeat as I have said previously...You must not have read my previous posts on the subject; but again that is not surprising; because if you had, you would have still remained entrenched in folly, no matter the proof to the contrary.

Yep . . . surreal . . .

 

[precept]

No, it doesn't "stand to reason." This is just speculation because nobody really has any clear idea of what the early Christians (first century CE) did or believed.

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, YOUR SURMISINGS?

Why are you quoting "scripture" to me? You just said that "inspired" scripture and its unquestionable authority was a creation of the second century Church. This is more doublespeak on your part.

A prime example of Your surmisings passed of for logical reasoning.

This is just plain lame. They have nothing in common. That's why they don't contradict. The Psalms don't contradict Richard Adams' novel "Traveller" either. It doesn't mean the events in Adams' novel must have actually happened. Your "logic" is absurd.

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!

You aren't reading anything are you? I didn't say Ireneaus disclaimed Acts. I said the absolute opposite - that someone between the time of Justin Martyr and Ireneaus wrote Acts as a polemic against Gnosticism and to try to deal with serious problems created by Paul's letters for the emerging Church.

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. 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.

Hmmmm. . . Eusebius . . . first historian of the Catholic Church and Constantine's propagandist . . . are you really going to continue to believe you are somehow refuting Catholicism by relying on Eusebius?

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!

So says Eusebius. Who cares?

Yes! How odd!

Says you. There is no evidence of what "early true Christianity" was aside from the writings we have.

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! 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.

So are these other oral traditions and their embodiement in written Gnostic gospels, epistles and apocalypses (and other genres) the "scripture" the Psalmist was talking about? You don't know. Nobody does.

There are indeed other "oral traditions" that indeed may be true!...but what does it matter? Any "oral tradition" that supports the truth of Christ's salvation; not deviating in any fashion from the true IS TRUE ORAL TRADITION....any that deviates is FALSE!

I bet you haven't read the Nag Hammadi texts for yourself. I suggest you do so before you start writing about them. And until you do, I'm not going to waste my time discussing them with you.

You constantly omit to quote your sources! Is it that they do not exist?
Pardon my insinuation; I just couldn't resist!

MY "main man Irenaeus"!? That's hysterical . . .

You still aren't tracking this conversation at all. And now you are contradicting yourself as well. You were just relying on Acts and its presumed authority to make your argument that Paul preached to his disciples that they should follow Jewish custom and practice, and now you are attacking the canonization of Acts (which you were just relying on) as a misguided decision by the early Church (which is exactly what I've been saying all along). This is almost surreal.

I am still shaking my head!

Not just almost surreal . . .

Unbelievable! Still can't stop shaking my head!






precept

 

[Quahom1]

Objectivity sees;Then decides to be led.

Subjectivity sees; And is led.


precept

And arrogance does not become a Christian...

Like my grandpa said "only a fool puts down what he does not understand".

v/r

Q

 

[Abogado del Diablo]

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]

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 . . .

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.

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?!

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?

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.

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.