Discussion: Is the Holy Roman Catholic Church the only true Christian church?

That is the statement of a man that has run out of things to say.

You can not judge what somebody says about there faith and belief the same as what that same person knows.

What proof do you have that the burning took place, all yo have is what someone wrote down, and how do we know that personal grudges didnt play a part in the way that history was written.

So you my friend along with the ret of us fit into that group because unless it has happened with the recent history of the wrold NO ONE knows jack crap.

 

You make a good point here, but keep in mind that the books and papers I am quoting are not histories. They are comentaries on current events to the writers. If the list of the Roman Bishops written only about 100 years after the end of St. Peter's life isn't an indication of history then what is?

There are dozens upon dozens of texts by early Church leaders that all point to the same conclusion with very little desent. If you look beyond the Bible, and to the writings of the Church fathers of the first 3 centuries there is near universal agreement on what Christianity is and how it is practiced. These are not histories written years after the fact. They are contemporary to the end of the Apostolic age.

 

The point I am trying to make, and I do see and understand where you are coming from, is this how do you know that these are written by the so called writers and not changed later on to suite the needs or the wants of someone else.

Even the Bible itself has been translated and recopied over and over and over again and while the messages should never change the way that it is taught could be.

Think of it this way if Hitler would have won the war and the Nazi power would have spread around the world, dont you think that hitler would have gotten hold of these writtings and changed them to suite his needs.

You are saying they are commentaries but we dont know that. There have been wars there have been poltical uprisings, there has been change.

And it is your belief that those writtings are the real deal and no amount of arguing is gonna change your point of view. And no matter how deeply you believe that they are the truth there is NO AMOUNT of evidence that is of first hand to make me change my beliefs either.

Now the day that Dr Brown invents the time machine we will know, but here is a question for you to think about.

This is a big "WHAT IF" but please humor me.

What if the ability to travel through time was possible, and that person went back to find out the church system was wrong. Would the church accept this notion or would the have him burned at the stake so to speak?

 

Well, I guess I don't know with certainty that these works are written in the times or by the peaple they are attributed to. There is ample evidence of it as the works cross reference each other, are quoted by other writers both contemprary and after, and original texts of many of the works are still in tact. But you are right I did not see these guys put pen to ink and write it.

I find the arguement you make as particurly peculiar though. The works attributed to Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle and other ancient writers were not penned until 1500 years after their deaths, but no one questions their authorship or existence. In the case of the Bible, and other early Christian works we see great debate between Protestand and Catholic, Conservative and Liberal, orthodox and revisionist. I beleive the ancient texts are real and valid indications of what the Early Christains taught and beleived. There is no strong evidence to discredit them.

 

Are we talking about them, no but my statements are covered by them also. If you notice in one of my post I said that unless it has happened in the recent history of the wrold then we dont not have the first hand knowledge on if they are legit.

All I am saying is that throughout history there has been PLENTY of time and Chance for people of Power to change things to suit there needs. And if they were gonna change it then i am sure they would be smart enough to make sure they change it in more then one writing.

But instead of aruging the Catholic church with Facts that you can not justify except with more church facts that could have become compromised over the years, simple say that it is my faith and my belief that this is the right way. We can not prove one way or another things that happen eons ago, we will always end up where we started from. So on those matters we just have to agree to disagree.

However on some of the topics that LSUBud brought up no matter how distrubing or unsettling they are these are things that can be debated to an end because they have happened in recent history and there are printed fact that can be refered too. I know what he was saying kind of got swept aside and never really address farther on this thread for whatever reason. Its possible that happened because he did not word his arguments right and they came off as a out right attack of Pope John Paul II which seemed to enrage people and brought about the shunning of the facts he presented.
I dont know, the stuff that happened there, I dont think should ever be forgotten nor swept under the rag of cover up by no mean, I chose not to talk about it.

I do think if anything that it shows up close and personal that the men of the cloth eventhought they are set above everyone else are just as capable of committing acts that are unspeakable. And that even the church is not immune to scandal.

I also feel that this might have been something that has happened for a very long time but only in todays media access age was it brought to light, otherwise the church would have handled it in house.

 

And just a side note. And this is totally my opinion and my Belief but I find myself thinking that we are in the end times and that we all will see the haversting of Gods chosen few before the Judgements are poured out until the earth very soon.

I made a thread stating the fact that today, unlike anytime in my short past, there has been more books, movies, and tv shows about the end of the world by Gods judgement. And of course I got the jokes handed to me and thats cool it doesnt bother me.

And I am not talking about the natural disater crap I am talking the wrath of god.

And from what I have read and understood is that before the end time God will try things to get people to turn their lives over to him before it is to late. I take these movies, books, and tv shows as though signs. What better way for God to reach us then through the things we do on a daily basis.

Again this all this my opinion but it says that in the final days the old men will dream and the young men will become prophets and be able to see visions.
And I believe this with my whole heart.

 

To argue the meaning and interpretation of these papers and scrolls is one thing. To argue their authenticity and historicity is another. This is not a matter of faith its a matter of fact.

Here or some intresting links you may want to check out.

The historicity of Christ
http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&cat=1&itemid=87

The historicity of the Bible
http://answering-islam.org.uk/Case/case1.html

As for as the other writings of the Fathers it turns out many of the original manuscripts still exist. You can read about them here. This one may be a bit overwhelming.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/

 

Those weren't early Christian leaders, they were early Catholic leaders, there's a difference. Everything you post comes from your tainted catholic sources. I recognized those writers, I was merely trying to point out to you that they were not a part of the first Christian church. Members of the church were first called Chrstians at Anitioch, I've posted that already, before that they were considered Jews. Not Catholics. Severla posters here have tried to show you the incredibly weak link Catholicism has with early Christians. It's right in the history books, you just choose to ignore it. I won't re-read your post on the Inquisition because you get your info on it from Catholic sources, that's like getting info on crazy people from Timothy McVeigh. sorta tainted.

Christians didn't sit around and wait for the bible to be written, it was written during the first century, the letters from Paul were written at the time of the early church. The Old testament was in existance. You think you're so smart but you miss one very big thing on your time line. The men and Christians in the early first century church were in close contact with one another. Luke, Silas, John, Peter, Paul, Barnabas, etc... Some of those men wrote the new testament, they were inspired. They were in the upper room with Jesus, Paul was struck down on the road to Damascus, all knowledge was revealed to them through the Holy Spirit. They didn't NEED a copy of the bible to TEACH and evangilize. They KNEW it already. Paul helps several churches with Doctrine through letters. He knew it already, so why would they need a written copy? You're so smart but this fact just escaped you. amazing.

 

We can understand Christianity in terms of this process of translation. Foundational Christianity is the philosophy, mysticism, and teachings of a small group of Jews centered around the figure of Jesus of Nazareth. The bulk of the religion, ethics, and teachings originate with Jesus of Nazareth after whom the religion is named. Scholars are in intense disagreement over the historical Jesus, but it is clear that he did not write; what we know of the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth come from a series of texts—called gospels—written some thirty years after his death. Nevertheless, foundational Christianity also includes the small number of followers who continued the religion after the death of Jesus of Nazareth. The later history of foundational Christianity told in the gospels would give these followers a special role during the lifetime of Jesus as apostles, though that may be a later mythologizing because of their unimpeachable importance after the death of Jesus. Included in this group was a late convert to the religion—Paul of Tarsus—whose writings and activities rival those of Jesus of Nazareth in formulating the doctrine, ethics, and sociology of the new religion.

Early Christianity can be understood to be that period in which Christianity was translated into Greek and Roman culture on one side and into North African culture on the other side. Both translations would produce a Christian religion remarkably different from much of foundational Christianity. The learning module on Civilizations in Africa discusses African Christianity in some detail; we'll be interested here in early Christianity in the Greek and Roman worlds.

The principle character of early Christianity is the gradual translation of the Jewish religion of Christianity into the Greek and Roman world view. The initial stage of this process overlaps with foundational Christianity; the most important figure in the transformation of Christianity into a non-Jewish religion was Paul of Tarsus, one of the founders of the religion—the division between foundational and early Christianity is not a neat one. This process of transformation is also evidenced in the earliest histories of Jesus of Nazareth, the Gospels, in which Greek ideas often flow freely. The compilers of the Gospels were already familiar with the movement of Christianity into the Greek and Roman worlds and are trying to account for it in some way. The history most influenced by Greek thought is the Gospel of John, a very late history, whose narrative is structured almost completely around Greek ideas giving it a character vastly different from the earlier histories.

http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/CHRIST/CHRIST.HTM

 

The early Church changed even BEFORE Catholicism.


The most dramatic event in the history of early Christianity is the adoption of the religion as the state religion of Rome. This was a momentous event not only for the spread of Christianity but for the very soul and nature of the religion as well. For when Christianity became the religion of the Emperor of Rome, it had to accomodate itself to the political and social theories underlying the authority of the emperor. These accomodations included coming under the control of the emperor and dealing with the emperor's divinity as well. Just because Constantine became Christian in 312 AD did not mean he had to surrender his claim to godhood! There was a more pressing problem for Christianity after it became a state religion in Rome—how to transform an essentially anti-political and anti-materialist relgion into one that can legitimate authority and temporal rule. For the Roman state built the authority of the state on Roman religion—Christian religion now had to fill the gap and not only justify authority but had to provide political and social theories to underlie all the uses of that authority. It's not unfair to say that foundational Christianity was not designed for that particular job—the result was a earth-shaking transformation of the religion itself.