maybe evolution taught us to be sort of instinctual about loving our tribe and hating the others. so we group together and hate the other guys. we find any excuse to group ourselves together to feel persecuted or to persecute. we take pride in our stupid heritage and race and religion. i wish we could get over it. and since christians (more or less) believe you gotta love jesus or burn in hell, i can see how that creates a little bit of division, especially when we are looking for excuses to group together against each other. you gotta kill the infidels. it would be nice if we could stick to more fun versions of tribalism, like school sports team loyalty. leave the magic behind.
Yeah Catholic doctrine, and thousands of first through fourth century documents that speak of A. The Catholic Church. B. The Pope and papacy C. Apostolic sucession D. The Primacy of Rome in Christianity E. St. Peter's residence and martyrdom in Rome I coud go on. You don't beleive me. Well read it from first hands. From first, second third and fourth century Christians, who as you pointed out couldn't have been Catholic because the Catholic Church didn't exist til Pope Leo in the 480s. entire text http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0107.htm Wait, didn't your source say the term pope didn't exist before the fifth century? I guse this second century text must be a fabrication. the entire text http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103.htm couldnt find the entire text Look another refrence to a Pope before the word was invented. Those crafty Catholics. And here is another: And for giggles here is a link to every Christian writing of signifigance from the first 6 centuries. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/
NEW ADvent is a CATHOLIC web site, somewhat biased. those I posted from were merely googled. at random, no affilation to CATHOLICISM. of course newadvent.com would prop up your theory. You keep looking in the same wood shed, you are using the source that made up the falsehood in the first place to prove it's legitamacy. it's kind of like believing the Fox right after he came out of the hen house with feathers on his breath when he says... "why no they are all sleeping" :dis: A they are the very ones that made the thing up in the first place B. again this came about in the 4th century according to ANY NON Catholic history source. C. a term many religious sects refer to, including the Greek orthodox, etc.. etcc.. it lends credence to their claim, of course they want this to exist. History says there is no way to verfiy it and in fact most documents of the time have many descrepncies. It all hinges on whether or not you believe the Catholic church as a history source, they had other motives as evident by my posts. D. the church started in Jerusalem. It could have started anywhere, but the Romans destroyed Jerusalem so Jewish Christians took up in Rome, since Paul was already there, Peter joined him. They were both CHRISTIANS not CATHOLICS what's so hard to understand about that? They knew each other, Paul was a Roman citizen, Peter's home city was burned??? makes sense to me. :dis: E. see D above. Peter was there because that's were a congregation of Christians went after the seige of Jerusalem by the Romans. he could have gone to Corinth but he knew Paul was in Rome. see how that works? So why was he Martyrd in Rome.... well that's where he was When NERO decided to blame the Christians for the burning of ROME. Bad place to be with NERO acting a fool towards fledgling jewish religious Sects as it was known then. They did good to gather together, let alone pretend they were a Pope. the ONLY documents that lay claim to Peter as the first POPE are all generated by Catholic literature, Historians generally say LEO was the first recognized Pope. After that, in an effort to make ties with the early church, ( here's that word you love ) Apostolic sucession ( News Flash: In medieval Europe ...big words thrown out by Catholic church impress local heathen ) anyway in an effort to show Apostolic sucession, Catholic historians create a lineage back 400 years to Peter, and it was amazing they did as good a job as they did considering it was almost half a century. No wonder the thing is so sketchy. heck no one really knows how many Popes their were before Leo with any accuracy. Keep hanging onto that bone man. :shock: .. LOL You've got tenacity I can tell. :yelwink2:
New advent is the Catholic encyclopedia. That is true, but the documents I am quoting are original doccuments. Written by ancient schlors, theologians, clergy, and the like. They are not the thoughts of some historian writing 2000 years later. I quoted three second century documents that refer to the Bishop or Rome as the Pope. A term your historians said didn't exist untill Leo the Great. If the word didn't exist how then did these writers use it. There is a wealth of original source doccuments that contradict most everything those secular histories say. Given the choice between what a second century text says and what a 20th century researcher writing on the text says, I'm gonna go with the 2nd century guy. You can find a thousand historians who say Peter never went to Rome, but I have been to his tomb, which coincidently is in Rome. You can line up another 1000 to say the word Pope was created in the 5th century, and I will look to 2nd and 3rd century texts that contain the word. Be careful when reading historians that you just randomly google. How well are there sources referenced. Are they relying on histories, or are they reading source doccuments as I have been. How many footnotes do their works have? My sources are cross refrenced, and accepted schlorly works. Can you say the same for yours with certainty? I doubt it since you randomly found them on google. Remember many historians write with a particular bias. My Aunt Elda's husband was a history PHD who taught at Bob Jones University for a number of years. He also wrote many books saying the Holocaust never happened? But hey he's a historian. He must be right.
So, is belief in this Church a requirement for salvaltion, according to your faith? I did check out the website you posted, but it somewhat confusing, because among other things, it looks as though baptism is also required for salvation. (At least the desire to be baptized would have existed if the person would have known it was required.) So according to this last one, the Church will be perfected in heaven to include all saved, (not just catholics), yet you claim: Perhaps the Church was perfected in 1997, when the document you referenced was edited and corrected by the pope? Will Benedict also be publishing his version?
All salvation comes through the Catholic Church. That does not mean only Catholics will be saved, but rather that all salvation flows through the Church left us. I suspect there are many Catholics in hell, and many Muslims, Jews, Batisits and Mormons in Heaven. Yes one must be Batised in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to be saved. All Trinitatian Baptisms count. Baptism by desire is basically summed up lie this: if someone who does not know the Truth of our Savior through know fault of their own, and leads a good life, and would have been Baptised had they been exposed to the Truth will be saved. First this document contains 2000 years of consistent teaching. It does not change. What is true is true. If it is infallible from one Pope, the next Pope can't say it is no longer inafallible. Teachings of the Catholic Church do not change. The Church being perfected in heaven means there won't be all these denominations and splitting of hairs. In heaven we will all know the Truth, and there will be no debate over what constitutes faith. The Church here on earth is already pefrect because it is protected by the Holy Spirit. Christ promised us a visible Church on a hill, that the gates of hell would never prevail against it.
Here is the bibliography from the link posted above 1. Papal encyclical Unitatis redintegratio, 3. 2. John Bowker (ed.), Oxford Concise Dictionary of World Religions, 490. 3. Adherents.com. Three sources, not even in the proper format dictated by the grammar Nazis at the MLA. How can they make the claim: The Roman bishop Leo I (440-461) is considered the first pope by historians, as he was the first to claim ultimate authority over all of Christendom. In his writings one can find all the traditional arguments for papal authority, most notably that which asserts Christ had designated Peter and his successors the "rock" on which the church would be built. When they only have 3 sources, 1 of which is purly demographic information about the Catholic Church. Maybe this isn't a good source. Nice try though. I think the statement would be right if it said "most skeptics....."
I agree. And it is the Church's job to preach the Gospel of salvation. Therefore the Church brings us to Christ, and Christ to salvation. Thus all salvation comes throgh the Church that Christ left us. You said earlier that Christ was opposed to rituals and traditions. Why then would he say go out and batise all nations in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. If it was just a symbol why did so many rush to be baptised? This is almost 100% true. I have corrected the one error below. The Pope is no greater than Billy Graham or any other great man of God. He is no more worthy of God's Grace than you or I. He is a man, appointed by The Holy Spirit. The whole purpose of the Church to provide a foundation to build a relationshop with Jesus. You are right the relationship of Jesus is the focal point, but we get this relationship through the Church.
