The Early Church is the Catholic Church

[keltoi]

That particular well was poison from the start, and it would be nice to see some actual facts presented rather than anti-Catholic propaganda.

The premise of this thread is anti-non-catholic propaganda.

 

[Tadhg]

How can the Orthodox Church, which split from the Catholic Church, be the Church Christ founded when it doesn't even have as a member the successor of Peter?

What I could never figure out was if peter was in Rome the same time paul was in prison in Rome how come in the letters of paul he never mentioned it?
Plus is there any proof that Peter was ever in Rome?

 

[pat34lee]

That particular well was poison from the start, and it would be nice to see some actual facts presented rather than anti-Catholic propaganda.

Just because the truth makes the RCC look bad
doesn't make it anti-Catholic. It is still the truth.
When one has to twist or hide the truth, that is
the problem. Not to imply that about anyone here,
just in general.

 

[pat34lee]

- Tammuz was born on December 25th -- difficult considering that Sumeria, Akkadia, and other Mesopotamian cultures didn't use the Roman calendar.

Who has time to refute a booklet?
Take this one. December 25 was chosen on the
new calendar because it came closest most years
to the winter solstice. Death and rebirth of the sun.
The day holy to all pagan sun worshipers, and why
Yeshua would never be caught dead, or born, on
December 25.

How many Tammuz myths do you think there were
anyway? More than one or three, I would bet. All
based on Nimrod, though the names changed from
culture to culture.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Who has time to refute a booklet?
Take this one. December 25 was chosen on the
new calendar because it came closest most years
to the winter solstice. Death and rebirth of the sun.
The day holy to all pagan sun worshipers, and why
Yeshua would never be caught dead, or born, on
December 25.

Do you have evidence?

How many Tammuz myths do you think there were
anyway? More than one or three, I would bet. All
based on Nimrod, though the names changed from
culture to culture.

Evidence?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Just because the truth makes the RCC look bad
doesn't make it anti-Catholic. It is still the truth.
When one has to twist or hide the truth, that is
the problem. Not to imply that about anyone here,
just in general.

And lies remain lies no matter how often they're repeated.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[keltoi]

And lies remain lies no matter how often they're repeated.

-CryptoLutheran

It is only a lie if it is not truthful, and it is not truthful if it is a lie. The problem many Catholics have is they have been so indoctrinated that they are not willing to test the waters to see if what they hold as truth is actually a lie. That is when we start seeing threads saying that Catholic church is the only true church, etc etc etc. Threads like this force Catholic indoctrination onto everyone and as soon as someone says anything against it people cry foul and start saying this is going to be anti-catholic when infact the thread started out being anti-non-catholic. The Church is from God, catholicism is from humanity. As for me and mine I will follow the Lord and not some guy dressed up in some fancy outfit with a crown that resembles something from Old Kingdom Egypt. Remember the word Catholic is not in the Bible so the title of Catholic is man made not God given. I'd prefer to be known as a Christian or someone who is of Christ's Church, rather than a Catholic, both of which are historically accurate given that the Church is the Bride of Christ and that I am a follower of Christ.

 

[ViaCrucis]

It is only a lie if it is not truthful, and it is not truthful if it is a lie. The problem many Catholics have is they have been so indoctrinated that they are not willing to test the waters to see if what they hold as truth is actually a lie. That is when we start seeing threads saying that Catholic church is the only true church, etc etc etc. Threads like this force Catholic indoctrination onto everyone and as soon as someone says anything against it people cry foul and start saying this is going to be anti-catholic when infact the thread started out being anti-non-catholic.

My first response in this thread was challenging the Roman Catholic position. If it weren't for people introducing the standard Hislopian narrative, the scope of this thread probably would have centered around Roman Catholic claims and rebuttals.

But it's a little hard to debate Petrine primacy when someone decides to come in talking about Nimrod and Tammuz. It's like trying to have a debate over what map projection best represents the planet, and then someone comes running in and says all maps are wrong because Idaho doesn't exist.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[pat34lee]

Do you have evidence?
Evidence?
-CryptoLutheran

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sol_Invictus
http://www.opednews.com/articles/How-the-Winter-Solstice-wa-by-Douglas-Morrison-101222-25.html
https://mayinetreeconsciousness.wor...p-more-than-it-is-to-christmas-records-speak/

https://pursiful.com/2007/10/15/the-nimrod-myth/
http://www.sabbathcovenant.com/book2MysteryReligionOfBabylon/Chapter1.htm

 

[pat34lee]

But it's a little hard to debate Petrine primacy when someone decides to come in talking about Nimrod and Tammuz. It's like trying to have a debate over what map projection best represents the planet, and then someone comes running in and says all maps are wrong because Idaho doesn't exist.
-CryptoLutheran

Only most maps are wrong. Can you prove
that Idaho really exists to someone who
refuses to acknowledge it?

Don't answer. Off topic. I just had to say it.

 

[keltoi]

My first response in this thread was challenging the Roman Catholic position.

I acknowledge that.

If it weren't for people introducing the standard Hislopian narrative, the scope of this thread probably would have centered around Roman Catholic claims and rebuttals.

Just ignore it.

But it's a little hard to debate Petrine primacy when someone decides to come in talking about Nimrod and Tammuz. It's like trying to have a debate over what map projection best represents the planet, and then someone comes running in and says all maps are wrong because Idaho doesn't exist.

Don't introduce something equally as stupid while complaining about others.
Just take the discussion back to where it should be.

 

[prodromos]

Just ignore it.

Trouble is, there are plenty of people who will accept it at tace value if it isn't challenged.
"Evil triumphs when good people say and do nothing"

 

[keltoi]

Trouble is, there are plenty of people who will accept it at tace value if it isn't challenged.
"Evil triumphs when good people say and do nothing"

Explain this to me then. Why do "catholics" (small c in "" to include the old east & west groups) keep crying foul when they are challenged? Good people say something and all we get is "another anti-catholic yadda yadda yadda so on and so forth". Do you believe what's good for the goose is good for the gander? I have been told it is.

 

[prodromos]

Explain this to me then. Why do "catholics" (small c in "" to include the old east & west groups) keep crying foul when they are challenged? Good people say something and all we get is "another anti-catholic yadda yadda yadda so on and so forth". Do you believe what's good for the goose is good for the gander? I have been told it is.

I've been challenging the OP from early in this thread and haven't been met with what you describe above.

 

[keltoi]

Find Kephas in Aramaic. It means rock. Christ is the cornerstone of His Church, Peter is the foundation on earth.

Oh my you have that so wrong. God, therefore Christ, is called rock many times in the Bible. Christ is the foundation of the Church, it is afterall supposed to be full of people called Christians. I have never heard anyone call a Christian a Peterian, have you? Foundations are more important than cornerstones, foundations are what the cornerstone relies on to keep it stable.

 

[keltoi]

I've been challenging the OP from early in this thread and haven't been met with what you describe above.

Was it not you who made this comment?

That particular well was poison from the start, and it would be nice to see some actual facts presented rather than anti-Catholic propaganda.

Do you want to rethink your reply to me or are you going to insist you didn't cry foul. If you believe what was posted was anti-catholic propaganda then post proof to rebuff it for what it is, don't cry foul and not give any evidence to support it. You say it would be nice to see facts, start presenting some to support your claim otherwise I'll just ahve to assume you can't support your claim and yet again we have another "catholic" going on another rant saying something like "another anti-catholic yadda yadda yadda so on and so forth"

 

[ViaCrucis]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sol_Invictus

"In the 20th century, however, the view that Christmas was set by the date of Dies Natalis Solis Invicti has been challenged by some scholars. According to a discussion from the Church of England, for example,[8] "On this question there are two schools of thought. The older view is that these two dates represent christian adaptation of the respective winter solstice dates in the West and East, which were already important pagan festivals. Those who hold this view cite the celebrations connected with Apollo, Mithras and Dionysius with their themes of birth and rebirth, and the coming of the deity to dwell with his followers. In Rome by 274 AD the Winter solstice was a public holiday in honour of Sol Invictus, the unconquered sun.... Although this view is still very common, it has been seriously challenged by what may be called the 'Calculation' theory." The calculation refers to an alternate derivation of the date of Christmas based on an old tradition according to which the date of Christmas was fixed at nine months after 25 March, the date of the vernal equinox, on which the Annunciation was celebrated.[52] The Jewish calendar date of 14 Nisan was believed to be that of creation,[53] as well as of the Exodus and so of Passover, and Christians held that the new creation, both the death of Jesus and the beginning of his human life, occurred on the same date, which some put at 25 March in the Julian calendar.[8][54][55][56] It was a traditional Jewish belief that great men lived a whole number of years, without fractions, so that Jesus was considered to have been conceived on 25 March, as he died on 25 March, which was calculated to have coincided with 14 Nisan.[57] Sextus Julius Africanus (c. 160 – c. 240) gave 25 March as the day of creation and of the conception of Jesus.[58] The tractate De solstitia et aequinoctia conceptionis et nativitatis Domini nostri Iesu Christi et Iohannis Baptistae falsely attributed to John Chrysostom also argued that Jesus was conceived and crucified on the same day of the year and calculated this as 25 March.[52][56] A passage of the Commentary on the prophet Daniel by Hippolytus of Rome, written in about 204, has also been appealed to.[59]

This view was proposed by Louis Duchesne,[60] and argued by Thomas J. Talley,[61] David J. Rothenberg,[62] J. Neil Alexander,[63] and Hugh Wybrew.[64]

The Oxford Companion to Christian Thought lists both theories for the origin of Christmas, and also remarks on the uncertainty about the order of precedence between the celebrations of the Birthday of the Unconquered Sun and the birthday of Jesus: "This 'calculations' hypothesis potentially establishes 25 December as a Christian festival before Aurelian's decree, which, when promulgated, might have provided for the Christian feast both opportunity and challenge."[65]

Susan K. Roll calls "most extreme" the unproven hypothesis that "would call Christmas point-blank a 'christianization' of Natalis Solis Invicti, a direct conscious appropriation of the pre-Christian feast, arbitrarily placed on the same calendar date, assimilating and adapting some of its cosmic symbolism and abruptly usurping any lingering habitual loyalty that newly-converted Christians might feel to the feasts of the state gods".[66]"

http://www.opednews.com/articles/How-the-Winter-Solstice-wa-by-Douglas-Morrison-101222-25.html

No citations or sources given for claims. I did find it amusing, however, that the article gave the Urantia Book even a hint of credibility.

https://mayinetreeconsciousness.wor...p-more-than-it-is-to-christmas-records-speak/

Again, no sourcing. Though generally not awful, but its position is largely dependent upon repeating a popular narrative. There's no question concerning the importance of the cult of Mithras in ancient Rome, and that Mithras was one of several solar deities which would be joined together in the Sol Invictus cult. Of course the blog post implicates Constantine as having some role in Christmas, when I'm certainly not aware of any evidence to suggest such. As a hypothesis that Christians supplanted the Dies Natalis with Christmas is fine. There are, however, alternative hypotheses--as mentioned in the Wikipedia article you referenced.

https://pursiful.com/2007/10/15/the-nimrod-myth/

Notice that the article, more-or-less, agrees with me concerning the lack of any evidence to link Nimrod to Semiramis and to Tammuz. All connections made are entirely speculative.

http://www.sabbathcovenant.com/book2MysteryReligionOfBabylon/Chapter1.htm

Pure unadulterated bovine excrement.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[keltoi]

Before the invention of the printing press, books were hand copied and were expensive and not affordable. Moreover, many people at that time were illiterate.

I'd love to see your evidence of this and how it suggests the people were not kept illiterate by so called nobles and the church.

Even today in the 21st century, there are still so many adults with reading problem today in Australia, according to an Industrial Skill Councils report.

Could you post a link to this report?

Besides, there are so many old people with poor eye sights.

What has that got to do with literacy skills? People get old they lose their sight (not sights btw) that does not mean they did not have the ability to read. My own father lost much of his site because of cataracts, they were operated on and after the patches come of he read everyday until the last 3 days before he died.

How was/is it possible for everybody to read and interpret the Bible himself ? No, it's not possible, that's why Our Saviour willed His flock to be educated by His Church.

People were not as thick in the head as you seem to be suggesting they were. Before the fall of Rome people, even lower classes such as plebians and slaves, could read and write. The church in medieval times did not encourage education among the peasantry, and anyone born into slavery was most certainly not educated. To be fair the nobility didn't want the masses educated either. Why? Educated people ask to many questions and tend to think for themselves. If you want people to go off and fight in crusades or to get them to pay indulgences you have to keep them in the dark, you have to keep them oppressed without them even knowing it. Don't believe me, read up on the Lollards and Wycliffe, see what happened to them when they dared to believe that the common Englishman should be allowed to have the Bible in their own language.

 

[Thursday]

On the one hand, Catholics like to point out how often Eastern patriarchs fell into heresy, but on the other hand they want to claim they were without error when describing the bishop of Rome in glowing terms.

The Early Eastern Fathers didn't fall into heresy. They were Catholic, after all.

The truth is that the Orthodox view of the pope is a novel innovation that cropped up to suit a political agenda.

 

[Thursday]

Maybe neither are, and both are. It's a highly personal decision to be baptized, isn't it, not to be taken lightly?

You are missing the point.

There is one truth. The Holy Spirit does not teach any false doctrines. Two Churches teaching contradictory doctrines indicate that one or both are not the Church founded by Jesus.