Just the Basics - Holy Tradition/Sola Scriptura

[Root of Jesse]

Now, I am coming into what people see as Tradition.

If we define Tradition as a set of beliefs that are common to a 2000 year old Entity as the Catholic Church, one would think that all people would have a view similar to what was the space of time mentioned.

But no. I was surprised, on coming to this Site, by how insistent some Protestant were on certain periods of History, which, according to my understanding, had not much interest at all.

It is good to know others and how other people think. That is what makes this world so varied and multicolor. At the same time, you must know what other people think, otherwise you are always wrong, thinking that they think as you think when it is not so. Only by contacting them you realize that the people you face, though they are similar to you in body and soul and though they belong to the same western culture, they have of the Space and European Time completely different views. I will mention some.

I was surprised by the importance that is given to the succession of Peter, that is, the succession from the 1st Pope, Peter, to the Second, Linus. Some Protestant insist that Linus was the first Bishop of Rome, or that there is no sure knowledge of the transition between Peter and Linus.

Now, a few discussion after, I understand the reason. If you can prove that there was no transition between the 2, then Papal succession would be in danger and the standing point of the RCChurch would spall.

Sincerely, I vaguely knew Linus and the Early Succession never interested me much. But it is a time to update. I am going to study it now.

The question is that i do not give a damn to who the successor of who is. If in the 3 first centuries we would not know who was who for the Popes, they were killed in silence, and if the Popes reappeared in the 4th Century and succeeded up to now, for me, that would be enough to respect the Pope. In Scripture, the unction of Peter was clear, the succession would be there except for the first 3 centuries, you do not need to know day-by-day all the History of every Pope to respect Papal succession.

Other surprise was the image of the Emperor Constantin, who seems, forgive me if I am wrong, to be hated by many Protestant. It seems that he is considered the Father of All Evils, the Beginner of the Corruption on the Church, the Creator of Papacy.

Historically, never saw or read something that would indicate that he would have that role in history. I am surprised.

The other surprise was the idea the RCC went into decline from Constantin times up to Reformation. It is a long, long time... and that it was Reformation that purified the Church. The idea of a long corruption waiting for Luther and Calvin to repair it does not fit with any historic dact or data. The church had so many crises, so many highs and lows, had a fertile role in European Construction that this idea enters the realm of fantasy. But the thing is that this is what many people believe.

So, Tradition is not seen the same way by everybody. Depending on the background you came from, so the ideologic patterns that you defend.

Some of them come close to what Freud called "rationalization" as a mechanism of defense. The children of Reformation did not Protest anything, they were left with a legacy and as there is not much to Protest now (some Protestant do not like to be called such), they, and this is my view, distort History to justify what their ancestors did and what is their Church position now.

So, what do speak when you speak of Tradition? I think this thread did not start well because the people who started it had different views of what Tradition was.

Tradition depends on History. We know that the History of the USA recounted by Anglos, by Black People and by USA native Indians give rise to 3 totally different tales about the same space of time.

As for Tradition and the Protestant View, I want to stay here as long as I feel motivated. Understanding that we agree to disagree is better than total ignorance.

tbc
AMDG

You know, what surprises me most is that Protestants do not trust the word of God, as they say they do. The big question is what is to be literally taken and what is to be figuratively taken. The answer to that is that, when Jesus says "Amen, Amen I say to you..." or "Truly, truly...", he is speaking literally. Also, to know Jesus, you have to know that he never disparaged anyone. So the interpretation that Jesus called Peter a little pebble is disingenuous. The fact is that Jesus named Peter the head of His Church, one Church, the Universal Christian Church. Universal, in Greek, is Catholic. Upper case, lower case, does not matter. "Catholic" is not a brand, like Methodist or Baptist or Lutheran. It means universal. The Church Christ instituted with Peter as its leader is universal. Jesus also used the same language as in Isaiah 22, meaning that the position He gave Peter was one that would have succession. The other apostles had the same succession qualities. But Peter was the first among equals, and to be the head of the Christian Church. Who followed is not so important, that SOMEONE followed is. So whether Linus was next, or Cletus, or whoever, the Church at Rome named someone to succeed Peter, and that succession continues to today. Jesus also said that the Gates of Hell would not ever prevail against his Church, which means that it will be protected and preserved whole and pure. That doesn't mean it won't get nicked, chipped, split. But that there is one true church.
Constantine did one thing-he legalized the Church. He felt he had some authority because of that, and constantly fought for some control. But he was not the arbitor. He made some inroads, had some influence, certainly. Nothing can exist in this world without being affected by 'the world'. But whenever the Catholic Church ever relied too heavily on the secular world, or government, for help, the Church was thrown off course. Every time. When the Church looked to her own, the Church became right again.
Nothing could be further from the truth than to say that the Church went into decline from Constantine to Luther. Were it not for the Catholic Church during that period of time, we would not have the hospital system, the agriculture, the legal system, the education system, many, many inventions, both mechanical (the overhead cam was a Cistercian invention) and scientific. The Church protected Europe from total distruction during the plagues, the invasion of the Goths, Vandals, Huns and Mongols. Were it not for the Catholic Church, all of Europe and much of the rest of the world would be Muslim.
It is true that arrogance in the Catholic Church, in Her people, more correctly, caused the Church to go astray. This has been the case since Eve said no to God and yes to the devil. Humans are prone to mistakes. Bishops have a charism of protection from moral and faith errors guaranteed by Christ and provided by the Holy Spirit.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Root of Jesse :


I suppose that since being given more time to search for data from Catholic Catechisms and all other Catholic sources available to you as well as internet sites and various discussion groups, you have discovered how little data and detail there is from any authentic Catholic source regarding the early doctrine of pre-existence of spirits.

I believe that you are quite diligent and committed enough that, had you found significant data, you would have offered it to us by now. I also believe that if other Roman Catholics on the forum could have offered some helpful data in this regard, they probably would have.

No, I don't. Every one that you say is lost, I say is not lost. It is certain that many Catholics don't know things, but that's not the fault of the Church, it's the fault of the people. Just listen to some of the spoutings of Nancy Pelosi. You'll see how much "Catholics" don't know about their own church. Like asking an American to sing the second stanza of the Star Spangled Banner.

 

[Clearly]

A DOCTRINAL "SHOWDOWN AT HIGH NOON" FOR OPPOSING ROMAN CATHOLIC TRADITIONS

This is an unusual situation Root of Jesse. You, as a Roman Catholic, admit that you believe in these early traditions (And I think you are perfectly correct in doing so) saying in post # 48 : “Thanks for all that. I believe it, and my Church teaches it” while other roman Catholics oppose these same traditions. I cannot tell if you actually believe in these early traditions or if you are simply reluctant to admit you don’t believe in them because admission would mean the Catholics do not believe in nor possess the earliest traditions.

It causes a dilemna for discussion. You says you believe these traditions and the Roman Catholic Church teaches them, but in 40 years I’ve never met another Catholic who believes in them nor do my current catholic colleagues believe in them but instead, they insist that you are in error.

You explain this discrepancy in post # 62 saying that “It is certain that many Catholics don't know things, but that's not the fault of the Church, it's the fault of the people.... You'll see how much "Catholics" don't know about their own church.”

Thus I am left with one Roman Catholic (YOU) who believes they are both true and orthodox traditions and I am left with other Roman Catholics who believe such traditions are heresy to current roman Catholic tradition.

Can we get opinion from Roman Catholic members on this controversy?


1) Root of Jesse believes in the pre-existence of spirits of mankind and says his Catholic church teaches it. My other Catholic friends tell me their current tradition is that spirits of men did NOT pre-exist prior to creation of the earth. They quote catechism 366 and the easter anathemas as Roman Catholic data against this tradition as their proof and yet Root of Jesse is unable to offer any data or proof for an opposing Roman Catholic position to support his claim.

PFAFFENHOFEN, PATHFINDER777, TADOFLAMB, AND ANY OTHER ROMAN CATHOLICS ON THIS FORUM : DO YOU BELIEVE IN THE PRE-EXISTENCE OF MANKIND SPIRIT BEFORE CREATION OF THE EARTH? DO YOU THINK THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH TEACHES THIS DOCTRINE?


2) The Catholic Root of Jesse says he believes in the early tradition that the Father's plan for advancement was presented to these spirits, my other Catholic friends tell me these spirits did not exist and thus this is not correct. While I congratulate him for recognizing superior doctrine, I still can’t reconcile his catholic belief versus opposing catholic belief without SOME sort of data from you (which, so far, you have been completely unable to find...)

PFAFFENHOFEN, PATHFINDER777, TADOFLAMB, AND ANY OTHER ROMAN CATHOLICS ON THIS FORUM : DO YOU BELIEVE IN THE PRE-EXISTENCE OF MANKIND SPIRIT BEFORE CREATION OF THE EARTH AND THAT THEY KNEW OF GODS PLAN BEFORE BIRTH? DO YOU THINK THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH TEACHES THIS DOCTRINE?


3) While the Catholic Root of Jesse believes in the early tradition that the worlds/planets/stars etc. out of pre-existing chaotic matter, rather than “nothing”, my other Catholic friends tell me this tradition is not taught by Catholicism, but rather their tradition is that all material things (e.g. planets) were created by God himself out of “nothing”. Yet again, Root of Jesse offers no evidence for his claim to Roman Catholic tradition while other catholics have a great deal of data in support of their opposing claim.

PFAFFENHOFEN, PATHFINDER777, TADOFLAMB, AND ANY OTHER ROMAN CATHOLICS ON THIS FORUM : DO YOU BELIEVE IN THE PRE-EXISTENCE OF CHAOTIC MATTER (THAT GOD DID NOT CREATE) BEFORE CREATION OF THE EARTH OF WHICH THE EARTH WAS CREATED OR DO YOU BELIEVE GOD CREATED THE EARTH OUT OF “NOTHING” (I.E. EX-NIHILO CREATION)? DO YOU THINK THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH TEACHES THIS DOCTRINE?

What IS the real and authentic Roman Catholic Doctrine on these three specific points. Do the Roman Catholics possess and believe in them as doctrine as Root of Jesse Claims or do they NOT possess and believe in these early traditions as other Catholics claim?

Can anyone who is Catholic tell us what the authentic Roman Catholic Doctrine IS on these three specific points?

Clearly
sieitzie

 

[Pfaffenhofen]

A DOCTRINAL "SHOWDOWN AT HIGH NOON" FOR OPPOSING ROMAN CATHOLIC TRADITIONS


Clearly
sieitzie

All of a sudden I saw my nick and realized that I was called to the arena. I promised not to debate to the person who started the thread but as he disappeared and someone called to me to solve the problem of the origin of the Universe, here I am to solve the Problem. Maybe i will win the Nobel Prize.

The Catholic Church doctrine is stated in the Creed of Nicea: "I believe...Father, creator of Heaven and Earth."

That is all.

Now, there was a time when we thought that everything was in the Scriptures. But with Galileo, we, the Church, realized that God spoke through the Bible and God speaks through Science.

We thought that the sun rotated around the Earth and Science taught us that it was the reverse. We believed that Adam and Eve were our first Parents and Science revealed that we are here for about 4 million of years not counting the 500 million of years of life on EArth from where we inherited the DNA.

When came the Theory of the Big Bang, we thought that God was before the Big Bang but we must be alert for the Bog Bang Theory may part of the a bigger picture.

I love Science Programs for in them I see the Mind of God, how He wanted the Universe to be.

So, no wonder that all we, Catholics are wrong. This is no Catholic business. It is a Science Business.

Now as for the pre-existence of the souls. That is a Platonic View, that we pre-existed in the World if Ideas, and here we just reminisce what we learnt before.

What can I say? I do not know.

Myself, I believe that when the spermatozoa penetrates the ovule, God creates "Mark", a person, a soul, a spirit, whatever you may call it, whose name will be Mark, given by his mother.

Now, that God pre-created the sould and when the spermatozoa penetrates the ovule, then God asks a soul to go into that cell, the egg, I sincerely, myself, do not like this idea. But, as i say, I do not like, but I do not know, simply.

There were people who defended that, for my Teacher of Ethics told us that he did not believe that theory, so that theory must be around somewhere and as Platonism influenced so much the Catholic Church, there should be someone to defend it. But I do not know and, sincerely, that is something I do not care about for, in way or the other, God created the Human Spirit, and even if we discuss that till the end of the world, we will never be sure....

I suspect that this invitation was a bait to kill Root of Jesse....right?

 

[Clearly]

Pfaffenhofen :

Thank you for your response. I respect your opinion :

1-) I suspect that this invitation was a bait to kill Root of Jesse....right?- Paffenhofen in post 64

No, I don’t want to “kill jesse”, nor to embarrass him. I want to publically say that I honestly ADMIRE and RESPECT Root of Jesses’ his firm and “no nonsense” clear declaration that he believes in these three specific early traditions. I think he is PERFECTLY AND ABSOLUTELY CORRECT in believing these things. I wish ALL individuals would do this same exact thing Root of Jesse has done in believing the earliest JudaoChristian tradition (that I am aware of).

And, since he is swimming against doctrinal streams, then I also think he is COURAGEOUS in believing these things. The restorationists such as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (“mormons&#8221 have always taught these traditions in much greater depth and clarity and detail than I can and they have ALWAYS been given grief for teaching some of the earliest judao-Christian traditions. Both the LDS and Root of Jesse are, in my opinion, doctrinally CORRECT in their belief in these traditions as belonging to the earliest and most correct Judao-Christian Traditions (as are any group, christian or not that also espouse these doctrines).

I believe Root of Jesse is quite superior to me in many attributes, and, as I recognize these attributes, I (and the rest of us) are morally obligated to be more LIKE him in such specific characteristics. On the other hand, I do think he overstates the validity of his claims but that is a VERY common thing on religious forums (I have done this...). The tendency to overstate one’s claims is the reason I am bringing up these historical examples.



2) - HOWEVER, that being said, Our discussion relates to the historical context of whether the Roman Catholic Church has lost details concerning early Christian the traditions or changed them so as no to be able to teach them in clarity.

Root of Jesses’ claim that the Roman Catholic Church still teaches these Early Judao-Christian traditions and nothing was lost from them. However, he is unable to quote any significant details nor generate any significant data himself other than to agree with the presentations I have made from early Judao-Christian Texts.

Paffenhofen : Look at the lack of detail YOU are able to offer : you say : “The Catholic Church doctrine is stated in the Creed of Nicea: "I believe...Father, creator of Heaven and Earth." That is all.” Paffenhofen in post 64 This is NOT significant DETAIL nor significant DATA upon which to build a detailed theology or confirm a textual interpretation.


This does NOT describe in any detail the pre-earth existence of spirits and God’s plan in relation to the education and moral advancement of these spirits. It does not describe the preparations for man to inhabit the earth. It does not tell us that matter is eternal and God “creates” in that he organizes, rather than makes something exist from “nothing”.

Compare the more detailed description I gave from Early Judao-Christian Texts as to the spirits existing, their intelligent interaction with God and their jubilation at the introduction of the Father’s plan for them; the knowledge they had of others who had undergone this education and advancement; their bodies being formed to the spirit and the spirit being shown this life before birth and details of their life. Compare that to your statement regarding pre-life existence of spirits :

You were only able to say “What can I say? I do not know.”. I expected that you, as a lawyer would recognize the importance of significant amount of objective data in any presentation.



My point has been that the Roman Catholic Church DOES NOT HAVE such details of these early traditions. So far, Neither you NOR Root of Jesse, nor any other Catholic I’ve ever met has ever been able to provide any evidence that the Roman Congregation has retained significant amounts of data related to these traditions nor taught them to it's membership.

Instead, you seem NOT to believe in this specific early tradition as you pointed out by saying : “Now, that God pre-created the sould and when the spermatozoa penetrates the ovule, then God asks a soul to go into that cell, the egg, I sincerely, myself, do not like this idea. But, as i say, I do not like, but I do not know, simply.”




3)-IF ONE CLAIMS THAT ONE’S TRADITIONS ENSURE ACCURATE TEXTUAL INTERPRETATIONS AND ACCURATE SPECULATIONS THEN IT MAKES PERFECT SENSE TO ASK YOU : Do YOU have any data besides the speculation you have given?

Now, that God pre-created the sould and when the spermatozoa penetrates the ovule, then God asks a soul to go into that cell, the egg, I sincerely, myself, do not like this idea. But, as i say, I do not like, but I do not know, simply.Paffenhofen in post 64

If the Roman Catholic Church no longer has significant data concerning these early traditions, then I believe it is perfectly fair to assume the lack of data means it was lost to them since the early Judao-Christians possessed these traditions. IF the detailed data is lacking, then one cannot honestly claim they have superior data or tradition which ensures the superiority of their textual interpretations.


4) -Root of Jesse – I mean what I say. You are quite a wonderful person and I admire much about you. You have not decreased my respect for the Roman Catholic Church, but our interactions have only served to maintain my respect for it’s members. If I was to pick a friend from a group, it would be someone with the type of characteristics I described.


Clearly
sivieiin

 

[Pfaffenhofen]

Pfaffenhofen :

Thank you for your response. I respect your opinion :

1-) I suspect that this invitation was a bait to kill Root of Jesse....right?- Paffenhofen in post 64

No, I don’t want to “kill jesse”, nor to embarrass him. I want to publically say that I honestly ADMIRE and RESPECT Root of Jesses’ his firm and “no nonsense” clear declaration that he believes in these three specific early traditions. I think he is PERFECTLY AND ABSOLUTELY CORRECT in believing these things. I wish ALL individuals would do this same exact thing Root of Jesse has done in believing the earliest JudaoChristian tradition (that I am aware of).

And, since he is swimming against doctrinal streams, then I also think he is COURAGEOUS in believing these things. The restorationists such as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (“mormons”) have always taught these traditions in much greater depth and clarity and detail than I can and they have ALWAYS been given grief for teaching some of the earliest judao-Christian traditions. Both the LDS and Root of Jesse are, in my opinion, doctrinally CORRECT in their belief in these traditions as belonging to the earliest and most correct Judao-Christian Traditions (as are any group, christian or not that also espouse these doctrines).

I believe Root of Jesse is quite superior to me in many attributes, and, as I recognize these attributes, I (and the rest of us) are morally obligated to be more LIKE him in such specific characteristics. On the other hand, I do think he overstates the validity of his claims but that is a VERY common thing on religious forums (I have done this...). The tendency to overstate one’s claims is the reason I am bringing up these historical examples.



2) - HOWEVER, that being said, Our discussion relates to the historical context of whether the Roman Catholic Church has lost details concerning early Christian the traditions or changed them so as no to be able to teach them in clarity.

Root of Jesses’ claim that the Roman Catholic Church still teaches these Early Judao-Christian traditions and nothing was lost from them. However, he is unable to quote any significant details nor generate any significant data himself other than to agree with the presentations I have made from early Judao-Christian Texts.

Paffenhofen : Look at the lack of detail YOU are able to offer : you say : “The Catholic Church doctrine is stated in the Creed of Nicea: "I believe...Father, creator of Heaven and Earth." That is all.” Paffenhofen in post 64 This is NOT significant DETAIL nor significant DATA upon which to build a detailed theology or confirm a textual interpretation.


This does NOT describe in any detail the pre-earth existence of spirits and God’s plan in relation to the education and moral advancement of these spirits. It does not describe the preparations for man to inhabit the earth. It does not tell us that matter is eternal and God “creates” in that he organizes, rather than makes something exist from “nothing”.

Compare the more detailed description I gave from Early Judao-Christian Texts as to the spirits existing, their intelligent interaction with God and their jubilation at the introduction of the Father’s plan for them; the knowledge they had of others who had undergone this education and advancement; their bodies being formed to the spirit and the spirit being shown this life before birth and details of their life. Compare that to your statement regarding pre-life existence of spirits :

You were only able to say “What can I say? I do not know.”. I expected that you, as a lawyer would recognize the importance of significant amount of objective data in any presentation.



My point has been that the Roman Catholic Church DOES NOT HAVE such details of these early traditions. So far, Neither you NOR Root of Jesse, nor any other Catholic I’ve ever met has ever been able to provide any evidence that the Roman Congregation has retained significant amounts of data related to these traditions nor taught them to it's membership.

Instead, you seem NOT to believe in this specific early tradition as you pointed out by saying : “Now, that God pre-created the sould and when the spermatozoa penetrates the ovule, then God asks a soul to go into that cell, the egg, I sincerely, myself, do not like this idea. But, as i say, I do not like, but I do not know, simply.”




3)-IF ONE CLAIMS THAT ONE’S TRADITIONS ENSURE ACCURATE TEXTUAL INTERPRETATIONS AND ACCURATE SPECULATIONS THEN IT MAKES PERFECT SENSE TO ASK YOU : Do YOU have any data besides the speculation you have given?

Now, that God pre-created the sould and when the spermatozoa penetrates the ovule, then God asks a soul to go into that cell, the egg, I sincerely, myself, do not like this idea. But, as i say, I do not like, but I do not know, simply.Paffenhofen in post 64

If the Roman Catholic Church no longer has significant data concerning these early traditions, then I believe it is perfectly fair to assume the lack of data means it was lost to them since the early Judao-Christians possessed these traditions. IF the detailed data is lacking, then one cannot honestly claim they have superior data or tradition which ensures the superiority of their textual interpretations.


4) -Root of Jesse – I mean what I say. You are quite a wonderful person and I admire much about you. You have not decreased my respect for the Roman Catholic Church, but our interactions have only served to maintain my respect for it’s members. If I was to pick a friend from a group, it would be someone with the type of characteristics I described.


Clearly
sivieiin

I do respect Root of Jesse too...

What is the importance of the Early Church that we must follow its traditions?
Is the Early Church "superior" to the present-day Church?
It seems to me that the Early Church is almost a "sacred cow" (sorry for the bad metaphor) that must be worshiped for I do not know what reason...

I sincere do not care much what the Early Church believed. They are all dead and most of them I do not know. After the Early Church, there are 1700 years of Church History. Forgive me, but I do not have mind to study it all...If the Early Church, at meals, had the tradition of eating with the hands, should I follow? Or if they thought the Sun rotated around the Earth, should we follow?

I worry about Jesus Christ and the Virgin Mary. Now all the other guys, be them from the Early Church or later on, are secondary.

Now, is it compulsory to know it all? If we do not know how we were created by God, must we know it?

 

[Clearly]

1) What is the importance of the Early Church that we must follow its traditions?- Pfaffenhofen in post #66


Pfaffenhofen, I am surprised. Normally you are promoting the value of tradition, rather than questioning it’s value.

As religionists, I believe the reason we study is not to learn about the “church” per se, but instead, we want to learn what God has revealed to mankind to help us understand God and our relationship to him and his plans for us. Since the accuracy of information tends to degenerate and drift as it meanders further from its origin, a return to original data tends to provide more accurate form of accurate information. Reading what the Apostle Peters’ colleague Clement, thought Peter meant is generally better than a Friend telling us what his Sister said that her cousin said about her parents discussing what they read that a pastor thought Peter might have meant.

If one wants the most accurate description of authentic, early, Judao-Christianity and its beliefs and practices, then a good source is to look at the earliest descriptions of it in the earliest texts that describe it by the earliest individuals who practiced it. The modern Christian tends to read a scripture and inadvertently clothes the text with his own meaning. This is different than reading a text of an early Judao-Christian who describes what the same text meant to them in their age. The text may be the same and the two interpretations entirely different. While there are many exceptions, the more original traditions tend to represent the more authentic version of a religious principle.

I also think that the earliest Christian teachings and traditions have a greater coherence and logic and agreement with good science and good sense than many of the later christian theories that have become popular. For example, science tells us that things are made of material rather than nothing. The later tradition that God created all things out of "nothing" places modern christian theory at odds with common science and common sense and creates controversies that early christians did not have to justify.






2) It seems to me that the Early Church is almost a "sacred cow" (sorry for the bad metaphor) that must be worshiped for I do not know what reason...– Pfaffenhofen

I don’t know of any Christians who worship “a church”, but they may appreciate the earliest authentic church as an example of how authentic christianity was practiced as a social group. It is one thing to believe and act as a christian, “alone” and another thing to learn to be “of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common”. KJV (...“but they shared everything they had.” NIV 84 - acts 4:32) The earliest and purest and most authentic and accurate form of the gospel when it was lived well is a worthy goal for christians to achieve as a group. The earliest church gives us a social model that we may attempt to achieve.






3) “I sincere[ly] do not care much what the Early Church believed. They are all dead and most of them I do not know.“
Pfaffenhofen :

Paffenhofen : The reason it matters what the apostles and prophets believed and taught is that they received important instructions through revelation and instruction from Jesus himself that helps us discover the answer to profound and incredibly important questions representing the core of authentic religion. It is the ancients who give us testimony that Jesus actually died and physically resurrected. The resurrection is profound testimony that he was more than another religious leader.

Other early witnesses of resurrections of the saints who rose with Jesus add to our description of how early Christianity interpreted resurrection itself; how early and authentic Christianity interpreted the decensus of Christ during the three days after death when he into the world of dead spirits and freed the dead; who was among the dead and even the testimony of those who resurrected with Jesus when “The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53 They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus' resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people.” (Matt 27:51-53) The testimony of those who spoke with these dead add to the rich literature of the earliest Christians and tell us much about their beliefs.

Papias was not the apostle John, but he WAS a “hearer of John” and so was a good source of information about what the apostle John believed and how he may have interpreted what was said by Jesus or other apostles. Clement is not the apostle Peter, but Clement describes what the apostle Peter taught him as a new convert to Christianity. Clement can tell us how the earliest Christians interpreted what they were taught. We can learn what the earliest Christians believed and how THEY interpreted texts by their early hymns and synagogal prayers and earliest written sermons. Just as our modern hymns represents our theology regarding christ, ancient hymns represent early theology. For example, we sing “Mild he lays his glory by, Born that men no more may die, Born to raise the sons of earth, Born to give them second birth. Risen with healing in his wing...” (Hark the herald angels sing), the early christians sang one of the oldest Christian Hymns called “the Pearl” describing the soul that leaves the pre-existent world for earth, finds a pearl of great price and then return to his father, the king and is given a robe of royalty in his fathers’ house. Even their hymns can tell us much about original Christian beliefs.






4) After the Early Church, there are 1700 years of Church History. Forgive me, but I do not have mind to study it all...- Pfaffenhofen
I agree with you. I do not think we need to “study it all”, but I do think it is important that we admit that we all have huge gaps in our knowledge that ought to humble us enough to temper our claims as to what the “truth is” or at least enough humility to overcome the type of pride that causes us to announce a self-satisfied superiority over other Christians. Once we become self aware of our ignorance, we can work up the faith that self honestly and humility will be rewarded by God with direction into the principles he WANTS us to discover.


Paffenhofen : I hope that the value of caring what the Earliest Christians believed may occur to you at some point. Until you discover what the original authentic Christians and Christian Church believed, you will never be able to claim that you beliefs are the same as theirs.

In any case, I wish you the very best of luck as you consider historical traditions and any developing interest in them. Again, I admire your ability to engage with us in English when I realized that it is not your native language.





ARE THERE ANY ROMAN CATHOLICS WHO ARE AWARE OF ANY BELIEF IN OR EFFORT BY THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH TO TEACH :

1) the pre-existence of spirits of mankind prior to the creation of the earth?

2) The early tradition that the Father's plan for advancement was presented to these spirits who existed prior to creation?


3) The early tradition that the worlds/planets/stars etc. out of pre-existing chaotic matter, rather than “nothing”?



ANYONE?




Clearly
sifuneku

 

[Pfaffenhofen]

1) What is the importance of the Early Church that we must follow its traditions?- Pfaffenhofen in post #66


Pfaffenhofen, I am surprised. Normally you are promoting the value of tradition, rather than questioning it’s value.

As religionists, I believe the reason we study is not to learn about the “church” per se, but instead, we want to learn what God has revealed to mankind to help us understand God and our relationship to him and his plans for us. Since the accuracy of information tends to degenerate and drift as it meanders further from its origin, a return to original data tends to provide more accurate form of accurate information. Reading what the Apostle Peters’ colleague Clement, thought Peter meant is generally better than a Friend telling us what his Sister said that her cousin said about her parents discussing what they read that a pastor thought Peter might have meant.

If one wants the most accurate description of authentic, early, Judao-Christianity and its beliefs and practices, then a good source is to look at the earliest descriptions of it in the earliest texts that describe it by the earliest individuals who practiced it. The modern Christian tends to read a scripture and inadvertently clothes the text with his own meaning. This is different than reading a text of an early Judao-Christian who describes what the same text meant to them in their age. The text may be the same and the two interpretations entirely different. While there are many exceptions, the more original traditions tend to represent the more authentic version of a religious principle.

I also think that the earliest Christian teachings and traditions have a greater coherence and logic and agreement with good science and good sense than many of the later christian theories that have become popular. For example, science tells us that things are made of material rather than nothing. The later tradition that God created all things out of "nothing" places modern christian theory at odds with common science and common sense and creates controversies that early christians did not have to justify.






2) It seems to me that the Early Church is almost a "sacred cow" (sorry for the bad metaphor) that must be worshiped for I do not know what reason...– Pfaffenhofen

I don’t know of any Christians who worship “a church”, but they may appreciate the earliest authentic church as an example of how authentic christianity was practiced as a social group. It is one thing to believe and act as a christian, “alone” and another thing to learn to be “of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common”. KJV (...“but they shared everything they had.” NIV 84 - acts 4:32) The earliest and purest and most authentic and accurate form of the gospel when it was lived well is a worthy goal for christians to achieve as a group. The earliest church gives us a social model that we may attempt to achieve.






3) “I sincere[ly] do not care much what the Early Church believed. They are all dead and most of them I do not know.“
Pfaffenhofen :

Paffenhofen : The reason it matters what the apostles and prophets believed and taught is that they received important instructions through revelation and instruction from Jesus himself that helps us discover the answer to profound and incredibly important questions representing the core of authentic religion. It is the ancients who give us testimony that Jesus actually died and physically resurrected. The resurrection is profound testimony that he was more than another religious leader.

Other early witnesses of resurrections of the saints who rose with Jesus add to our description of how early Christianity interpreted resurrection itself; how early and authentic Christianity interpreted the decensus of Christ during the three days after death when he into the world of dead spirits and freed the dead; who was among the dead and even the testimony of those who resurrected with Jesus when “The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53 They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus' resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people.” (Matt 27:51-53) The testimony of those who spoke with these dead add to the rich literature of the earliest Christians and tell us much about their beliefs.

Papias was not the apostle John, but he WAS a “hearer of John” and so was a good source of information about what the apostle John believed and how he may have interpreted what was said by Jesus or other apostles. Clement is not the apostle Peter, but Clement describes what the apostle Peter taught him as a new convert to Christianity. Clement can tell us how the earliest Christians interpreted what they were taught. We can learn what the earliest Christians believed and how THEY interpreted texts by their early hymns and synagogal prayers and earliest written sermons. Just as our modern hymns represents our theology regarding christ, ancient hymns represent early theology. For example, we sing “Mild he lays his glory by, Born that men no more may die, Born to raise the sons of earth, Born to give them second birth. Risen with healing in his wing...” (Hark the herald angels sing), the early christians sang one of the oldest Christian Hymns called “the Pearl” describing the soul that leaves the pre-existent world for earth, finds a pearl of great price and then return to his father, the king and is given a robe of royalty in his fathers’ house. Even their hymns can tell us much about original Christian beliefs.






4) After the Early Church, there are 1700 years of Church History. Forgive me, but I do not have mind to study it all...- Pfaffenhofen
I agree with you. I do not think we need to “study it all”, but I do think it is important that we admit that we all have huge gaps in our knowledge that ought to humble us enough to temper our claims as to what the “truth is” or at least enough humility to overcome the type of pride that causes us to announce a self-satisfied superiority over other Christians. Once we become self aware of our ignorance, we can work up the faith that self honestly and humility will be rewarded by God with direction into the principles he WANTS us to discover.


Paffenhofen : I hope that the value of caring what the Earliest Christians believed may occur to you at some point. Until you discover what the original authentic Christians and Christian Church believed, you will never be able to claim that you beliefs are the same as theirs.

In any case, I wish you the very best of luck as you consider historical traditions and any developing interest in them. Again, I admire your ability to engage with us in English when I realized that it is not your native language.





ARE THERE ANY ROMAN CATHOLICS WHO ARE AWARE OF ANY BELIEF IN OR EFFORT BY THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH TO TEACH :

1) the pre-existence of spirits of mankind prior to the creation of the earth?

2) The early tradition that the Father's plan for advancement was presented to these spirits who existed prior to creation?


3) The early tradition that the worlds/planets/stars etc. out of pre-existing chaotic matter, rather than “nothing”?



ANYONE?




Clearly
sifuneku

There is a distinction to be made.
You are referring to the Apostles and so on. For me that is not the Early Church. That is the Authority of the Revelation. The Revelation started with Jesus Christ to the death of the Last Apostle.
The Early Church, for me, goes up to 313, the Edit of Constantin, when the Church was free to worship.
If you understand the Early Church the Church from Christ's Death up to the Death of the Last Apostle, nothing of what I said makes sense.

But I do not believe that Sanctity is degrading along the times (a frequent Protestant claim: degradation from the Early Church up to Luther).
Why?
For Jesus Christ is as much alive today as He was when He walked on Earth. And The Church is Jesus Christ.

Mother Theresa of Calcutta or John Paull II were not less than many people of the Apostolic times.


Answers to questions:

1. I do not know.
2. I do not know.
3. I do not know.

 

[Clearly]

1) REGARDING DEGRADATION OF HISTORICAL DATA

PFAFFENHOFEN ASKS IN POST # 66 : “ What is the importance of the Early Church that we must follow its traditions?”

CLEARLY REPLIED IN POST # 67 : Pfaffenhofen, I am surprised. Normally you are promoting the value of tradition, rather than questioning it’s value.

As religionists, I believe the reason we study is not to learn about the “church” per se, but instead, we want to learn what God has revealed to mankind to help us understand God and our relationship to him and his plans for us. Since the accuracy of information tends to degenerate and drift as it meanders further from its origin, a return to original data tends to provide more accurate form of accurate information. Reading what the Apostle Peters’ colleague Clement, thought Peter meant is generally better than a Friend telling us what his Sister said that her cousin said about her parents discussing what they read that a pastor thought Peter might have meant.

If one wants the most accurate description of authentic, early, Judao-Christianity and its beliefs and practices, then a good source is to look at the earliest descriptions of it in the earliest texts that describe it by the earliest individuals who practiced it. The modern Christian tends to read a scripture and inadvertently clothes the text with his own meaning. This is different than reading a text of an early Judao-Christian who describes what the same text meant to them in their age. The text may be the same and the two interpretations entirely different. While there are many exceptions, the more original traditions tend to represent the more authentic version of a religious principle.

I also think that the earliest Christian teachings and traditions have a greater coherence and logic and agreement with good science and good sense than many of the later christian theories that have become popular. For example, science tells us that things are made of material rather than nothing. The later tradition that God created all things out of "nothing" places modern christian theory at odds with common science and common sense and creates controversies that early christians did not have to justify.


PFAFFENHOFEN REPLIES IN POST # 68 : But I do not believe that Sanctity is degrading along the times (a frequent Protestant claim: degradation from the Early Church up to Luther).

I was speaking of the degrading of DATA (information, traditions, etc.), not SANCTITY. Historical DATA is an entirely different subject than SANCTITY.

However, Your “disagreement” is a perfect example of how a stream of logical data changes from one thing to another and degrades accuracy in a mixture of logic and data and communication. I describe how “data and communication” degrades, and you “disagree”, claiming “sanctity” doesn’t degrade. Even our simple conversation becomes easily corrupted.

If one merely heard YOUR second response, they might assume someone claimed that "SANCTITY degraded". A GOOD “historian” might dig further back to my original claim that "DATA degraded" and have an entirely different and superior understanding of an original dispute.

This principle illustrates the value of studying the EARLIEST CHRISTIAN TRADITIONS. The earlier traditions are most often more clear and logical and more clearly represent authentic Christianity than later traditions based on later data.





2) REGARDING THE CLAIM THAT THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH KNOWS ABOUT AND TEACHES THE EARLIEST JUDAO-CHRISTIAN TRADITIONS


Clearly Asked :

ARE THERE ANY ROMAN CATHOLICS WHO ARE AWARE OF ANY BELIEF IN OR EFFORT BY THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH TO TEACH :
1) the pre-existence of spirits of mankind prior to the creation of the earth?
2) The early tradition that the Father's plan for advancement was presented to these spirits who existed prior to creation?
3) The early tradition that the worlds/planets/stars etc. out of pre-existing chaotic matter, rather than “nothing”?

[FONT=&quot]In a wonderful display of honesty, [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Paffenhofen answers these questions :[/FONT]

1. [FONT=&quot]I do not know.[/FONT]
2. [FONT=&quot]I do not know.[/FONT]
3. [FONT=&quot]I do not know. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]– [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Pfaffenhofen[/FONT][FONT=&quot] in post #68[/FONT]

Thank you Pfaffenhofen, I appreciate your honesty.






3) THE CLAIM THAT ROMAN CATHOLIC TRADITION ENSURES SUPERIOR INTERPRETATION OF SACRED TEXTS IS CONTRARY TO FACTS AND EXPERIENCE


While the Catholic Root of Jesse expresses belief in these early traditions without being able to give us any detailed data, the Catholic Pfaffenhofen expresses doubt in these traditions; also without being able to give us any detailed data. If we consider the lack of data they both have regarding these early Christian traditions and the lack of consistent belief between these two regarding the same doctrines, and apply these observations to the prior claim that “Catholic Tradition ensures accurate interpretation” of sacred texts as compared to the equally overstated claims of “sola scriptura”, it is clear that “tradition” is not superior unless the traditions are accurate and authentic Christian traditions.

Both methods of “interpretation” of sacred texts are defective in ensuring accurate interpretation of those texts. Neither method are equal to Authentic on-going Revelation present in the living religion of Early Judao-Christianity.



Clearly
siacdrrk

 

[Pfaffenhofen]

1) REGARDING DEGRADATION OF HISTORICAL DATA




I was speaking of the degrading of DATA (information, traditions, etc.), not SANCTITY. Historical DATA is an entirely different subject than SANCTITY.

However, Your “disagreement” is a perfect example of how a stream of logical data changes from one thing to another and degrades accuracy in a mixture of logic and data and communication. I describe how “data and communication” degrades, and you “disagree”, claiming “sanctity” doesn’t degrade. Even our simple conversation becomes easily corrupted.

If one merely heard YOUR second response, they might assume someone claimed that "SANCTITY degraded". A GOOD “historian” might dig further back to my original claim that "DATA degraded" and have an entirely different and superior understanding of an original dispute.

This principle illustrates the value of studying the EARLIEST CHRISTIAN TRADITIONS. The earlier traditions are most often more clear and logical and more clearly represent authentic Christianity than later traditions based on later data.





2) REGARDING THE CLAIM THAT THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH KNOWS ABOUT AND TEACHES THE EARLIEST JUDAO-CHRISTIAN TRADITIONS


Clearly Asked :

ARE THERE ANY ROMAN CATHOLICS WHO ARE AWARE OF ANY BELIEF IN OR EFFORT BY THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH TO TEACH :
1) the pre-existence of spirits of mankind prior to the creation of the earth?
2) The early tradition that the Father's plan for advancement was presented to these spirits who existed prior to creation?
3) The early tradition that the worlds/planets/stars etc. out of pre-existing chaotic matter, rather than “nothing”?

[FONT=&quot]In a wonderful display of honesty, [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Paffenhofen answers these questions :[/FONT]

1. [FONT=&quot]I do not know.[/FONT]
2. [FONT=&quot]I do not know.[/FONT]
3. [FONT=&quot]I do not know. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]– [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Pfaffenhofen[/FONT][FONT=&quot] in post #68[/FONT]

Thank you Pfaffenhofen, I appreciate your honesty.






3) THE CLAIM THAT ROMAN CATHOLIC TRADITION ENSURES SUPERIOR INTERPRETATION OF SACRED TEXTS IS CONTRARY TO FACTS AND EXPERIENCE


While the Catholic Root of Jesse expresses belief in these early traditions without being able to give us any detailed data, the Catholic Pfaffenhofen expresses doubt in these traditions; also without being able to give us any detailed data. If we consider the lack of data they both have regarding these early Christian traditions and the lack of consistent belief between these two regarding the same doctrines, and apply these observations to the prior claim that “Catholic Tradition ensures accurate interpretation” of sacred texts as compared to the equally overstated claims of “sola scriptura”, it is clear that “tradition” is not superior unless the traditions are accurate and authentic Christian traditions.

Both methods of “interpretation” of sacred texts are defective in ensuring accurate interpretation of those texts. Neither method are equal to Authentic on-going Revelation present in the living religion of Early Judao-Christianity.



Clearly
siacdrrk

STOP

While the Catholic Root of Jesse expresses belief in these early traditions without being able to give us any detailed data, the Catholic Pfaffenhofen expresses doubt in these traditions; also without being able to give us any detailed data.

I think that information is degrading from me to you.
I believe in the traditions of the Early church. Period. The question is that I have too much information on today's Church that I have no time to the Early Church. I am reading the book of the Pope, Jesus, but I have had no time to finish it. All the documents of the Vatican, the encyclical.... No time for the Early Church, which I deeply respect and most of whom gave their lives for the Church.

Do not try to find contradictions between me and Root of Jesse. We agree 99% of the time.

I do not care for historic data on reading the Early Church. That is for historians, and I am not historian. I look for Faith, Creed and Sanctity.

I do not care for human logic. I think with the heart. And as for logic, I prefer the logic of God which is madness for man.

No present day Church=Early Church if not better.

Why is so important for you the question of the pre-existence of souls? That's quite Plato, some Catholic Thinkers were attracted by Him, I like Plato very much, but why the interest for something that has got no interest at all?

You are missing something and there is much confusion on your part.
First, we do not care about the interpretation of the Scriptures. It is not tradition which interprets them but the Pope connected with all the Catholic Bishops of the world (2000).
Second, the question of Tradition is not a Catholic Problem. It is a Protestant problem. Actually, we never talk about Tradition or Traditions in the Catholic Church. It is the Protestant that talk about the Catholic Tradition on and on.

You are interpreting Tradition as us interpreting the Early Christian Texts. Nothing wronger. If you want to talk about Tradition, then you have to know how the Church interpreted the texts during the last 2000 years and what the Summula of All the Popes interpretations and what is the Position of the Church now.

As about Data, only about St. Thomas of Aquinas I have got 10 volumes, each one with 300 pages. Read St. Augustin, St. Theresa of Avila, St. John of the Cross, the documents of all the Councils and Synods and all the Encyclical of all the Popes. Read also great theologians like Karl Rahner and thousands of others. You have plenty of information.

Now, I cannot give you, here all the data I mentioned.
​

 

[Root of Jesse]

3) While the Catholic Root of Jesse believes in the early tradition that the worlds/planets/stars etc. out of pre-existing chaotic matter, rather than “nothing”, my other Catholic friends tell me this tradition is not taught by Catholicism, but rather their tradition is that all material things (e.g. planets) were created by God himself out of “nothing”. Yet again, Root of Jesse offers no evidence for his claim to Roman Catholic tradition while other catholics have a great deal of data in support of their opposing claim.

PFAFFENHOFEN, PATHFINDER777, TADOFLAMB, AND ANY OTHER ROMAN CATHOLICS ON THIS FORUM : DO YOU BELIEVE IN THE PRE-EXISTENCE OF CHAOTIC MATTER (THAT GOD DID NOT CREATE) BEFORE CREATION OF THE EARTH OF WHICH THE EARTH WAS CREATED OR DO YOU BELIEVE GOD CREATED THE EARTH OUT OF “NOTHING” (I.E. EX-NIHILO CREATION)? DO YOU THINK THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH TEACHES THIS DOCTRINE?

What IS the real and authentic Roman Catholic Doctrine on these three specific points. Do the Roman Catholics possess and believe in them as doctrine as Root of Jesse Claims or do they NOT possess and believe in these early traditions as other Catholics claim?

Can anyone who is Catholic tell us what the authentic Roman Catholic Doctrine IS on these three specific points?

Clearly
sieitzie

On this point, even the preexisting matter came from 'nothing'-God. God is the originator of EVERYTHING.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Let me clear the air a little. The Bible tells us in many places in the OT, that God said "Before you were in the womb I knew you." That does not really speak of whether souls existed at the point of the creation of the universe. It only speaks that God knew us before we were conceived. In what form we were, I don't know. It's not really relevant to anything. I know that our eternal soul is eternal differently than God is eternal.
If you interpret this as 'pre-existing soul', that's your understanding. I don't think God presented our souls some plan and asked us to choose for it or against it. He did that with angels, by our tradition.
God could not have come into an already existing universe, otherwise he wouldn't be God. The way the universe came to be what it is today, you could say it came out of chaos. But the very first words of Genesis say that the earth was without shape or form.
I guess you have to say that all of pre-history is subject to speculation. There's no right or wrong answer, because nobody was there to witness it except God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit.

Clearly, are these the only three items you're wondering about?

 

[Clearly]

[FONT=&quot]1) - I sincere do not care much what the Early Church believed. They are all dead and most of them I do not know. Pfaffenhoven in post #66[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Apathy toward and ignorance of Early Judao-Christian History will always cause difficulties for you in HISTORICAL forums since most of us DO care about original and authentic Judao-Christian doctrine and practices. Without a care for and knowledge of historical issues, your credibility may remain low and your theories dismissed . For example, you might quote a certain scripture that historians know is spurious and unauthentic and not realize why historians dismiss your quote out of hand. Authentic and original Judao-Christian doctrines originated inside a HISTORICAL setting and without a care for and knowledge of authentic traditions, you can never know which of your beliefs is authentic and which are later innovations.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Trying to engage historians in a historical forum without interest in or knowledge of historical principles is like going to a foreign country without knowledge of language and customs. Communications are inaccurate and inefficient and you will not know when your claims are accurate and when you are simply spouting the “party line” others taught you to say.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]2) - ” I believe in the traditions of the Early church. Period. “ - Pfaffenhofen in post #70[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]This is a good example of spouting a “party line” that sounds good without knowledge of what you are actually claiming. For example, in post 68, you tell us that you do not know about these traditions nor do you “care much what the Early Church believed” (post 66). Your claims are shifting so much that it is difficult to tell what you actually believe. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The earliest Judao-christian tradition was that spirits of mankind pre-exist creation of the earth. Yet in post 68 you say “I don’t know” whether this is true. Regarding the early tradition than these spirits are presented the Fathers’ plan you say “I don’t know”. Regarding the worlds creation of pre-existent matter rather than “nothing”, you say “I don’t know”. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Your admissions of all that you do not know about these traditions are inconsistent with your claim to “believe in the traditions of the Early Church. Period.”
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]Y[FONT=&quot]ou also claim that you “sincere[ly[ do not care much what the Early Church believed.” This makes straight forward communication difficult. You say you are studying “today’s church” so much that you “have no time to the Early Church”. You are trying to engage in a HISTORICAL forum without using historical principles or maintaining consistency. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]You are not the only one showing inconsistency in claims. When I pointed out the early doctrine of pre-existent spirits in posts # 46 and 47 as an example of an early Judao-christian doctrine who details are lost to or abandoned by the Roman Congregation, Root of Jesse claimed “Thanks for all that. I believe it, and my Church teaches it.” (post 48) Now, he finally seems ready to admit he does NOT believe the early tradition and is even ready to admit the Roman Congregation does NOT teach this tradition and does NOT have much knowledge of it among it’s membership.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]To make a claim to believe in a tradition and the claim that one’s church teaches it and then withdraw it a few posts later causes barriers to and frustrates normal communication.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]3) - " Do not try to find contradictions between me and Root of Jesse. We agree 99% of the time. " –Pfaffenhofen (#70)[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Yet the 1% you disagreed on were profoundly important doctrines. Most Christians agree that Jesus is the Redeemer, yet they argue incessantly on the 1% they disagree on. Also, though Jesse declared himself a firm believer of posts # 46 and 47 of pre-existent spirits saying “ I believe it, and my Church teaches it. “ (#48), apparently between post # 48 and now, he is no longer a convert and your church no longer teaches it this week. [/FONT]




[FONT=&quot]4) - “Why is so important for you the question of the pre-existence of souls?” (post #70)[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]A-How the subject of pre-existence arose [/FONT][FONT=&quot]:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Pre-existence of spirits was part of a set of example of traditions that were lost to the Roman Congregation. If you remember, there were a SERIES of historical claims made in the “Which denomination is closest to 1st Century Christianity” by Roman Catholics, that the Roman Catholic Church was most similar to the early Christian Church.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]In post 177 there, Root of Jesse claimed “the Catholic Church-untouched in its teaching for 2000 years”. I was demonstrating Roman Catholic teachings and traditions HAD ALREADY CHANGED even within the first 200 years so.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I offered examples of NEW traditions not existing in the first century; examples of traditions that CHANGED by the Roman Congregation, and I gave examples of traditions LOST to the Roman Congregation no longer possessed nor taught by the Roman Congregation.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Pre-existence of souls was one tradition lost to the Roman Congregation. In post # 238 Root of Jesse challenged : “ Name a doctrine or dogma of the Catholic Church that wasn't taught in the Bible. “ and so I gave examples showing NEW dogma that was not in the Bible. THEN I showed CHANGED traditions and then LOST traditions.
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]B -Why the tradition is important[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Many of the great controversies are made more plain and even settled by knowledge of this time period. Philosophers, theologians; agnostics and athiests alike have all questioned the justice of God having created unequal individuals and then punishing or rewarding them based on arbitrary characteristics he places within them. The same controversy is applied to individuals born into conditions where they never hear of Jesus during their lives. Controversies regarding the ex-nihilo source of evil and Satan are debated ad nauseum but are settled by knowledge of their origins. The purposes of a material creation with it’s unfairness and evil acts are constantly criticized by individuals who then use the same criticisms to attempt to show a just God cannot exist. The purposes of God in Pre-existent theology allows the “grace vs works” debate to be clarified and synergistic with the principle of repentance.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]THIS is the time period when God created his plan; when Lucifer fell to become Satan; when evil was present; when the plan for a redeemer was created; when a redeemer and a progenitor were both chosen; when the great controversy which resulted in Lucifer's anger and desire for revenge started; and when so many other parts of God's plan were determined. The answers to the great questions can be answered by knowledge of this time period.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]


5) - " First, we do not care about the interpretation of the Scriptures.." Pfaffenhofen #70[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]While this statement may increasingly obvious to forum members, the sentiment has consequences. Many of us DO care about careful and correct interpretation of scriptures. If popes or anyone else attempts scripture interpretation or a historical opinion, you must understand that historians may pay little attention to his opinion when they see it contradicts facts or known history. [/FONT]




6[FONT=&quot])- " Second, the question of Tradition is not a Catholic Problem. It is a Protestant problem. Actually, we never talk about Tradition or Traditions in the Catholic Church. It is the Protestant that talk about the Catholic Tradition on and on. " Pfaffenhofen[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]And yet it was you who attempted to couch the discussion regarding scriptures in the context of Tradition.
In explaining your theory of the relation of tradition to scripture, you told Albion “Who wrote the Scriptures but Tradition !? Jesus did not write one line. If he wrote, then Scriptures would be above Tradition. BUT as He did not, Tradition is above Scriptures. (post 317 which denomination&#8230. In post 592 you told albion that “[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Tradition makes the Church !!! (p 303 “which denom&#8221 [/FONT][FONT=&quot] In this thread, you may not care about traditions, but [/FONT][FONT=&quot]ancient traditions are often central to historical discussions for historians. And, you are in a HISTORICAL thread.

Pfaffenhofen, I think this historical thread would be good for you to study, but If you have no interest in history or interpretation of scripture or in the early Judao-Christian Traditions, perhaps might try a more philosophical oriented thread. In any case, I wish you the best of luck as you observe historical discussions should you ever develop and interest in Judao-Christian history.

[/FONT]Clearly
acseacst

 

[Pfaffenhofen]

[FONT=&quot]1) - I sincere do not care much what the Early Church believed. They are all dead and most of them I do not know. Pfaffenhoven in post #66[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Apathy toward and ignorance of Early Judao-Christian History will always cause difficulties for you in HISTORICAL forums since most of us DO care about original and authentic Judao-Christian doctrine and practices. Without a care for and knowledge of historical issues, your credibility may remain low and your theories dismissed . For example, you might quote a certain scripture that historians know is spurious and unauthentic and not realize why historians dismiss your quote out of hand. Authentic and original Judao-Christian doctrines originated inside a HISTORICAL setting and without a care for and knowledge of authentic traditions, you can never know which of your beliefs is authentic and which are later innovations.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Trying to engage historians in a historical forum is like going to a foreign country without knowledge of language and customs. Communications are inaccurate and inefficient and you will not know when your claims are accurate and when you are simply spouting the “party line” others taught you to say.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]2) - ” I believe in the traditions of the Early church. Period. “ - Pfaffenhofen in post #70[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]This is a good example of spouting a “party line” that sounds good without knowledge of what you are actually claiming. For example, in post 68, you tell us that you do not know about these traditions nor do you “care much what the Early Church believed” (post 66). Your claims are shifting so much that it is difficult to tell what you actually believe. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The earliest Judao-christian tradition was that spirits of mankind pre-exist creation of the earth. Yet in post 68 you say “I don’t know” whether this is true. Regarding the early tradition than these spirits are presented the Fathers’ plan you say “I don’t know”. Regarding the worlds creation of pre-existent matter rather than “nothing”, you say “I don’t know”. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Your admissions of all that you do not know about these tradisions are inconsistent with your claim to “believe in the traditions of the Early Church. Period.”
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]Y[FONT=&quot]ou also claim that you “sincere[ly[ do not care much what the Early Church believed.” This makes straight forward communication difficult. You say you are studying “today’s church” so much that you “have no time to the Early Church”. You are trying to engage in a HISTORICAL forum without using historical principles or maintaining consistency. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]You are not the only one showing inconsistency in claims. When I pointed out the early doctrine of pre-existent spirits in posts # 46 and 47 as an example of an early Judao-christian doctrine who details are lost to or abandoned by the Roman Congregation, Root of Jesse claimed “Thanks for all that. I believe it, and my Church teaches it.” (post 48) Now, he finally seems ready to admit he does NOT believe the early tradition and is even ready to admit the Roman Congregation does NOT teach this tradition and does NOT have much knowledge of it among it’s membership.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]To make a claim to believe in a tradition and the claim that one’s church teaches it and then withdraw it a few posts later causes barriers to and frustrates normal communication.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]3) - " Do not try to find contradictions between me and Root of Jesse. We agree 99% of the time. " –Pfaffenhofen (#70)[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Yet the 1% you disagreed on were profoundly important doctrines. Most Christians agree that Jesus is the Redeemer, yet they argue incessantly on the 1% they disagree on. Also, though Jesse declared himself a firm believer of posts # 46 and 47 of pre-existent spirits saying “ I believe it, and my Church teaches it. “ (#48), apparently between post # 48 and now, he is no longer a convert and your church no longer teaches it this week. [/FONT]




[FONT=&quot]4) - “Why is so important for you the question of the pre-existence of souls?” (post #70)[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]A-How the subject of pre-existence arose [/FONT][FONT=&quot]:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Pre-existence of spirits was part of a set of example of traditions that were lost to the Roman Congregation. If you remember, there were a SERIES of historical claims made in the “Which denomination is closest to 1st Century Christianity” by Roman Catholics, that the Roman Catholic Church was most similar to the early Christian Church.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]In post 177 there, Root of Jesse claimed “the Catholic Church-untouched in its teaching for 2000 years”. I was demonstrating Roman Catholic teachings and traditions HAD ALREADY CHANGED even within the first 200 years so.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I offered examples of NEW traditions not existing in the first century; examples of traditions that CHANGED by the Roman Congregation, and I gave examples of traditions LOST to the Roman Congregation no longer possessed nor taught by the Roman Congregation.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Pre-existence of souls was one tradition lost to the Roman Congregation. In post # 238 Root of Jesse challenged : “ Name a doctrine or dogma of the Catholic Church that wasn't taught in the Bible. “ and so I gave examples showing NEW dogma that was not in the Bible. THEN I showed changed tradition and then LOST traditions.
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]B -Why the tradition is important[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Many of the great controversies are made more plain and even settled by knowledge of this time period. Philosophers, theologians; agnostics and athiests alike have all questioned the justice of God having created unequal individuals and then punishing or rewarding them based on arbitrary characteristics he places within them. The same controversy is applied to individuals born into conditions where they never hear of Jesus during their lives. Controversies regarding the ex-nihilo source of evil and Satan are debated ad nauseum but are settled by knowledge of their origins. The purposes of a material creation with it’s unfairness and evil acts are constantly criticized by individuals who then use the same criticisms to attempt to show a just God cannot exist. The purposes of God in Pre-existent theology allows the “grace vs works” debate to be clarified and synergistic with the principle of repentance.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]THIS is the time period when God created his plan; when Lucifer fell to become Satan; when evil was present; when the plan for a redeemer was created; when a redeemer and a progenitor were both chosen; when the great controversy which resulted in Lucifer's anger and desire for revenge started; and when so many other parts of God's plan were determined. The answers to the great questions can be answered by knowledge of this time period.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]


5) - " First, we do not care about the interpretation of the Scriptures.." Pfaffenhofen #70[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]While this statement may increasingly obvious to forum members, the sentiment has consequences. Many of us DO care about careful and correct interpretation of scriptures. If popes or anyone else attempts scripture interpretation or a historical opinion, you must understand that historians may pay little attention to his opinion when they see it contradicts facts or known history. [/FONT]




6[FONT=&quot])- " Second, the question of Tradition is not a Catholic Problem. It is a Protestant problem. Actually, we never talk about Tradition or Traditions in the Catholic Church. It is the Protestant that talk about the Catholic Tradition on and on. " Pfaffenhofen[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]And yet it was you who attempted to couch the discussion regarding scriptures in the context of Tradition.

In explaining your theory of the relation of tradition to scripture, you told Albion “Who wrote the Scriptures but Tradition !? Jesus did not write one line. If he wrote, then Scriptures would be above Tradition. BUT as He did not, Tradition is above Scriptures. (post 317 which denomination…). In post 592 you told albion that “[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Tradition makes the Church !!! (p 303 “which demon”) [/FONT][FONT=&quot] In this thread, you may not care about traditions, but [/FONT][FONT=&quot]ancient traditions are often central to historical discussions for historians. And, you are in a HISTORICAL thread.

Pfaffenhofen, I think this historical thread would be good for you to study, but If you have no interest in history or interpretation of scripture or in the early Judao-Christian Traditions, perhaps might try a more philosophical oriented thread. In any case, I wish you the best of luck as you observe historical discussions should you ever develop and interest in Judao-Christian history.

[/FONT]Clearly
acseacst

1. When I say that I do not care for the EArly Tradition I do not say that I do not care at all. I do not care with enthusiasm that you do. Do you study the Church from 700-800 aD? And from 900-1000aD? And from 1200-1300 aD? It is impossible to study deeply it all!
2. Do you know greek? I do know classic greek? I do. Can you interpret Koiné? I doubt you can...
3. The subject may be discussed here but remember that only specialists found in University can give the best answer..

4. The 1% difference between Root of Jesse and me is not about essentials. Basically is about the color the the Church, about whether one should wear sandals at the mass or whether we should take the communion on hand or on the tongue. As you see, nothings.

5. I told you: I discussed Tradition with Protestants. I never thought on discussion Tradition with Root of Jesse. We have many people, who are experts, who deal with the subject: theologians, Bishops, priests, the Pope. So, we are saved from that hard labor and enjoy a cup of wine and the sunset. I only discuss Tradition with Protestant who make a bid deal out of it.

6. Look: the interpretation of scriptures is so difficult that I wonder how lightly the protestant interpret it. I give you a story. I had last year a student whom I taught my language. She was a Greek Teacher who graduated in Linguistics. Luingistics, I repeat. Greek Linguistics, I repeat. She knew also Latin. Now, listen to this: She, a Greek PhD, Greek by birth found Classic Latin EASIER than Classic Greek. I know that koiné is simpler, but still is Classic Greek. So, if a Greek PhD, graduated in Linguistics, found Classic Greek so difficult, I wonder how naive it is for Protestant to think that they can interpret the Gospels, written in Classic Gree Koiné, at will. Anybody can give an interpretation, without even knowing greek. I am really dumfounded. when the scholars spent decades discussing the meaning of ONE word, the Protestant, just any Protestant, solves the problem in one second with the first interpretation that comes to his mind with any translation, good, bad or baddest of the Greek Original. How come?

 

[Root of Jesse]

Clearly, I don't think you've shown any Sacred Tradition that has changed since Jesus died. You've shown peripherals that can be but don't have to be believed, but they're not essential to Catholic faith.

You want to know what the essential teaching of the Catholic Church that must be believed? In other words, what gets someone into heaven? Baptism. If you're dying and desire to be baptized, and I baptize you, you will go to heaven. If you end up living from whatever you were dying from, it's your duty to go deeper, but the essential is baptism. It's like asking what is the essentials of bread. Flour is the essential ingredient of bread. Lots of other things go into it, but all of them are optional. Flour is the only necessary.

There were certainly changed traditions in the Church after Christ died, but not essential changes. The essentials are the dogmas and doctrines, once you dive deeper after baptism.

I think you're saying something like this: It used to be that Catholics were prohibited from eating meat on Fridays, and now that's all changed, so the Church is different. Same with priestly celibacy. But these are disciplines, not doctrines. The doctrines that are necessary are quoted in the creeds-the Nicene Creed, the Apostles Creed, and the Athanasian Creed (which to me, is the most complete). I'll paste it here:

1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith;
2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.
3. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;
4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.
5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.
6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.
7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit.
8. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.
9. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.
10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.
11. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.
12. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.
13. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty.
14. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.
15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;
16. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.
17. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord;
18. And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord.
19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord;
20. So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say; There are three Gods or three Lords.
21. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten.
22. The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten.
23. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.
24. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.
25. And in this Trinity none is afore or after another; none is greater or less than another.
26. But the whole three persons are coeternal, and coequal.
27. So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.
28. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.
29. Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.
30. For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man.
31. God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of substance of His mother, born in the world.
32. Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.
33. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.
34. Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ.
35. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of that manhood into God.
36. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person.
37. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ;
38. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead;
39. He ascended into heaven, He sits on the right hand of the Father, God, Almighty;
40. From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
41. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies;
42. and shall give account of their own works.
43. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting and they that have done evil into everlasting fire. 44. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.

 

[Clearly]

[FONT=&quot]1) REGARDING CHANGES TO THE EARLIEST TRADITIONS BY THE CATHOLIC CONGREGATION[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]“ [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Clearly, I don't think you've shown any Sacred Tradition that has changed since Jesus died[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. ” Root of Jesse #75[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]Root of Jesse[/FONT][FONT=&quot], my goal was not to force you to admit to the changes in doctrines I have already demonstrated to the rest of the forum and which they see with clarity. We all are allowed to see what we want. Rather, I wanted to provide public information to historically minded readers to allow them to be able to recognize significant changes in doctrines that have occurred as the Roman congregation broke away from the earliest form of Christianity and became a type unto itself. ALL of us ought to recognize the tendency for inaccurate doctrinal innovation exists in all of us.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]A) NEW TRADITIONS CREATED BY THE ROMAN CONGREGATION[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]After the apostles died, the specific schizm that later became the Roman Catholic Church created entirely NEW traditions that did not exist in authentic and earliest Christianity. We’ve already discussed the innovative new claim to have received Peter’s religious apostolic authority through an obscure bishop. We discussed changes made to the earliest form of Baptism; we discussed changes made to the earliest known eucharist; we discussed the damnation of innocent un-baptized infants (and the mentally infirm) and other innovations made by the roman congregation as they drifted away from early Christian tradition. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Historically the issue was not WHETHER such changes occurred in christian doctrines and traditions, (historically, it is obvious that they occurred). The historical issues now debated often have more to do with WHY and HOW the Roman Congregation (and other christianities) changed early doctrines and adopted others. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The theology created by the Roman Congregation was no longer a theology based on revelation through prophets and apostles, but became a theology created by theologians.[/FONT][FONT=&quot] The shift to “man made religion” was an attempt to simulate authentic religion (which always involved revelation between God and mankind rather than the logic and reason of theologians). This shift to man-made theology drives the historical discussions asking WHY the roman congregation abandoned perfectly logical and sensible early doctrines for illogical and nonsensical doctrines and HOW new interpretations and traditions were adopted as a new “orthodoxy”.[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]B) TRADITIONS CHANGED BY THE ROMAN CONGREGATION[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]We’ve also discussed completely authentic doctrines which the Roman Congregation adopted in a changed form as the Roman congregation split off from the earliest doctrines. For example, the roman congregations version of a sort of “purgatory”. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Critics of the Roman congregation have complained repeatedly regarding the Roman Catholic doctrine of “Purgatory”, and yet it is clear that the Roman Congregation is perfectly correct that a form of this doctrine DID exist in early Christian tradition. Though the Roman congregation nowadays have only retained tenuous and narrow textual evidence as a “source” of their version of this doctrine (e.g. apocrypha), there is actually a great deal of textual evidence to show that a version of this doctrine was quite widely believed and described in early sacred Judao-Christian texts. The greater textual evidence was simply lost and remained relatively “unknown” and “unused” by the later versions of the Roman Congregation.[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]C) TRADITIONS ABANDONED BY THE ROMAN CONGREGATION[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]We’ve also discussed early Christian traditions that were abandoned by the Roman Congregation. These are traditions existing in detailed form in early Judao-Christianity, but which were abandoned by the Roman Congregation over the years. As the Roman Congregation severed the doctrinal links which bound them to early Judao-Christian understanding of Gods purposes, of creation and it’s form, of his plan for the pre-existent spirits of mankind; of the nature of the “fall of man” as well as the nature of man himself; the nature of evil and the fall / origin and motives of Lucifer, etc, they were left unable to neither understand nor to give detailed explanation to questions that were relatively simple principles in early judao-christianity. The summation of pfaffenhofen’s answer to three very, very, simple principles was “I don’t know”. The early Judao-Christians had detailed traditions that answered such basic questions.[/FONT]




[FONT=&quot]2) “THE ESSENTIAL CATHOLIC TEACHING”[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]“ You've shown peripherals that can be but don't have to be believed, but they're not essential to Catholic faith.“ Root of Jesse #75 [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]There are principles you are not considering Root of Jesse.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]For example, You have not considered how the Roman Congregations’ adoption of “unessential” counterfeit traditions affect the “essentials”. For example; consider how a false claim to authority affects your “essential doctrine” of Baptism : [/FONT][FONT=&quot]“...what gets someone into heaven? Baptism. If you're dying and desire to be baptized, and I baptize you, you will go to heaven[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. “ Root of Jesse #75[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]You have no religious authority[/FONT][FONT=&quot] to offer and perform authentic baptism. The Roman congregation has no more religious authority to baptize than any other congregation they have traditionally viewed as “unauthorized”. If Baptism and eucharist cannot be carried out without religious authority (as the apostolic fathers tell us), then the roman congregations cannot offer an authentic baptism or an authentic eucharist.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Thus your personal guarantee of heaven based only upon "baptism" is a promise no more valid than buying indulgences without faith or repentance provides forgiveness and sanctity.[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]Your simple statement that only baptism is necessary, divorces entry into heaven from other moral principles that were important in authentic early Judao-Christian belief. Faith, and repentance also were necessary principles for the mentally competent in early Christian tradition. Baptism without authentic Faith and authentic repentance did not sanctify anyone in early Christian tradition.[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]You have not considered that early traditions may have been important to the early Christians in their type of Christianity, though they are not important to you in your different type of Christianity. Without historical insight, you cannot imagine how an accurate insight into mans nature; Gods’ nature and his plan for mankind; the origin, nature and purposes of evil changes the nature of intelligent and efficient interaction with God and in carrying out his plans for mankind.[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]In pointing out New traditions created by the roman congregation; Changed traditions and traditions abandoned by the Roman Congregation, I was speaking of how the Roman Congregation differed from original and authentic Chrisitanity.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]You view the Roman congregation as original christianity whereas I view it as an early break off-religion of the earlier christianity. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I am not so interested in the beliefs of the schizm that became known as the roman catholic faith as I am in the beliefs of the earliest and most original christianity. This is the distinction that was difficult for the non-historian pfaffenhoven to understand. One must FIRST understand what authentic Judao-Christian traditions WERE, BEFORE one can honestly claim they believe in “original” Christian traditions. [/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]Clearly
nefusiti
[/FONT]

 

[Pfaffenhofen]

[FONT=&quot]1) REGARDING CHANGES TO THE EARLIEST TRADITIONS BY THE CATHOLIC CONGREGATION[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]“ [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Clearly, I don't think you've shown any Sacred Tradition that has changed since Jesus died[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. ” Root of Jesse #75[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]Root of Jesse[/FONT][FONT=&quot], my goal was not to force you to admit to the changes in doctrines I have already demonstrated to the rest of the forum and which they see with clarity. We all are allowed to see what we want. Rather, I wanted to provide public information to historically minded readers to allow them to be able to recognize significant changes in doctrines that have occurred as the Roman congregation broke away from the earliest form of Christianity and became a type unto itself. ALL of us ought to recognize the tendency for inaccurate doctrinal innovation exists in all of us.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]A) NEW TRADITIONS CREATED BY THE ROMAN CONGREGATION[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]After the apostles died, the specific schizm that later became the Roman Catholic Church created entirely NEW traditions that did not exist in authentic and earliest Christianity. We’ve already discussed the innovative new claim to have received Peter’s religious apostolic authority through an obscure bishop. We discussed changes made to the earliest form of Baptism; we discussed changes made to the earliest known eucharist; we discussed the damnation of innocent un-baptized infants (and the mentally infirm) and other innovations made by the roman congregation as they drifted away from early Christian tradition. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Historically the issue was not WHETHER such changes occurred in christian doctrines and traditions, (historically, it is obvious that they occurred). The historical issues now debated often have more to do with WHY and HOW the Roman Congregation (and other christianities) changed early doctrines and adopted others. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The theology created by the Roman Congregation was no longer a theology based on revelation through prophets and apostles, but became a theology created by theologians.[/FONT][FONT=&quot] The shift to “man made religion” was an attempt to simulate authentic religion (which always involved revelation between God and mankind rather than the logic and reason of theologians). This shift to man-made theology drives the historical discussions asking WHY the roman congregation abandoned perfectly logical and sensible early doctrines for illogical and nonsensical doctrines and HOW new interpretations and traditions were adopted as a new “orthodoxy”.[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]B) TRADITIONS CHANGED BY THE ROMAN CONGREGATION[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]We’ve also discussed completely authentic doctrines which the Roman Congregation adopted in a changed form as the Roman congregation split off from the earliest doctrines. For example, the roman congregations version of a sort of “purgatory”. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Critics of the Roman congregation have complained repeatedly regarding the Roman Catholic doctrine of “Purgatory”, and yet it is clear that the Roman Congregation is perfectly correct that a form of this doctrine DID exist in early Christian tradition. Though the Roman congregation nowadays have only retained tenuous and narrow textual evidence as a “source” of their version of this doctrine (e.g. apocrypha), there is actually a great deal of textual evidence to show that a version of this doctrine was quite widely believed and described in early sacred Judao-Christian texts. The greater textual evidence was simply lost and remained relatively “unknown” and “unused” by the later versions of the Roman Congregation.[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]C) TRADITIONS ABANDONED BY THE ROMAN CONGREGATION[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]We’ve also discussed early Christian traditions that were abandoned by the Roman Congregation. These are traditions existing in detailed form in early Judao-Christianity, but which were abandoned by the Roman Congregation over the years. As the Roman Congregation severed the doctrinal links which bound them to early Judao-Christian understanding of Gods purposes, of creation and it’s form, of his plan for the pre-existent spirits of mankind; of the nature of the “fall of man” as well as the nature of man himself; the nature of evil and the fall / origin and motives of Lucifer, etc, they were left unable to neither understand nor to give detailed explanation to questions that were relatively simple principles in early judao-christianity. The summation of pfaffenhofen’s answer to three very, very, simple principles was “I don’t know”. The early Judao-Christians had detailed traditions that answered such basic questions.[/FONT]




[FONT=&quot]2) “THE ESSENTIAL CATHOLIC TEACHING”[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]“ You've shown peripherals that can be but don't have to be believed, but they're not essential to Catholic faith.“ Root of Jesse #75 [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]There are principles you are not considering Root of Jesse.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]For example, You have not considered how the Roman Congregations’ adoption of “unessential” counterfeit traditions affect the “essentials”. For example; consider how a false claim to authority affects your “essential doctrine” of Baptism : [/FONT][FONT=&quot]“...what gets someone into heaven? Baptism. If you're dying and desire to be baptized, and I baptize you, you will go to heaven[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. “ Root of Jesse #75[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]You have no religious authority[/FONT][FONT=&quot] to offer and perform authentic baptism. The Roman congregation has no more religious authority to baptize than any other congregation they have traditionally viewed as “unauthorized”. If Baptism and eucharist cannot be carried out without religious authority (as the apostolic fathers tell us), then the roman congregations cannot offer an authentic baptism or an authentic eucharist.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Thus your personal guarantee of heaven based only upon "baptism" is a promise no more valid than buying indulgences without faith or repentance provides forgiveness and sanctity.[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]Your simple statement that only baptism is necessary, divorces entry into heaven from other moral principles that were important in authentic early Judao-Christian belief. Faith, and repentance also were necessary principles for the mentally competent in early Christian tradition. Baptism without authentic Faith and authentic repentance did not sanctify anyone in early Christian tradition.[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]You have not considered that early traditions may have been important to the early Christians in their type of Christianity, though they are not important to you in your different type of Christianity. Without historical insight, you cannot imagine how an accurate insight into mans nature; Gods’ nature and his plan for mankind; the origin, nature and purposes of evil changes the nature of intelligent and efficient interaction with God and in carrying out his plans for mankind.[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]In pointing out New traditions created by the roman congregation; Changed traditions and traditions abandoned by the Roman Congregation, I was speaking of how the Roman Congregation differed from original and authentic Chrisitanity.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]You view the Roman congregation as original christianity whereas I view it as an early break off-religion of the earlier christianity. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I am not so interested in the beliefs of the schizm that became known as the roman catholic faith as I am in the beliefs of the earliest and most original christianity. This is the distinction that was difficult for the non-historian pfaffenhoven to understand. One must FIRST understand what authentic Judao-Christian traditions WERE, BEFORE one can honestly claim they believe in “original” Christian traditions. [/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]Clearly
nefusiti
[/FONT]

[FONT="]You view the Roman congregation as original christianity whereas I view it as an early break off-religion of the earlier christianity. [/FONT]

We know this theory. But where are the "others"? the other 50%? Just disappeared into thin air? We do not see them in History !

[FONT=&quot]This is the distinction that was difficult for the non-historian pfaffenhoven to understand.[/FONT]

Very easy to understand. Even a stupid fella would understand. What is difficult is to find where is the other half of the break off. Do you know why? Because it does not exist!

[FONT="]One must FIRST understand what authentic Judao-Christian traditions WERE[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
We know that. What shall we do next?

[FONT="]The shift to “man made religion” was an attempt to simulate authentic religion[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
What was the Holy Spirit doing from the Early Church to Luther? Sleeping?
Do you dare to say that Jesus Christ let His church drift away for 1400 years without pilot nor rudder.
Do you dare to say that the RCC was a man-made Church but Luther's was a divine Church?
Yes? no?

[FONT="]that the Roman Congregation is perfectly correct that a form of this doctrine DID exist in early Christian tradition.[/FONT]

The Creed of Nicea was not in the Gospels! Oh| But you refute the Creed of Nicea. I forgot that the Church was frozen from 100 aD till Luther...
You do not find this idea absolutely ridiculous, like the assertion of the Mormons that they somehow found I do not know which book in Utah?

[FONT="]The summation of pfaffenhofen’s answer to three very, very, simple principles was “I don’t know”. The early Judao-Christians had detailed traditions that answered such basic questions.[/FONT]

You seem to know everything..."I do not know" does not belong to your vocabulary!!! Even Jesus, when asked about the end of the world, said that the Son of God did not know but only the Father.
So, everything was in the Judeo-Christian early Tradition. If they ate with the hands, travel by foot and horse, believed that the Sun went around the moon, had a tradition of a passive role for women, we should follow.
And if they, like Paul said and criticized, were divided in the allegiance to Paul and Peter, ate till they were drunks in Eucharist, did not share what they brought but rich ate separately to the poor, had the vices and sins that Paul vituperates, then, we must follow them...
Why? They were perfect and untouchable !!! Boy, how naive.
I think you stuck in the Early Church and you wont leave the 1st century.

Sorry, for me, The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are alive today and not only in the "sacred cow" of the 1st century. They speak to the Church NOW. Jesus Christ is the Pilot NOW. Jesus Christ influences the Church NOW. It is NOW that you prepare the Church. IT is NOW that the future of the church is prepared. and NOW, the Church is one, not 30 thousand disparate opinions that conflict with other in all aspects of Christian life. NOW is the time of meeting God. NOW is the time of prayer not in the 1st century. NOW is the time to fight the devil and preach God.
For Eternity is a unending NOW.
[FONT=&quot][/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Clearly, I don't think you've shown any Sacred Tradition that has changed since Jesus died. You've shown peripherals that can be but don't have to be believed, but they're not essential to Catholic faith.

You want to know what the essential teaching of the Catholic Church that must be believed? In other words, what gets someone into heaven? Baptism. If you're dying and desire to be baptized, and I baptize you, you will go to heaven. If you end up living from whatever you were dying from, it's your duty to go deeper, but the essential is baptism. It's like asking what is the essentials of bread. Flour is the essential ingredient of bread. Lots of other things go into it, but all of them are optional. Flour is the only necessary.

There were certainly changed traditions in the Church after Christ died, but not essential changes. The essentials are the dogmas and doctrines, once you dive deeper after baptism.

I think you're saying something like this: It used to be that Catholics were prohibited from eating meat on Fridays, and now that's all changed, so the Church is different. Same with priestly celibacy. But these are disciplines, not doctrines. The doctrines that are necessary are quoted in the creeds-the Nicene Creed, the Apostles Creed, and the Athanasian Creed (which to me, is the most complete).

I agree with you; but be mindful that the Athanasian Creed was compiled as a "final" response to the Arian heresy.

In our tradition, this Creed is used in place of the Nicene Creed in our Mass for the Feast of the Holy Trinity.

 

[Clearly]

POST ONE OF TWO


Pfaffenhofen :



I owe you a public apology, As I read your last post, I feel somewhat responsible for the scattered and frustrated tenor of your last response. I apologize for using your name in pointing out the lack of knowledge concerning early Judao-Christian traditions in what became the Roman Congregation. I thought using the term “a catholic” would seem as though I was making a snide comment. The term “catholics” was an over generalization since I do know some Catholic historians who are aware of the abandonment and traditional voids in their theology. I was not wise enough to think about how using you as an example might make you feel and I honestly apologize for being insensitive. I’ll try to do better.


1) THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF CHRISTIANITIES



My purpose in pointing out knowledge and traditions that were abandoned by the roman congregation and their subsequent inability to answer and describe simple principles is to point out that the early Christians DID have such knowledge and tradition and it was important TO THEM in their type of christianity. For example, even before being baptized, the catechumen (new convert) was to know and understand certain things BEFORE baptism, so as to be aware of the promise and covenant he was making to God as he committed himself to the Christian religion. For example, an early Synagogal Prayer reads :


“1 Let the one who is to be instructed in piety be taught before baptism: knowledge concerning the unbegotten God, understanding concerning the only begotten son, and full assurance concerning the Holy spirit. 2 Let him learn the order of a distinguished creation, the sequence of providence, the judgment seats of different legislation, why the world came to be and why man was appointed a world citizen. 3 Let him understand his own nature, of what sort it is. Let him be educated in how God punished the wicked...5 And how God, though he foresaw, did not abandon the race of men, but summoned them at various times from error and folly into the understanding of truth....6 Let the one who offers himself learn during his instruction these things and those that are related to them.” Hellenistic Synagogal Prayers - # 8 Instruction for the Catechumens (AposCon 7.39.2-4)


The modern roman congregation (and others) can no longer teach the same traditions nor in the same detail that were so important to the early christians.






2) THE CONSEQUENCE OF GAINING KNOWLEDGE OF EARLY AND AUTHENTIC CHRISTIAN TRADITION



“ One must FIRST understand what authentic Judao-Christian traditions WERE, BEFORE one can honestly claim they believe in “original” Christian traditions. “
“ We know that. What shall we do next? “ pfaffenhofen, #77

Discovering authentic and original christian doctrines and traditions allows one to make valid comparisons between authentic traditions and one’s current traditions and beliefs. If the two match, then it is comforting evidence that we are on similar doctrinal paths with early Christians. If our traditions differ from those we’ve inherited from our society, we may then make informed choices as what we want to believe. Even with better information, we still are free to theorize and believe anything we want. Historical knowledge is a double edged sword however. Once one learns their traditions differ from early christianity, they can no longer honestly make the claim that their beliefs are “what the original christians believed”. As I compare early and later Christian theory and traditions, I see no logical or sensical advantage of modern christian theories over the earliest Christian theories.






3) THE SHIFT FROM THEOLOGY BASED ON REVELATION FROM GOD TO THEOLOGY CREATED BY THEOLOGIANS


“ The theology created by the Roman Congregation was no longer a theology based on revelation through prophets and apostles, but became a theology created by theologians. The shift to “man made religion” was an attempt to simulate authentic religion (which always involved revelation between God and mankind rather than the logic and reason of theologians). This shift to man-made theology drives the historical discussions asking WHY the roman congregation abandoned perfectly logical and sensible early doctrines for illogical and nonsensical doctrines and HOW new interpretations and traditions were adopted as a new “orthodoxy”. “

What was the Holy Spirit doing from the Early Church to Luther? Sleeping?
Do you dare to say that Jesus Christ let His church drift away for 1400 years without pilot nor rudder. Pfaffenhofen, #77


The Jews had the same difficulty in imagining and admitting to themselves the terrible truth of the early Christian Claim that THEY had lost God’s bestowal of Prophets and living lines of revelation from God (upon which scriptures were based) and that these gifts had been transferred to Christianity. They asked the same rhetorical question as to why God would allow his covenant people to drift “without pilot nor rudder” (as it were). The same difficult admission faced Christianity once their prophets and apostles died.


As early christian congregations, including the catholic congregation, underwent the same loss of prophets and apostolic gifts of revelation among them, it was completely natural for this void to be filled by theologians who simply did the best they could to develop doctrines and codify traditions in this formative stage of early Christianity.



I am not trying to FAULT them, I think they did the best they could at reasoning out a set of doctrines. The point is that this process of creating doctrine was DIFFERENT and INFERIOR to the earlier and authentic process of receiving doctrines by revelation through living Prophets and Apostles. It is my opinion that the Spirit of God has always been willing to influence, at some level, all individuals in all ages as they make themselves willing and able to receive his influence. guidance.
Still, the tendency to apostasy was not simply a defect among the Jews, but ALL of us have the tendency to doctrinal drift and innovation as religious data passes through our biases and becomes interpreted into beliefs. This tendency was not unexpected as the early texts tell us :



“ And afterwards, at his approach, his disciples will abandon the teaching of the twelve apostles, and their faith, and their love, and their purity. And there will be much contention at his coming and at his approach. And in those days (there will be) many who will love office, although lacking wisdom. And there will be many wicked elders and shepherds who wrong their sheep, (and they will be rapacious because they do not have holy shepherds). And many will exchange the glory of the robes of the saints for the robes of those who love money; and there will be much respect of persons in those days, and lovers of the glory of this world. And there will be many slanderers and [much] vainglory at the approach of the Lord, and the Holy Spirit will withdraw from many. And in those day there will not be many prophets, nor those who speak reliable words, except one here and there in different places, because of the spirit of error and of fornication, and of vainglory, and of the love of money, which there will be among those who are said to be servants of the One, and among those who receive that One. 29 And among the shepherds and the elders there will be great hatred towards one another. 30 For there will be great jealousy in the last days, for everyone will speak whatever pleases him in his own eyes. 31 And they will neglect (gr) the prophecy of the prophets who were before me, and my visions also...they will make ineffective, in order that they may speak what bursts out of their heart. ” Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah . 3:21-31;

POST TWO OF TWO FOLLOWS

 

[Clearly]

POST TWO OF TWO


4) Regarding the doctrine of a world of spirits after death and it’s relation to the Roman Congregations tradition of “Purgatory”.

“ …the Roman Congregation is perfectly correct that a form of this doctrine DID exist in early Christian tradition.“ Clearly, # 76

" The Creed of Nicea was not in the Gospels! Oh| But you refute the Creed of Nicea. I forgot that the Church was frozen from 100 aD till Luther... You do not find this idea absolutely ridiculous, like the assertion of the Mormons that they somehow found I do not know which book in Utah? " Pfaffenhofen, #77

You seem to be simply venting frustration with my statement which is a COMPLEMENT to the roman congregation for HAVING a form of doctrine which OTHERS have lost. I believe you are mis-characterizing the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (“Mormons&#8221 claim. Actually, as a group of restorationists (i.e. a group desiring to believe in the earlist Christian traditions of salvation), I think they have more correct data in their texts purporting to be ancient than the roman congregation does. In fact, I believe they are able to teach detailed early doctrines on all four traditions the roman congregation has lost.




5) REGARDING THE INTIMATION THAT ROMAN THEOLOGY WAS THE ONLY "OLD" CHRISTIANITY AND THAT OTHER TYPES "DID NOT EXIST".

Clearly said to Root of Jesse in post “ 76 “ [FONT=&quot]You have not considered that early traditions may have been important to the early Christians in their type of Christianity, though they are not important to you in your different type of Christianity.[/FONT][FONT=&quot] Without historical insight, you cannot imagine how an accurate insight into mans nature; Gods’ nature and his plan for mankind; the origin, nature and purposes of evil changes the nature of intelligent and efficient interaction with God and in carrying out his plans for mankind. [/FONT]… [FONT=&quot]In pointing out New traditions created by the roman congregation; Changed traditions and traditions abandoned by the Roman Congregation, I was speaking of how the Roman Congregation differed from original and authentic Christianity. You view the Roman congregation as original christianity whereas I view it as an early break off-religion of the earlier christianity. I am not so interested in the beliefs of the schizm that became known as the roman catholic faith as I am in the beliefs of the earliest and most original christianity.[/FONT][FONT=&quot] “[/FONT]

Pfaffenhofen responded in post # 77, claiming “ We know this theory. But where are the "others"? the other 50%? Just disappeared into thin air? We do not see them in History ! Very easy to understand. Even a stupid fella would understand. What is difficult is to find where is the other half of the break off. Do you know why? Because it does not exist! ”


You are still refusing to admit to yourself what you do not know about history. For example, you are thinking narrowly and simply of “WESTERN” history at the exclusion of all other history (which you then assume "does not exist").

Consider that there are OTHER histories that you are not aware of, rather than that them being “non-existent”.

A good example is the wonderful history of Copts (Egyptian Christians) which is equally long to the roman claim.

In 1860, when missionaries arrived to convert the copts to Christianity, their Archbishop Asiut reportedly said : “We have been living with Christ for more than 1800 years, how long have you been living with him?”

Just as the roman congregation claimed connection to the Apostle Peter, the Copts attribute their origin to the Apostle Mark at approx. 50 a.d.

the Biblical papyri of upper Egypt predate the Roman Vaticans uncial, “codex Vaticanus”.

The first great Christian Catechetical School was not in Rome, but in Alexandria before 200 a.d. It was among the copts that the early great seat of Christian learning developed, not rome. It was in Egypt that the earliest systematic Christian theology was developed and codified, Not rome. Clement of Alexandria and origen were copts, not roman.

The first “POPE” was not a roman one, but instead Heraclas, the copt used the title as he came to the “throne of Saint Mark”. (The Pope of a coptic church died just recently)

Athanasius the apostolic and Cyril the Great graduated from the Alexandrian school. Saint Basil, Jerome, Rufinus all were influenced by Coptic Christianity.

The amount of Coptic writing (for which rome and the rest of us are indebted) is enormous. Origen alone is responsible for over six thousand tracts on TOP of his hexapla. Students of the school were presumed to have contributed to much of this literature. The early commentaries of Coptic origin are important (ones for all books of old and new testament existed).

Much of Christianities progress from its’ early oral, uncodified form, to it’s passing through the minds and discussions of philosophers and theologians; through the many deliberations and debates as to what was to be believed through its early codifications were influenced by Coptic Christianity.

The Nicean council took place under the leadership of a prior bishop of Alexandria. The copts claim Athanasius was Coptic and not Greek. Athanasius spent two years in one of his exiles in the Red Sea area with Saint Anthony the great (a copt who did not speak greek) whose life compilation Athanasius wrote.

The Monastic rule developed in it’s early and highly developed form among the copts.

It was the copts and not rome who are credited with the wonderful missionary efforts in Africa. The Nubian Kingdom, Abyssinia, Ethiopia, etc were influenced by Coptic Christianity. The different Old and new Testament Canon held by Ethiopia also reflects the different development of African Christianity.

Pfaffenhofen, when you claim that “Even a stupid fella would understand. What is difficult is to find where is the other half of the break off.” and then to tell us “Do you know why? Because it does not exist!” is simply not paying attention to any other history than the narrow one you have been exposed to.

Rome, corinth, Jerusalem, Ephesus, Alexandria, etc. ALL of the early christian congregations have history. We may be simply unaware of THEIR history as we concentrate on own history.
Consider the possibility that a great deal of historical data exists that you are simply unaware of.


Clearly
eitztztwti