• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.

Rule Of Law Ends In Boston Archdiocese

Discussion in 'News & Current Events' started by Susan, Dec 14, 2002.

  1. Chris†opher Paul

    Chris†opher Paul Based on a True Story

    So if I post a bunch of names in favor of Catholicism, you don't have an argument either?
  2. Evangelion

    Evangelion <b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>

    Well, no, that's not what I'm claiming.

    May I remined you that you and your mates already presented your arguments from primary sources? May I remind you that I dealt with them, point by point? Not only that, but I refuted them by reference to Catholic sources! :D

    So until you prove that Guthridge is "deluded" (not to mention all my other sources), you just don't have an argument. And until you present a point-by-point rebuttal, you're simply blowing smoke.

    Sure, you can sit there and complain. I expected this.

    But it doesn't actually prove anything. :cool:
  3. Chris†opher Paul

    Chris†opher Paul Based on a True Story

    I don't expect to prove anything to you. Anything I say is "evil revisionist Catholic rhetoric," so why bother? You made your stance quite clear, which is why it is being ignored.
  4. Evangelion

    Evangelion <b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>

    S0uljah -

    Wow, that's a convenient way of avoiding the argument. :D

    ROTFL! Oh, really? Since when did I claim that anything you say is "evil revisionist Catholic rhetoric"?

    This sounds like a classic case of "sour grapes." You made your challenge; I met your challenge; I defeated your challenge... and now you're frustrated because you don't really know what to do next.

    And why don't you know what to do next? I believe that it's because you haven't actually studied the history in question, as I have.

    Yep! My stance is based upon the clear facts of history!

    Oh, I know.

    I was sure I could trust you to ignore the clear facts of history, and here you are, admitting it! :cool:
  5. VOW

    VOW Moderator

    To Evangelion:

    #1--the original intent of this thread has been thoroughly hijacked. I suggest you open a companion thread in General Apologetics, if you wish to continue with the history lesson.

    #2--I read your exerpts, and I really cannot see anything which contradicts the authority of Rome. The bit about Constantine calling a council certainly doesn't prove that Constantine ruled the Catholic Church. I don't see any documentation that he SAT on the Council or CONTROLLED the Council, or dictated to the Council what to say or do.

    Isshinwhat has some nice quotations from the Early Church fathers which clearly show that Rome was recognized as having an authority over the other bishops. If you do open a new thread, let's invite him to post them.

  6. Chris†opher Paul

    Chris†opher Paul Based on a True Story

    You are quite accomplished indeed...in your own mind.
  7. isshinwhat

    isshinwhat Pro Deo et Patria

    Eastern Orthodox
    First, I must apologize to Susan for responding in a manner that allowed her thread to be hijacked.

    The statement that it is necessary for all churches to agree with the Roman Church because of her "pre- eminent authority" leads me to believe that there is indeed Patristic proof prior to 315 A.D. regarding the Primacy of Rome, and by default the Bishop of Rome who is the shepard of that Church.


    The Chair of Peter is the office of the Papacy, which is held by the Bishop of Rome, thus by stating that one must question if he is in the Church at all if he does not hold "fast to this oneness of Peter," the author is clearly stating his belief in the "primacy of the Church of Rome."

    Goodnight all, and I'll be back later in the week.

  8. Future Man

    Future Man Priest of God and the Lamb

    Reminds me of someone <coughEVcough> in a John1 debate :D.

    His "education" is filtered through the bias of his religion.
    Hey Ev, why don't you just start citing the "lost" truth discovered by your founder, John Thomas? That'll clear up all those mean ole Catholics. :rolleyes:
  9. Susan

    Susan 退屈させた1 つ (bored one)

    Isshin, apology accepted. :)
  10. Evangelion

    Evangelion <b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>

    More sour grapes; this time from AV -

    Is it? Is it really? What a fascination accusation. It's so weird that I'm not even sure that it's supposed to mean.

    Given that I have employed the use of standard historical works in my argument - including quotes from Catholic historians - just how do you intend to prove this amusing little piece of nonsense? :D

    What "lost truth"? There was no "lost truth" in the first place, so how could JT "discover it"?

    I don't think you even know what you're talking about. :cool:
  11. Evangelion

    Evangelion <b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>

    VOW -

    I've made my point, and I'm happy with the result. :)

    Then you need to read them again.

    That's not the point, though. The point is that, at this early stage, the Emperor was still the head of the Church, by default. Nobody even thought to ask the bishop of Rome for his opinion. (Why would they? As one bishop among others, he just wasn't very important...)

    No, he has presented some quotes from which he has extrapolated this extraordinary conclusion, and I have addressed all of them specifically. (Please also notice my citations from Catholic scholars who reject Isshinwhat's claim.)

    He's already posted them, and I've shown that they don't say what he needs them to say. Now he's simply explaining why he believes that they say what he needs them to say. (Which is interesting, insofar as it explains his rationale - but irrelevant, insofar as it adds nothing to the argument.)

    There's really nothing left to talk about. :cool:
  12. Evangelion

    Evangelion <b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>

    Isshinwhat -


    I know that this is what it "leads you to believe." But as my citations have shown, the historical facts prove otherwise. (See also here.) It makes absolutely no sense for Irenaeus (and others) to reject the authority of Victor, (a) if they believe that "the Pope" is the touchstone of orthodoxy, and (b) if Victor is the "Pope" of his day.


    ...nothing more than a late 2nd/early 3rd Century tradition which emerged as a development of the ever-evolving ecclesiastical order. (As I have already demonstrated.) :cool:
  13. Future Man

    Future Man Priest of God and the Lamb

    Well I'm not a Catholic, so I'm not interested enough in your "citations" to go back and verify them for myself. However, from my experience as well as others it is always a good practice to check out what you actually cite. Especially when you go touting your "education". :rolleyes: That's a prime indicator that somethings up. Therefore I am going to put the warning out for the others to do so as well.

    Why would he have to "look for it" if he claims it was never lost? 'Gates of hell will not prevail' anyone? :idea:

    Alright, assuming that is true, can you tell me where your beliefs can be found in church history prior to his rise during the times of the SDAs, Mormons, and JWs? Who's a 'glorified JW'? :D And btw, the (Pfft! :D) 1500's don't hold too much weight. :)
  14. Future Man

    Future Man Priest of God and the Lamb


    Maybe he should have just swore off drinking. :cool:
  15. Future Man

    Future Man Priest of God and the Lamb

    3. There has been an apostasy and that Christianity is a false religious system. (A tract titled “Christendom Astray Since the Apostolic Age, Detroit Christadelphian Book Supply)

    So I assume that an "apostasy" entails a complete swallowing up of the truth as well? Good thing ole JT was able to poke around and find it. :D
  16. isshinwhat

    isshinwhat Pro Deo et Patria

    Eastern Orthodox
    Irenaeus' dispute with Victor was over a matter of Canon Law, and not Dogma.&nbsp; Canon Law can change, and thus there have always been and always will be people who will strive to have them changed.&nbsp; For instance, a faithful Catholic can believe in Papal Infallibility, yet spend his entire life fighting the Canon Law demanding celibacy for Latin Rite priests.&nbsp; One can still believe, as Iranaeus did, that it was necessary to agree with the Church of Rome in matters of Faith, but disagree with how that faith is practiced.

    What is interesting about their difference of opinion in this matter is Iranaeus never denied that the Pope had the right and ability to excommunicate the Eastern Church members who were not in agreement, but did not agree with his doing so.&nbsp; He did not question the authority of Pope Victor, he "besought him to consider the things of peace, and of neighborly unity and love."&nbsp;

    That statement puts you at variance with your source's claim that there was no evidence for the Tradition until the Fourth Century, a full one-hundred years later than you say the Tradition emerged.

    Good day, sir.&nbsp;
  17. Chris†opher Paul

    Chris†opher Paul Based on a True Story

    Wierd, same thing as Luther. Hmmmm, Satan is a tricky fellow indeed.

    Just look at these crazy ideas that Evangelion follows:

    1. Christ had a sinful nature. (What They Believe, p. 74)

    Biblical Proof of Falsehood: 2 Cor. 5:21, Isaiah 53

    2. God is only one, that Christ is not considered part of Him and Him. (Isaiah 43-45)

    Biblical Proof of Falsehood: John 1:1-4, Rev 19:13, 1 John 1:1-4, Matthew 1:23, John 17:5, Phil 2:5-11, Isaiah 45:22-23 and Romans 14:11, Col 1:19-22, John 17:11, Isaiah 9:6, John 17:21. There is more, but that should suffice.

    3. There has been an apostasy and that Christianity is a false religious system. (A tract titled “Christendom Astray Since the Apostolic Age, Detroit Christadelphian Book Supply)

    Biblical Proof of Falsehood: Acts 11:26

    4. It denies salvation by grace through faith alone. (What they Believe, p. 204)

    Biblical Proof of Falsehood: John 3:16-18, 2 Timothy 1:9

    5. It denies the existence of the fallen angel Lucifer as the devil. (Answers, p. 100)

    Biblical Proof of Falsehood: Isaiah 14

    6. It denies the existence of hell and eternal punishment. (What They Believe, p. 188-189)

    Biblical Proof of Falsehood: Rev. 20:10

    7. It denies that a person exists after death. (What They Believe, p. 17)

    Biblical Proof of Falsehood: John 3:16
  18. Evangelion

    Evangelion <b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>

    Well, well, well.

    How on Earth did I miss this...? :cool:
  19. Evangelion

    Evangelion <b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>

    S0uljah -

    No, not like Luther at all.

    He must be pretty tricky if he still manages to convince people that he exists, despite the fact that he does absolutely nothing to prove it! :p

    Just look at these tiny little half-sentences which have obviously been wrenched out of context. :rolleyes:


    A classic example of (a) ignorance, and (b) misrepresentation. Without making any attempt to understand what Christadelphians mean by this expression, the author of this ridiculous little list of objections has mere superimposed his own ideas onto it, and pretended that this is "what Christadelphians believe."

    When mainstream Christians say “sinful, fallen nature”, they do not mean what Christadelphians mean when we refer to “sinful nature.” Mainstream Christians believe in the dogma of “Original Sin”, which states that all men are sinners by virtue of their fallen nature, regardless of whether or not they have sinned. Christadelphians do not believe this. By contrast, Christadelphians believe that men are only counted as sinners when they have sinned. For this reason, we see Jesus as a man who possessed sinful nature (a nature that is both capable of sin, and prone to performing it), but one who never actually sinned.

    This is shown to us by Scripture:

    • Hebrews 2:18.
      Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
      And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.
      For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.
      Wherefore in all things it behooved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
      For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succor them that are tempted.
    Christ was subject to that same “bondage of death” – for he (like us) was mortal. And yet, he was utterly sinless.

    Hence article #9 of the Christadelphian Statement of Faith:

    • 9. That it was this mission that necessitated the miraculous begettal of Christ of a human mother, enabling him to bear our condemnation, and, at the same time, to be a sinless bearer thereof, and, therefore, one who could rise after suffering the death required by the righteousness of God.

      9. MAT 1:18-25, LUK 1:26-35, ISA 7:14, ROM 1:3-4, ROM 8:3, ROM 8:3, GAL 4:4, 2CO 5:21, HEB 2:14-17, HEB 4:15
    A little more reasearch on the part of the polemicist, and this foolish objection would never have been raised in the first place. :rolleyes:

    I see no mention of Christ in John 1:1-4.

    A reference to Christ and one of his eschatological titles. No mention of the alleged "fact" that he is God or a part of God.

    See above. Christ was indeed the logos ginomai sarx. But this does not say that he is God, nor does it say that he is a part of God.

    A reference to Isaiah 7:14, of which Trinitarian theologian Albert Barnes writes in his Notes on the Bible:

    • Immanuel - Hebrew ‘God with us’ -
      &#1506;&#1502;&#1504;&#1493;&#1488;&#1500; immanu'el - from &#1488;&#1500; 'el, “God,” and &#1506;&#1502;&#1504;&#1493;&#1468; &#8219;&#305;mmanu, “with us.” The name is designed to denote that God would be with the nation as its protector, and the birth of this child would be a sign or pledge of it. The mere circumstance that this name is given, however, does not imply anything in regard to the nature or rank of the child, for nothing was more common among the Jews than to incorporate the name, or a part of the name, of the Deity with the names which they gave to their children.

      Thus, “Isaiah” denotes the salvation of Yahweh; “Jeremiah,” the exaltation or grandeur of Yahweh, each compounded of two words, in which the name Yahweh constitutes a part. Thus, also in “Elijah,” the two names of God are combined, and it means literally, “God the Yahweh.” Thus, also “Eliab,” God my father; “Eliada,” knowledge of God; “Eliakim,” the resurrection of God; “Elihu,” he is my God; “Elisha,” salvation of God. In none of these instances is the fact, that the name of God is incorporated with the proper name of the individual, any argument in respect to his rank or character.

      It is true, that Matthew Matthew 1:23 uses this name as properly expressing the rank of the Messiah; but all that can be demonstrated from the use of the name by Matthew is, that it properly designated the nature and rank of the Lord Jesus. It was a pledge, then, that God was with his people, and the name designated by the prophet had a complete fulfilment in its use as applied to the Messiah. Whether the Messiah be regarded as himself a pledge and demonstration of the presence and protection of God, or whether the name be regarded as descriptive of his nature and dignity, yet there was an “appropriateness” in applying it to him. It was fully expressive of the event of the incarnation.

      Jerome supposes that the name, Immanuel, denotes nothing more than divine aid and protection. Others have supposed, however, that the name must denote the assumption of our nature by God in the person of the Messiah, that is, that God became man. So Theodoret, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Lactantius, Chrysostom. Calvin, Rosenmuller, and others. The true interpretation is, that no argument to prove that can be derived from the use of the name; but when the fact of the incarnation has been demonstrated from other sources, the “name is appropriately expressive of that event.” So it seems to be used by Matthew.

      It may be quite true, that no argument can be founded on the bare name, Immanuel; yet that name, “in its connection here,” may certainly be regarded as a designed prediction of the incarnation of Christ. Such a design our author allows in the prophecy generally.
    Common sense tells us that there is no need to read anything more into this name, than that which is already apparent to the naked eye.

    This does not say that Jesus is God, nor does it say that he is a part of Him.

    Indeed, Jesus himself refutes any such notion in John 17:3.

    This does not say that Jesus is God, nor does it say that he is a part of Him.

    Neither of these passages say that Jesus is God, nor do they say that he is a part of Him.

    This passage (a reference to the "new creation") does not say that Jesus is God, nor does it say that he is a part of Him. Indeed, it is wholly unsuited to the purpose.

    This does not say that Jesus is God, nor does it say that he is a part of Him. Indeed, it is diametrically opposed to the idea:

    • John 17:11.
      And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.
    "That they may be one, even as we are."

    ...of which the footnotes in the New English Translation have this to say:

    • El Gibbor is probably an attributive adjective (‘mighty God’), though one might translate ‘God is a warrior’ or ‘God is mighty.’ Since this title is apparently used later (10:21, but cf. Hos. 3:5) for God, some have understood it as pointing to the king’s deity. Others argue that the title portrays the king as God’s representative on the battlefield, whom God empowers in a supernatural way (see Hayes and Irvine, Isaiah, 181-82). The latter sense seems more likely in the original context of the prophecy. Having read the NT, we might in retrospect interpret this title as indicating the coming king’s deity, but it is unlikely that Isaiah or his audience would have understood the title in such a bold way. Ps 45:6 addresses the Davidic king as ‘God’ because he ruled and fought as God’s representative on earth.


      Everlasting Father. This title must not be taken in an anachronistic Trinitarian sense. (To do so would be theologically problematic, for the ‘Son’ is the messianic king and is distinct in his person from God the ‘Father.’) Rather, in its original context the title pictures the king as the protector of his people. For a similar use of ‘father’ see Isa 22:21 and Job 29:16. This figurative, idiomatic use of ‘father’ is not limited to the Bible. In a Phoenician inscription (ca. 850-800 b.c.) the ruler Kilamuwa declares: ‘To some I was a father, to others I was a mother.’ In another inscription (ca. 800 b.c.) the ruler Azitawadda boasts that the god Baal made him “a father and a mother” to his people. (See J. Pritchard, ANET, 499-500.)

      The use of ‘everlasting’ might suggest the deity of the king, but Isaiah and his audience may have understood the term as royal hyperbole emphasizing the king’s long reign or enduring dynasty (for examples of such hyperbolic language used of the Davidic king, see 1 Kgs 1:31; Pss 21:4-6; 61:6-7; 72:5, 17). The New Testament indicates that the hyperbolic language (as in the case of the title ‘Mighty God’) is literally realized in the ultimate fulfillment of the prophecy, for Jesus will rule eternally.
    See also Exodus 7, Psalm 45, & Psalm 82. :cool:
  20. Evangelion

    Evangelion <b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>


    This does not say that Jesus is God, nor does it say that he is a part of Him.

    But it does say...

    • John 17:21.
      That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
    ...which totally precludes any argument you might have made from this verse. (See also my previous comments on John 17:11.)

    Oh, I know.

    I've seen it all before...

    It did not even come close to sufficing.


    Let's have some context, please!

    The subtitle of Christendom Astray is: "Popular Christianity (both in Faith and Practice), Shown to be Unscriptural ;
    And the True Nature of the Ancient Apostolic Faith Exhibited."

    The contrast is between popular Christianity, and true, Apostolic Christianity. The author of Christendom Astray is not attacking Christianity qua Christianity, but only that flawed version of it which currently passes for "orthodoxy."

    We do not deny salvation by grace. That is a lie.

    From the Christadelphian Bible Postal Course:

    • In the Bible God's grace means His loving kindness towards men. It is totally undeserved by any man or woman and is entirely the free gift of God. It is understood most clearly in God's gift of the Lord Jesus to achieve salvation.


      Many people think that the good things they do and the bad things they do are added up to see how they stand before God. They think that, so long as there is more good than bad, they have a right to God's favour. This is simply not true!

      Even many who claim to be Christians and acknowledge that God has paid a great price to bring about salvation, feel they have to earn this blessing by the things they do. It is very easy for us to think we have to earn God's gifts. But a gift cannot be earned. Only wages are earned, and Paul tells us:

      "The wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord" (Romans 6: 23)

      It is very easy for us to fall into this wrong way of thinking. God has done so much for us, we want to show our thanks by pleasing Him: and so we come to think that the things we do "pay for" God's blessings. It is one of the most important teachings of Scripture that forgiveness of sins and eternal life in Godís Kingdom are gifts of God, and cannot be earned or paid for.

      Read these words carefully:

      God loves us abundantly, even though we are sinners, and has made us alive together with Christ. (This salvation is a gift.) He has given us this high place in Jesus, so that in the future He might bless us even more (with life in His kingdom).

      This salvation is God's gift. We need to believe Him. We cannot do anything to earn salvation, so no-one can boast.

      Now read Romans 3: 20-28 very carefully. You will see that the message is the same. Nothing the Jews could do by keeping the law, and nothing we can do in our lives, can make us appear righteous in God's sight. We are all sinners.

      But by His grace, God counts as righteous those who trust in Jesus. Only God and the Lord Jesus are righteous, but if we believe Jesus died for us, and accept the sacrifice he made for us, God will forgive our sins and count us righteous. Notice again the apostle repeats the vital truth that all is of God, and no man can boast about being saved.

      "Therefore, being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: by whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God" (Romans 5: 1-2)
    Next time, quote a polemicist who actually knows what he's talking about.

    If you can find one... :cool: