The Roots of Catholicism

Philo was indeed a Helenized Jew living in Alexandria. Good point. Now, how about also realizing that the Gospels were written to helenized people, and that much of the language employed was written for these people to understand. In fact, the concept of LOGOS as employed by John in his Gospel is originally a Greek concept. Further, it was Philo who recognized and demonstrated the connection between the LOGOS of John and the LOGOS of Genesis, that is, that this same LOGOS of God which caused all things to exist (John 1 and Genesis 1) that is the LOGOS made flesh, which helped to demonstrate that not only is the LOGOS Jesus, and the LOGOS God, and that Jesus is God, but that Jesus is that same God the Creator, the creator of all life, for it was Jesus that CREATES NEW LIFE, as John states at the original ending of his Gospel, "But these things are written that you may come to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through this belief you have have life in His name." (John 20:31)

It is John 1 that establishes (unlike the other Gospels, which merely claim that Jesus is the Son of God), that this Son of God is also GOD HIMSELF, and the same God of the Old Testament.

Again, Philo was very instrumental in this fundamental Christian understanding.

 

I might add that Judaism doesn't take a strictly literalist approach to the creation story, so you are going to have to prove that this allegorical approach is the wrong way to interpret it, because the works you have quoted simply assume that this is true before it even begins and then feeds off of that.

I might also note, though, that the Catholic belief does in fact recognize the creation of all things by God by speaking His Word, and that the fall of man is because of our original parents, Adam and Eve. This does not require a literal six day creation, an actual plant that is the "tree of life" or "tree of knowledge of good and evil" or that God, who is Spirit, was physically "walking" through the garden, etc.

I wonder why no one has addressed how the world was created in six literal 24-hour periods when the sun wasn't even created until the fourth day. Without the sun, 24-hour periods do not exist, because one day being 24-hours depends on our position from the sun (which is why other planets have longer/shorter days than on earth).

 

I think that the allegorical method if quite valid...where it is applicable, and dthe literal interpretation is applicable.....where it too is applicable. The problem is, where is it allegorical and where is it literal?

But the Jews and some of His own disciples took Him literally, else why would they leave Him? If Jesus meant it allegorically, why the fuss? Go back and consider which is the easier thing to believe in the quote I gave that Christ spoke literally of figuratively/allegorically?

Let me say it one more time: It is literally his flesh, but in a supernatural form not in the natural form. Therefore, the flesh would taste like the unleaven bread it once was but no longer is, and His blood would taste like the wine it used to be but no longer is.

I last said, partially quoted...

Christ solved the problem at the Last Supper. It was not His natural body and blood but rather His {b]supernatural[/b] body and blood . . .

No, Christ had a natural body, born of a natural woman, Mary, His mother. It was his natural body that died on the cross, from which His soul (His spirit) departed from at His death.

Yet Thomas was able to touch his side and inspect his hands, which certainly was His natural body that Thomas could do that, couldn't he?

Christ's physical natural body passed through a door because Christ is God who can do anything He chooses to do, including His natural body passing through the molecules and atoms of the door!

That is your problem. What is impossible to you is not impossible with God! If the Eucharist is truly His flesh, under the appearance of bread, then the spirit must be there as well, specifically, instead of generally, as God is everywhere...

I don't pretend to understand it, by the way, I just believe it, as the remaining disciples and the apostles did. Jesus asked them in verse 67, "...do you also want to leave?" to which Sinon Peter, who always speaks up for the group, replied, "Master, to whom shall be go? You have the words of eternal life. We have come to believe and are convinced that you are the Holy One of God." (verses 68, 69)

It is obvious they did not understand what Jewsus has just expounded upon either, but they just believed Him. That is true faith, a blind faith in something they do not understand...not quite yet.

Again, you fail to understand just as the Jews and some of His disciplies who left him.

Hard to understand? Of course!

It requires a full submission of faith that Jesus wanted here.

It was a test that "separated the men from the boys."

I last said:

'Under the apearance of bread and wine!'

No, because the senses cannot tell the difference between the unconsecrated bread and that which is consecrated and is no longer bread but now His body!

Ray, I am not claiming this is an easy thing to believe in! It took me quite a while for me, but when it hit me, it was the Coup de grace that brought me into Holy Mother Church!

We are expected to believe that the consecrated host is no longer what it used to be but his own body! We do not see any changes in the host at consecration! The finest microscopes of modern science could not tell the difference between it and an unconsecrated host. But then the "flesh" in this world could never discover it (harking to verse 63 where the flesh cannot discern what the spirit can (paraphrased meaning of the verse.)

It is pure faith that we Catholics believe this, Ray! I cannot prove it to you that this happens, other then the words of Christ who spoke literally in the verses I gave!

Either you believe it like Peter and the rest of the apostles, or you do not believe it as the departing Jews and some of His disciples, who could not abide by His words...

Think and pray about it Ray. Maybe, just maybe, the holy Spirit will enlighten you...

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Pillar and Foundation of Truth, the Church. (1 Tim 3:15)

 

And I have little green men living under my front porch! Document them? Nope, I can't do that, any more then you can document thise "secret believers" either! Prove to me that they existed, Ray, that is all you have to do.

Oh joy! That old canard!

Do you realize why the bible was chained to the pulpit, Ray? Do you have the slightest idea why?

Stand by.......
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Because it was so valuable, it would be easy to steal it!

Please be advised that it was chained at the pulpit to be available for the priest to read to the congregation, who, for the most part could not read!

(Sigh!) Document those "Christians," Ray, please do this as I have been asking for this for nearly 20 years of Catholic apologetics, with nary a proof.

Good luck!

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Regina Angelorum, ora pro nobis!

 

Why don't you and Ray work together and prove their existence, starting at Pentecost and for the next 1500 years of the history of Christianity.

You then quote from my previous:

At least that is better then for me, a Catholic, being condemned by some (in other forums) of going straight to hell!

Here is the text from The Catechism of the Catholic Church that says this:

Quote...

838. "'The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter.'[LG 15.] Those 'who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.'[UR 3.] With the ORTHODOX Churches, this communion is so profound 'that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist.'[Paul VI, Discourse, December 14, 1975; cf. UR 13-18.]"

Unquote...

To view the context, please visit

http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/church3.html#CATHOLIC

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+

Not riches, but God.
Not honors, but God.
Not distinction, but God.
Not dignities, but God.
Not advancement, but God.
God always and in everything.

- St. Vincent Pallotti -

 

That was ME that said that!

So what? From what Church did the Methodist Church spring from? See where I am going here?

Me again! But then, that was a bit of hyperbola on my part, as we do indeed consider you Christians, and in some way, a part, albeit incomplete, of the Church.

Gee, I don't either! I would rather stand before God, having come to his original and true Church His Divine Son had established...

THE ONE HOLY CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC CHRUCH
Founder: Jesus Christ, circa AD 33
Present caretaker: John Paul II



God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+

My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord; my spirit rejoices in God my savior.
For he has looked upon his handmaid's lowliness; behold, from now on will all ages
call me blessed. (Luke 1:46-48)

 

The part in bold is what you left out after your period. It says you have NO LIFE in you. Guess what, without life, you are dead. Your interpretation puts a period where there is not one. It is not good to ignore that line of scripture.

~Lorelei </font>[/QUOTE]It was an error on my part that I said "Verses 53-56 when I should have typed "53-56."

But thank you for extending it, as I think it makes the case even more!

What do you think it means that "you have no life in you," Lorelei? If he is speaking to a person with that statement, the person is obviously alive to hear it, don't yhou think?

Do you just suppose that it means that your spiritual life is dead, while you are alive in the flesh, and that you stand in danger of a garave judgment at your actual death?

The point is, we are to partake of his actual body and blood in the Eucharist! Me an dmy wife do this daily, or as often as we can, since I am fully retired!

I begin the day with the Eucharist as my first meal! Praise God for such a wonder Sacrament!

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Blest be God.
Blest be his holy name.
Blest be Jesus Christ, true God and true man.
Blest be the name of Jesus.
Blest be his most sacred heart.
Blest be his most precious blood.
Blest be Jesus in the most holy sacrament of the altar.
Blest be the Holy Spirit, the Consoler.
Blest be the great Mother of God, Mary most holy.
Blest be her holy and immaculate conception.
Blest be her glorious assumption.
Blest be the name of Mary, virgin and mother.
Blest be Saint Joseph, her most chaste spouse.
Blest be God in his angels and in his saints.

- The Divine Praises -

 

Ray - even the RCC itself admits that the errors of Catholicism took a while to evolve.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Ray
I've got 2 doctorates myself. They don't impress me any longer.
however I agree fully with the quotes of Dr. George Holley Gilbert and Dr. J. Dwight Pentecost.
Dr. Farrar on the other hand is taking a couple of questionable shortcuts.

 

Does your church fit that category, Ray?

In fact, when I made my original comment, I did not have that part of scripture in mind, but it just may be applicable.

I will again give you what the Catholic Church teaches from her Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Quote...

838. "'The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter.'[LG 15.] Those 'who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.'[UR 3.] With the ORTHODOX Churches, this communion is so profound 'that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist.'[Paul VI, Discourse, December 14, 1975; cf. UR 13-18.]"

Unquote...

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


"…Noah during the building of the ark, in which a few persons, eight in all, were saved through water. This prefigured baptism which saves you now…"

1 Peter 3:20-21

 

What "errors," Bob?

Errors of doctrine, or errors of human judgment that is fallible as in all men?

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Pillar and Foundation of Truth, the Church. (1 Tim 3:15)

 

I hope you do not mind my intervetion here, but if it is all true, the claim that paganistic thought permeated the Catholic Church in the periods specified in your quote, including the thought processes of Augustine and others, I have two questions:

1. Is there not some truth in paganistic thought, or is their thought processes totally in error? Aristotle may have been a pagan, but being so, does not necessarily make him ipso facto in error in all things, does it?

2. If indeed the Catholic Church was so permeated in error, then how is it that Christ allowed His Church to fall into such error and wallow in it for approximately 1500 years before the so called "Protestant Reformation"? If this is indeed so, then Christ apparently went back on His word and "the gates of hell prevailed" against his church (Matt. 16:18) and he ceased to be "with them until the end of time." (Matt. 28:20.) Remember, you people have yet to reveal in history and documentation that "true church" that supposedly existed during those first 1500 years which was NOT the Catholic Church.

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Christus Vincit! Christus Regnat! Christus Imperat!

 

"I hope you do not mind my intervetion here, but if it is all true, the claim that paganistic thought permeated the Catholic Church in the periods specified in your quote, including the thought processes of Augustine and others, I have two questions:"


I hate to tell you this folks but pagan ideas are used by Paul and pagan writings are quoted in the scriptures. Try Paul in Acts 17 with the tomb of the unknown God.

Acts 17:23
"For while I was passing through and examining the objects of your worship, I also found an altar with this inscription, 'TO AN UNKNOWN GOD.' Therefore what you worship in ignorance, this I proclaim to you.

Now that is evanglization. Turn what they already understand in to truth.
You go with the false pretense that all that is in paganism is wrong. They cannot make the connection to the one true God but from nature they deduce much of what is true about God and it shows in their writings. Therefore Paul quoted from them.

"Acts 17:28, where Aratus, Phaenomena 5, is paraphrased.

Acts 26:14. The phrase "it hurts you to kick against the goad" is a Greek proverb (see Euripides, Bacchae, 794-795).

1 Corinthians 15:33, where Paul quotes Menander, Thais, Frg.218.

Titus 1:12, where Epimenides, De oraculis/peri Chresmon is quoted.

Conclusion:

(1) An Apostle of Christ was well read in non-Christian literature.

(2) At least four times, an Apostle of Christ included quotes from pagan writers in the New Testament

(3) Paul seemed to have no theological problem with quoting pagans, and the Holy Spirit must have concurred.

(4) We conclude then, that sometimes a pagan will say or write something that is useful, if not true, and that reading widely will not only not destroy your faith, but could enhance it.

Rowland Croucher

-----------------------------------

This is hardly revolutionary. Nor is it confined to the NT."


Read the whole article if you like.

http://www.pastornet.net.au/jmm/abss/abss0148.htm

I know this will make people like Ray uncomfortable but Oh well, understanding is a gift. By the way Ray how are you coming on the Trinity doctrine. The UCOC still holding to modalism? I think your conversation with MEE (a Oneness sort) yesterday was telling. It is apparent that you do not think belief in the Trinity is neccessary for salvatoin. But in knowing your UCOC roots I suspect that it goes deeper. You reject the Trinity also is my guess. Take a stand Ray. I suspect most Baptists on this board will no longer consider you a Christian at that point so it is in your best interest to hide this. From a Catholic perspective I'll leave the judging up to God on that.


Blessings

Blessings

 

"One of the key ideas in debate is to try to destroy the testimony of the witness.

Your abilities in this area are weak."

Your pride in your own abilities is so noted.


"I most assuredly believe in the Trinity and t"he one Godhead, namely, the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit. I am sure if you are honest with yourself, you can see my evangelical and conservative view of things pertaining to the Lord. "

At last I have an answer. So why do you hang around with the UCOC?

"By the way, if you are trusting your sprinkling as a baby to save your soul, you need to look again at the aging Nicodemus of John chapter three and see that even you must be 'born again' of the Spirit of God. Believest thou this?"

We don't sprinkle first of all. And yes I believe we must be born of WATER and SPIRIT, the way that every single Church father taught it with regard to the verse you quote. My baptism as a child when when the grace of Jesus Christ, won for us on the cross was first infused in to my soul, giving me a new start. A fighting chance against this world of sin and evil. I take up the cross and follow him and persevering in the crossess of life I will enter in to eternal glory. You say baptism isn't even neccessary so your arguement is nonsense. Especially in the Catholic context. I believe that I was saved at baptism and continue to be saved today and will be saved if I persevere. I trust in the Lord. Your arguements put in the Catholic context are nonsense.

"Jesus said, 'Not every one who says Lord, Lord, shall enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.' Examine yourself to see if you are in the faith."

It never ceases to amaze me how we Catholics are said to think we have to earn our salvatoin after baptism on one thread. Then on another it is said that we trust in our baptism to get us there. Examine ourselves? What do you think the sacrement of confession is about. What about the pentential rite of the Mass. You are a 1st grade Math teacher trying to explain Calculus to a mathemetician. You make flailing arguements about Catholicism that only display your ignorance about it and give you ever decreasing credibility with anyone who knows their Catholic Christian faith. What do you think your arguements are doing to convince me of anything. gooseggs.

Blessings

Thess

 

The NT Church was formed on the day of Pentecost, but Pentecostalism and the belief that the baptism of the Holy Spirit was received with the evidence of speaking in tongues was not believed until around 1901. The organizations that teach this admit this fact because historically they know they can't prove their belief was taught before that time.

Until then, no one believed the speaking in tongues was the evidence for the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Plain and Simple as admitted here by an organization who, if they could, would surely prove otherwise. After all, to do so would support their claims! But they can't prove otherwise because the pentecostal beliefs started at this time.

We have discussed the scriptures enough for you to know that Acts 2 is nothing like what you teach today. When you all speak in tongues, everyone does not understand you in your own language. We could go on and on.

This is off topic though, so we can start another thread if you would like to discuss this further.

So not only did the orginization start at this time, the beliefs that they held were new as well. They admit this here in this statement.


~Lorelei