13th apostle...Founder of Catholicism

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by jimraboin:
Catholicism simply makes unwarranted and unsupported leaps to conclusions. It claims to be the pillar of truth

Actually it is Scripture that says that the Church is the pillar of truth.

and thereby is somehow infallible.

No this is not the basis for the claim of infallibity.

And infallibility requires the highest standards of proof by reason of ramifications such will have on all men.

Faulty reasoning.

I have introduced historical information seemingly supporting the idea Catholicism was invented by Constantine to serve a Roman design.

What you did was selectively use another man's work and words to "prove" your conclusions. You ignore the fact that that author offered far more in support of the opposite of what you believe and in fact came to very different conclusions that yours.

You have not offered any historical rebuttal but have continually only offered your own personal loyalties and assertions.

Apparently you have not been reading my posts. I continued to refer you to other sentences in your own source as rebuttal. I have also asked several questions which you have never acknowledged. I have not once "offered personal loyalties".

Therefore, doubt remains against Catholic claim and if not dealt with will cause all readers here to assume Catholicism is the biggest deception ever forced onto mankind.

What claim?

 

[Eladar]

Actually it is Scripture that says that the Church is the pillar of truth.

I believe the point is trying to made that this is not a reference to the Catholic Church, but to another.

 

[jimraboin]

Yes. My point is Catholic institution is not the Church and never has been. What it is based upon historical facts herein disclosed is the biggest deception ever forced onto mankind. If it isn't the gates of hell, it is a pretty big funnel aimed in that direction.

So Ron, where is your historical information refuting what I found? All you have done, again, is to offer your own personal assertions. Not convincing.

Jim

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by jimraboin:
Yes. My point is Catholic institution is not the Church and never has been. What it is based upon historical facts herein disclosed is the biggest deception ever forced onto mankind. If it isn't the gates of hell, it is a pretty big funnel aimed in that direction.

So Ron, where is your historical information refuting what I found? All you have done, again, is to offer your own personal assertions. Not convincing.

Jim

Ok. Jim, I'll ask the same question of you for the fourth or fifth time without you answering.

What claim (of the Catholic Church) are you proving false?

What claim?

Ron

 

[jimraboin]

Ron.

Are you so dull that you don't get what I've said?

Here is Catholic claim. Catholic institution claims to be the pillar of truth and is infallible as a result.

That is the claim.

Get it now?

Jim

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by jimraboin:

Here is Catholic claim. Catholic institution claims to be the pillar of truth and is infallible as a result.

That is the claim.

Get it now?

Very good.

Now show where the Church has made this claim. Specifically that it is "infallible as a result of being the pillar of truth".

One step at a time.

Ron

 

[jimraboin]

Ron,

If you don't acknowledge Catholic claim, then we have nothing more to say. Stop playing games. Either refute me with history or support Catholic claims via the same.

What a joke!

Jim

[ November 28, 2002, 10:00 PM: Message edited by: jimraboin ]

 

[jimraboin]

Still laughing, Ron.

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by trying2understand:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by jimraboin:

Here is Catholic claim. Catholic institution claims to be the pillar of truth and is infallible as a result.

That is the claim.

Get it now?

Very good.

Now show where the Church has made this claim. Specifically that it is "infallible as a result of being the pillar of truth".

One step at a time.

Ron</font>[/QUOTE]bump

 

[jimraboin]

Ron,

If you don't acknowledge Catholic claim, then we have nothing more to say. Stop playing games. Either refute me with history or support Catholic claims via the same.

What a joke!

Jim

 

[Georgia2002]

Originally posted by Tuor:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Actually it is Scripture that says that the Church is the pillar of truth.

I believe the point is trying to made that this is not a reference to the Catholic Church, but to another. </font>[/QUOTE]Hi Tuor,

Here is a web page that identifies the word Catholic used in the first century to describe the Church of the first Christians.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/c1/catholic.asp

Georgia

 

[jimraboin]

Hi Georgia,

What you are referring to is from what Catholic's group as early fathers. But early fathers all have their source in Eusebius or his contemporaries. Nothing original exists to confirm or deny what Eusebius said they said. And Eusebius lived over 300 years after the time of early believers.

So your assertion that the early believers called the Body of Christ catholic is in no way proof of Rome's claims of being THE Catholic pillar and foundation of truth.

If Eusebius was corrupt along with Constantine, then what they say is not necessarily what actually occurred. What you need to do is either refute my counterclaim through superior historical information or accept the idea Catholicism was an invention created to serve a Roman design.

Jim

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by jimraboin:
What you need to do is either refute my counterclaim through superior historical information or accept the idea Catholicism was an invention created to serve a Roman design.

Originally posted by jimraboin:
Are you so dull that you don't get what I've said?

Here is Catholic claim. Catholic institution claims to be the pillar of truth and is infallible as a result.

That is the claim.

Get it now?

Well, now I'm confused. What is the claim that you want "refuted with superior historical information"? You seem to have two on the table. Which is it?

Ron

 

[jimraboin]

Ron,

Both.

Jim

 

[jimraboin]

Ron,

Both.

Jim

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by jimraboin:
Have been reading more early fathers material recently. Many if not most believe Constantine was a "Christian of sorts" not seeing or unwilling to believe what Constantine thought of himself.

Did you know he thought he was the 13th and supreme apostle? He was superior to original twelve and the center of Christian religion.

And yet again it is shown in what seems at this distance his Conceit, sublime in its unconsciousness in reckoning himself a sort of thirteenth, but, it would seem, a facile princeps apostle, in the disposition for his burial, "anticipating with extraordinary fervor of faith that his body would share their title with the apostles themselves. ...He accordingly caused twelve coffins to be set up in this church, like sacred pillars, in honor and memory of the apostolic number, in the centre of which his own was placed, having six of theirs on either side of it" (V. C. 4. 60). One can seem to read in this a whole history of unblushing flattery, and it reminds that Eunapius (Vic. oedes. p. 41) has spoken of his pleasure in the stimulant of "intoxicating flattery."(Chp 2, 5(b) par 5)
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-01/Npnf2-01-25.htm#TopOfPage

Constantine was not a man in submission to the God of Israel. He was a man who made himself the center of it. One must ask. If he inserted himself in the center of Christianity in his mind and actions, then who was displaced from it?

And don't lose sight of his desire for praise and flattery. Many of you will not accept that Constantine was "worshipped" as a divinity. Yet your own personal refusal to admit as much is in stark contrast to early writings from contemporaries.

Consider this from the same address. In fact, everything in this post will come from the same source.

But success with men and popularity seem to have opened that pitfall of success,-Vanity,-and it is charged that he fell thereinto, although there is testimony to the exact contrary. According to Victor (Epit. p. 51) he was "immeasurably greedy of praise." (Chp 2, 5(b) par 5)

Most of you know and recognize Eusebius was a contemporary of Constantine. But did you know he was also a close personal friend and close advisor/Councelor to him?

“Hosius and Eusebius were his(Constantine’s) friends and counselors.” (Chp 2 par 7)

Doesn't the nature of things suggest that a friend of a man who was greedy for praise would have to be willing amiably to render it? If not, then Constantine would not have been so eager to embrace Eusebius or let him into his inner circle. A modern example could be Iraq' emperor. He has ultimate power. He is praised and worshipped. And he is willing to use force on anyone who opposes his will. So consider him for a second. What kind of man would you suppose he would allow as his closest friend and advisor? The same goes for Constantine.

Constantine had ultimate power. He even went so far and thought he was infallible in everything he thought and did.

Consider:

“Real power, recognizing its own success, glad of the recognition of others, not at bottom because of cold vanity, but from warm appreciation of human friendliness, became through success in carrying out what seemed to him, and were, divine plans, fired with the thought that he was the especial and necessary minister of God, that his thoughts and will were directly touched by the Divine Will and thus that whatever he thought or willed was infallible.” (Chp 2, 5(b) par 5)

Constantine was not a man in submission to a supposed Pope. He was a man who considered himself to be one. In fact, I propose Constantine is the very first Pope. That in him can be found everything necessary for a Pope. That he himself considered himself no less than head of all religions and that he went even further and received praise as if he were a god. That he was the "Divine Will" he so often mentions.

But was Constantine smart enough to create a new form of Christianity? Was he cunning enough mentally to reason out and manipulate it in a way that would set Rome on the throne? I think he was.

Consider:

“According to his biographer-friend, Constantine was even more conspicuous for the excellence of his psychical qualities than his physical (V. C. 1. 19). Among these qualities are natural intelligence (V. C. 1. 19), sound judgment (V. C. 1. 19), well-disciplined power of thought (Theoph. p. 29), and peculiarly, as might be expected from his eye and general energy, penetration (Theoph. p. 29). In respect of Education, it is said on the one hand that he "reaped the advantages of a liberal education" (V. C. 1. 19), and particularly that he was thoroughly trained in the art of reasoning” (Chp 2 par 4)

Motives. Constantine and Eusebius, I believe the facts show, conspired to hyjack Christianity from Israel by reconstructing it under Roman rule. His new form of Christianity we now know as Catholicism. The foundation for all institutional Christianity.

Who can deny this? Show me your historical rebuttal that will prove me a liar? More importantly, who of you will honestly embrace what history says by reconsidering your own beliefs? Willingly choosing to be deceived is far worse than being deceived through ignorance.

Jim

Originally posted by jimraboin:

Are you so dull that you don't get what I've said?

Here is Catholic claim. Catholic institution claims to be the pillar of truth and is infallible as a result.

That is the claim.

Get it now?

I thought that it might be productive to go back to the start of this thread.

What is the connection between the first post to this thread and the claim that the Church is infallible?

You keep talking about "superior historical information" and so on, but frankly, I'm not getting it.

Could you explain your point in the most simple way that you are able?

Ron

 

[Netcurtains3]

Hi,
This constantine stuff you can take too far.

I mean by the same rational you could argue that Henry 8th and William of Orange are the kings of protestantism.

To fall into that trap is to fall into the same trap you think the kings made. You would be looking at religion too monarch-centrically and ignoring all the great protestant and catholic thinkers and holymen and women that actually are the bed rock of both schools of the faith.

More Jews (As a percentage) in the USA have abortions then catholic or protestants (using 1995 statistics) - so what - what does it matter?

I think it matters if the jewish girls that are having abortions are from the Orthodox wing as they will have no women clergy to turn to.

Lets face it if a definition of a woman is someone who gives birth to another then Adam is more woman then man - he gave "birth" to eve.

There should be women priests. Many protestants have female clergy and they have lower abortion rates then catholics (this statistic is blind - it might simply be that there are more catholics that are in the child rearing age group).

Jesus understood the woman who bled and cured her. How many years do male priests/clergy spend studying female gynecological and other problems? About five minutes or ten?

13th Apostle - Is it really interesting? how?

[ December 02, 2002, 04:20 PM: Message edited by: Netcurtains3 ]

 

[jimraboin]

Ron,

Simple terms:

Jesus founded his Ekklesia in Israel upon truths God vested there in times past. There was no Catholicism at this time. Only believing Jews from Israel who accepted Israel's Messiah who came in fulfillment to Israel's Scriptures by the command of Israel's God.

Emperor Constantine hyjacked Israel's form of Christianity and invented what we now know as Catholicism. All things were redefined to serve a Roman design. No longer were the truths and foundations laid in Israel acceptable. Constantine admits he was given "another way" based solely upon his reasoning. Catholicism itself claims to be the pillar of truth and is thereby infallible. Yet no Jew from Israel who accepted Jesus as his Messiah and who also celebrated Israel's festivals was spared by Catholicism. They were marked heretics and suffered greatly under a Roman sword. Constantine made it law that heresy against his religion was also heresy against Rome itself. So now Catholicism has gained an earthly sword by which all men must submit to or suffer its wrath.

In simple terms Catholicism is not the pillar of truth nor is it infallible. In fact, it isn't even the Body of Christ. It is the apostate church...the harlot...

Simple enough?

Jim

 

[Netcurtains3]

"only believin jews?"
I think not.
Read Acts "Greeks, Romans, Iranians, Cretans, Arabs - even guys from Afghanistan". What bible are you reading?

Note: The Arabs come last after Cretans - is that a subconscience type of "-ism" or just the way it came out? (Herod was part Arab).
Acts Ch2 v9

 

[Georgia2002]

Originally posted by jimraboin:
Hi Georgia,

What you are referring to is from what Catholic's group as early fathers. But early fathers all have their source in Eusebius or his contemporaries. Nothing original exists to confirm or deny what Eusebius said they said. And Eusebius lived over 300 years after the time of early believers.

So your assertion that the early believers called the Body of Christ catholic is in no way proof of Rome's claims of being THE Catholic pillar and foundation of truth.

If Eusebius was corrupt along with Constantine, then what they say is not necessarily what actually occurred. What you need to do is either refute my counterclaim through superior historical information or accept the idea Catholicism was an invention created to serve a Roman design.

Jim

Hi Jim,
Deny it all you want but the facts are there. Catholics were around since the day of Pentecost around the year 29. The Catholic Church was the underground religion, because of pagan persecution. We thank Constantine (313AD) for helping the first Christians after the miracle he witnessed. "In this sign you shall conquer" (the cross of light.) Yes, he WAS a pagan, but thanks be to God, Christianity wiped out paganism.

The Catholic Church
The first great change in Christian history was Christianity’s spread from Palestine to the rest of the Mediterranean world in the first few decades after Jesus’ death
Roman Empire. Nonetheless, the characteristically Christian figure of the bishop had clearly emerged by the middle of the 2nd century.
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/RefArticle.aspx?refid=761573737&pn=1#s2

[Gr.,universal], the body of Christians, living and dead, considered as an organization. The word catholic was first used c.110 to describe the Church by St. Ignatius of Antioch. In speaking of the time before the Reformation in Western Europe, Catholic is technically used to mean orthodox (i.e., those who accept the tradition as mediated by the Roman Church). Today in English it usually means the Roman Catholic Church
http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/c1/catholic.asp

Catholic(from Greek katholikos, “universal”), the characteristic that, according to ecclesiastical writers since the 2nd century, distinguished the Christian Church at large from local communities or from ...
http://www.britannica.com/search?miid=1126295&query=catholic

http://www.catholic.com/library/pillar.asp

Thought for today:
It is now the hour for us to rise from
the sleep of sin and of religious indifference.
Let us start our preparation for the blessing
of Christmas with great confidence in Jesus,
for "Those who trust in Him shall not
be confounded."

God Bless,
Georgia