Problems with Orthodoxy and Catholicism

[Thinkingstuff]

Perhaps you might try reading it and read the pages from the bottom up as it is not the "index" where the massive references are located but in the footenotes at the bottom of the pages in the text of the book. The references are found in the front of the book (not the index) consisting of five pages (pp. XV-XX). Nearly every single paged is footnoted and some pages are primarily footenotes in entirety. I have the book in my hand. If you have it, pick it up and just look at it. "Massive" is the correct descriptive term.

for instance let me give you an example.

In Pausanias we find an account of a goddess represented in the very attitude of the Apocalyptic "Woman." "But of
this stone [Parian marble] Phidias," says he, "made a statue of Nemesis; and on the head of the goddess there is a
crown adorned with stags, and images of victory of no great magnitude. In her left hand, too, she holds a branch of
an ash tree, and in her right A CUP, in which Ethiopians are carved." (PAUSANIAS, Attica) Pausanias declares
himself unable to assign any reason why "the Ethiopians" were carved on the cup; but the meaning of the Ethiopians
and the stags too will be apparent to all who read further. We find, however, from statements made in the same
chapter, that though Nemesis is commonly represented as the goddess of revenge, she must have been also known in
quite a different character. Thus Pausanias proceeds, commenting on the statue: "But neither has this statue of the
goddess wings. Among the Smyrneans, however, who possess the most holy images of Nemesis, I perceived

or how about a picture taken from

Elliott's Horae, vol. iv. p. 30

His perspective on what he sees or how about

Romans 1:18. The best interpreters render the passage as given above. It will
be observed Paul is expressly speaking of the heathen.

This is about the extent of his "scholarly referrences".

Sorry, He's short on the scholarly end.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

http://www.wayoflife.org/database/churchfathers.html

"The fact is that the “early Fathers” were mostly heretics!"

"Therefore, the “church fathers” are actually the fathers of the Roman Catholic Church. They are the men who laid the foundation of apostasy that produced Romanism and Greek Orthodoxy."

Would you consider Augustine of Hippo a heretic?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Would you consider Augustine of Hippo a heretic?

To be consistent he has to.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Would you consider Augustine of Hippo a heretic?

Yes!!! Heretic supremo!

 

[chadman]

Yes!!! Heretic supremo!

Since we are playing this game now - Polycarp?

 

[Dr. Walter]

for instance let me give you an example. or how about a picture taken from His perspective on what he sees or how about This is about the extent of his "scholarly referrences".

Sorry, He's short on the scholarly end.

You can't be serious?????? Obviously you have not read the book but have simply picked a few choiced samples (probably gleaned from other sources) in order to smear the whole book. This is the Roman Catholic method of smearing and discrediting all who oppose her.

At least be fair with Hislop! He is quoting sources that were not written to prove his point but provide the information to prove his point. Hence, intellectual honesty will not allow him to state categorically that such sources say this about Babylon in regard to Roman Catholicism. Those who simply have no other end but to discredit his book and his sources pick at the very statements that intellectual honesty demand must be stated in that way.

You have never demonstrated any sincere interest in discrediting the errors of Rome but consistently sought to defend her and her most grevious errors - not from misrepresentation as you claim, but to defend them Biblically to the best of your ability just as the jesuit scholars do!

 

[Thinkingstuff]

You can't be serious?????? Obviously you have not read the book but have simply picked a few choiced samples (probably gleaned from other sources) in order to smear the whole book. This is the Roman Catholic method of smearing and discrediting all who oppose her.

At least be fair with Hislop! He is quoting sources that were not written to prove his point but provide the information to prove his point. Hence, intellectual honesty will not allow him to state categorically that such sources say this about Babylon in regard to Roman Catholicism. Those who simply have no other end but to discredit his book and his sources pick at the very statements that intellectual honesty demand must be stated in that way.

You have never demonstrated any sincere interest in discrediting the errors of Rome but consistently sought to defend her and her most grevious errors - not from misrepresentation as you claim, but to defend them Biblically to the best of your ability just as the jesuit scholars do!

I told you I've got the book. I just showed an example of the type of referrences he places throughout the book. Most of it is his perceptions of what he sees. I can go page by page if you like. And By the way if you read this thread you would know I'm discrediting Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy by my hypothesis. At least with my Hypothesis I don't have to create a fantastical theory based on loose connections but by an issue as I believe to be problematic which Orthodox and Catholics cannot refuse but to acknowledge. Try reading sometime. It does the body good.
So your assertions lets see

This is the Roman Catholic method ...You have never demonstrated any sincere interest in discrediting the errors of Rome...best of your ability just as the jesuit scholars do

Blah blah blah..... is unfounded. Interesting. Now you've done what I'm certain Jack Chick does all the time. You're asserting I'm a Jesuit spy! Ha ha ha ha...... Your funny.
Just note I'm being honest. I don't have to "discredit Hislop" He does that just fine on his own. Just because you want to believe every word he says doesn't mean I have to. I prefer facts. The good stuff not the made up ones.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Since we are playing this game now - Polycarp?

Tis no game! Any fair reader of the Ante-nicene writers will admit that the earlier writers demonstrate less error but the error intensifies as you progressively read.

Clement, Ignatius and Polycarp are nearer to apostolic teaching than the greater bulk of the ante-Nicene literature. The major error seems to be the emphasis placed on the office of presbyter or preacher authority by Clement and Ignatius. You ask about Polycarp? Polycarps epistle to the Philippians is very short and contains basic Biblical exhortations to godliness. Polycarp mentions only two kinds of leaders in the early churches ("presybters" and "deacons"). However, not all scholars view this epistle as authentic:

"The whole story of Ignatius is more legendary than real, and his writings are subject to grave suspicion of fraudulent interpolation." (History of the Christian Church, Philip Shaff, Vol 2, ch 4)


"It is now the universal opinion of critics, that the first eight of these professedly Ignatian letters are spurious. They bear in themselves indubitable proofs of being the production of a later age than that in which Ignatius lived. Neither Eusebius nor Jerome makes the least reference to them; and they are now by common consent set aside as forgeries, which were at various dates, and to serve special purposes, put forth under the name of the celebrated Bishop of Antioch." (Philip Schaff, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Introductory Note To The Epistle Of Ignatius To The Ephesians)

 

[Dr. Walter]

I told you I've got the book. I just showed an example of the type of referrences he places throughout the book. Most of it is his perceptions of what he sees. I can go page by page if you like. And By the way if you read this thread you would know I'm discrediting Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy by my hypothesis. At least with my Hypothesis I don't have to create a fantastical theory based on loose connections but by an issue as I believe to be problematic which Orthodox and Catholics cannot refuse but to acknowledge. Try reading sometime. It does the body good.
So your assertions lets see Blah blah blah..... is unfounded. Interesting. Now you've done what I'm certain Jack Chick does all the time. You're asserting I'm a Jesuit spy! Ha ha ha ha...... Your funny.
Just note I'm being honest. I don't have to "discredit Hislop" He does that just fine on his own. Just because you want to believe every word he says doesn't mean I have to. I prefer facts. The good stuff not the made up ones.

Anyone who has read Hislop objectively knows your accusations are baseless. The great bulk of His work stands solid. As I said, the quotations he uses were not designed by their authors to prove his point and so that necessitates making it clear that he is drawing conclusions not intended by the authors. That is intellectual honesty. You do not have to agree with his conclusions but you better be prepared to prove the vast number of quotations do not provide a ligitimate basis to draw such conclusions.

 

[Dr. Walter]

I told you I've got the book. I just showed an example of the type of referrences he places throughout the book. Most of it is his perceptions of what he sees. I can go page by page if you like.QUOTE]

Again, intellectual honesty demands that Hislop explicitly tell the reader that he is drawing conclusions that the author did not have in mind. Just because you can go through the book and show that he is intellectually honest enough to admit in writing that he is drawing such conclusions does not prove he is wrong.

Also, it is a very easy thing to nit pick at admitted interpretations of scripture but even if he is wrong in his interpretation of a few texts that does not invalidate the overall point (unless, the whole argument is based upon that particular interpretation of scripture).

It is easy to pick any author and any book apart by the method you are using. I can find errors and interpetative errors in any book you care to name no matter how well documented that book may be.

However, your nit picking has not disproved his primary point. Your nit picking has not disproved the bulk of his CHAPTER SUBJECTS and their intent. Your nit picking has not disproved even one of his Chapters and the subject and aim of that chapter.

You have done the classic Roman Catholic smear tactic - find something to nit pick at and use it to attempt to invalidate the whole. Such a tactic is not intellectual honesty but actually committing the very same thing you are charging (falsely I might add) Hislop with.

 

[chadman]

Polycarps epistle to the Philippians is very short and contains basic Biblical exhortations to godliness. Polycarp mentions only two kinds of leaders in the early churches ("presybters" and "deacons"). However, not all scholars view this epistle as authentic:

You just talked about Polycarp and say 'this epistle'. Are you talking about Polycarps Phillipine Epistle or are you talking about Ignatius'? And if Ignatius which one - all of the spurious one's? There are fifteen altogether I believe.

"The whole story of Ignatius is more legendary than real, and his writings are subject to grave suspicion of fraudulent interpolation." (History of the Christian Church, Philip Shaff, Vol 2, ch 4)

His story ins't just legend. There are eight known spurious texts. Those are known.

"It is now the universal opinion of critics, that the first eight of these professedly Ignatian letters are spurious. They bear in themselves indubitable proofs of being the production of a later age than that in which Ignatius lived. Neither Eusebius nor Jerome makes the least reference to them; and they are now by common consent set aside as forgeries, which were at various dates, and to serve special purposes, put forth under the name of the celebrated Bishop of Antioch." (Philip Schaff, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Introductory Note To The Epistle Of Ignatius To The Ephesians)[/QUOTE]

That is a quote of a quote from the Ante-NF. That is in reference to the known eight spurious ones.

But in refrernce to Polycarp - you can't diss him as a heretic as he was put in place by John the Apostle himself. He has more credibility than you or I ever will. He didn't just know the Bible, but was taught the Bible by an Apostle. He is no heritic.

You can call Ignatius a heretic if you want - but use some Hislop style propaganda to do it please.

Polycarp said of Ignatius - "The Epistles of Ignatius written by him to us, and all the rest which we have by us, we have send to you as you requested......for they treat of faith and patience, and all things that tend to edification in our Lord."

So if you don't like Ignatius, just say all his works are altered by some evil RCC or Budist conspiracy - but Polycarp had good words to say about him. I guess all of his texts have been corrupted if you don't like any of them.

One thing I believe is certain. Polycarp had John's teaching. Polycarp acknowledged and support Ignatius' teachings even though I believe he was already martyred by this time.

A Baptist preacher at seminary turned me onto Polycarp. Awesome stuff.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Anyone who has read Hislop objectively knows your accusations are baseless. The great bulk of His work stands solid. As I said, the quotations he uses were not designed by their authors to prove his point and so that necessitates making it clear that he is drawing conclusions not intended by the authors. That is intellectual honesty. You do not have to agree with his conclusions but you better be prepared to prove the vast number of quotations do not provide a ligitimate basis to draw such conclusions.

Let me interpret your above statement. "Your right TS but its not fair because I think his stuff is the bees knees. And Since I think he's cool you're not being intellectually honest".

 

[chadman]

Anyone who has read Hislop objectively knows your accusations are baseless. The great bulk of His work stands solid. As I said, the quotations he uses were not designed by their authors to prove his point and so that necessitates making it clear that he is drawing conclusions not intended by the authors. That is intellectual honesty. You do not have to agree with his conclusions but you better be prepared to prove the vast number of quotations do not provide a ligitimate basis to draw such conclusions.

I hate this to turn into a Hislop book bashing thread but I have to say once more. Our 'Evangelical' brother had not only read his book objectively, but took the time to write an entire new book on the same topic using Hislop as the main reference right?

I dont' believe that the devil got ahold of him and made him recant, LOL. Seriously. Some guy challenged him to PROVE it. He dug more into it, and refuted ultimately. Similar to how Josh McDowel came to be a Christian aplologist - originally setting out to prove the Bible was false.

He is still an Evangelical Christian - he didn't like convert to Rome. He still see errors there sure.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

You have done the classic Roman Catholic smear tactic - find something to nit pick at and use it to attempt to invalidate the whole. Such a tactic is not intellectual honesty but actually committing the very same thing you are charging (falsely I might add) Hislop with.

Let me interpret the above quote. "Blah Blah Blah Blah. You're a Jesuit spy. Blah Blah Blah Blah. Stop Picking on Hislop because he made his own conclusions. Blah Blah Blah Blah. You sound just like the Roman Catholics - whine"

Notice you can't even comment on the fact that this thread is set to dismantle Roman Catholic and Orthodox theology and show the degredation historically of their respective churches.

 

[Dr. Walter]

You just talked about Polycarp and say 'this epistle'. Are you talking about Polycarps Phillipine Epistle or are you talking about Ignatius'? And if Ignatius which one - all of the spurious one's? There are fifteen altogether I believe.

What Schaff said was that there are 15 recognized epistles accredited to Ignatius, 8 are considered spurious and the remaining 7, although regarded as authentic are suspect to interpolations. Bottom line - they are unreliable.

But in refrernce to Polycarp - you can't diss him as a heretic as he was put in place by John the Apostle himself. He has more credibility than you or I ever will. He didn't just know the Bible, but was taught the Bible by an Apostle. He is no heritic.

Ignatius the person may not be a heretic but you cannot prove the letter to the Philippians is a reliable representation of Ignatius. You cannot prove it has not been tampered with! The fact that the majority of epistles attributed to Ignatius are spurious and the remaining ones may have been tampered with.

One thing is for sure, IF you are an evangelical, this supposed letter by Ignatius is not authoritative for faith and practice. Interesting? Yes! Actual letter from Ignatius? Maybe! You have to remember that the same denomination that preserved these writings uses them as part of their basis for authority for determining truth along with the scriptures.

As I stated in an earlier post, any objective reader can see that the earliest writings contain less error than the later writings. However, there are nine volumes of the Ant-Nicene Fathers and the apostolic Fathers take up only volume one and even as you read volume one you can see the progression into more and more error by the time you finish volume one. The primary error in volume one that begins in seed form right from the writings of Clement is the error of episcopal authority.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Let me interpret the above quote. "Blah Blah Blah Blah. You're a Jesuit spy. Blah Blah Blah Blah. Stop Picking on Hislop because he made his own conclusions. Blah Blah Blah Blah. You sound just like the Roman Catholics - whine"

Notice you can't even comment on the fact that this thread is set to dismantle Roman Catholic and Orthodox theology and show the degredation historically of their respective churches.

You will not be able to fairly dismantle anyone's theology unless you start using fair and equitable methods! You are not using fair or equitable methods in your evaluation of Hislop. You take statements of honest integrity and use them as admissions of error. You take minor points of misinterpretation of scriptures and use them to invalidate the whole work. That is simply dishonest and those methods are the proven tactics of Roman Catholics in regard to their foes. Have some objectivity to your criticisms.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Did you ever think Dr. Walter that Hislop is a product of his time? There was facination with Egyptology back then because of the recent finds. There was a renewed interest in the babylonian and other mystery religions (Isis being favored among the British) Hyslop being Scottish was probably familiar with what the FreeMasons were doing connecting ancient mystery religions with the Knights Templar and eventually making secret symbols everywhere. There was a renewed vigor to finding Atlantis or Mu. Spiritism was on the rise and conspiracies in the British empire was a fabulous speculative sport. It didn't take much for him to make the associations with the Catholic Church.

 

[Dr. Walter]

I hate this to turn into a Hislop book bashing thread but I have to say once more. Our 'Evangelical' brother had not only read his book objectively, but took the time to write an entire new book on the same topic using Hislop as the main reference right?

I dont' believe that the devil got ahold of him and made him recant, LOL. Seriously. Some guy challenged him to PROVE it. He dug more into it, and refuted ultimately. Similar to how Josh McDowel came to be a Christian aplologist - originally setting out to prove the Bible was false.

He is still an Evangelical Christian - he didn't like convert to Rome. He still see errors there sure.

I read the major criticisms he made. They are nit-picking rediculous when you consider the bulk of evidence Hislop supplied. If that is the best he can do then he wasted his time. I agree with the critique of this "evangelical brother" that something other than pure objectivity came to bear for his change of heart. If you have read Hislop, these nit picky examples are pathetic reasons to claim that the major thesis of Hislops work is flawed.

I have read Hislop and I have read Woodrow's reasons for invalidating Hislop!! It is rediculously shallow reasons.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

You will not be able to fairly dismantle anyone's theology unless you start using fair and equitable methods! You are not using fair or equitable methods in your evaluation of Hislop. You take statements of honest integrity and use them as admissions of error. You take minor points of misinterpretation of scriptures and use them to invalidate the whole work. That is simply dishonest and those methods are the proven tactics of Roman Catholics in regard to their foes. Have some objectivity to your criticisms.

I absolutely do. In fact Hyslop is an interesting read but no more factual than Zeitgeist. To dismantel a system of belief you begin at the actual base. Not a ficticious one. Here in lies the problem with both these Early Churches their theology rest on the language of Greek Philosophy which has lead to a misrepresentation of the original gospel. To further the faith they relied on science of Philosophy rather than original intent. Thus you see an early problem with the Church from its outset due to Hellenization. Hellenization is responsible for the quick spread of Christianity but it is also responsible for the many branches or sects of Gnosticism. Its kind of like using modern scientific terms to explain the bible and think people understand scriputeres the way Jesus did or even envisioned it.

I have been objective with Hyslop but knowing history as I do I can't swallow it.

 

[chadman]

Did you ever think Dr. Walter that Hislop is a product of his time? There was facination with Egyptology back then because of the recent finds. There was a renewed interest in the babylonian and other mystery religions (Isis being favored among the British) Hyslop being Scottish was probably familiar with what the FreeMasons were doing connecting ancient mystery religions with the Knights Templar and eventually making secret symbols everywhere. There was a renewed vigor to finding Atlantis or Mu. Spiritism was on the rise and conspiracies in the British empire was a fabulous speculative sport. It didn't take much for him to make the associations with the Catholic Church.

In fact...my daughter gave me a CD a couple of year ago that blew my mind. Hisplop stetched logic beyond reason to find parallels of ancient religious pagan practices with RCC rites, etc.

The sad truth is that almost anything in Christianity has been done in some form in an ancient pagan religion. Virgin birth, mother and son, priests, teachers, baptism, etc.

So this CD used the Hislop type logic and material to PROVE how Christianity in all it's forms is all based on pagan worship. It was sad but using the same methodology, was impressive.

Hislop arguments can be used agianst the entire Church.