Roman Catholicism , cult or not? Part II

[Kamoroso]

Rev 17:3-6 3 So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.
4 And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:
5 And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.
6 And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.

Rev 18:1-4 1 And after these things I saw another angel come down from heaven, having great power; and the earth was lightened with his glory.
2 And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.
3For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies.
4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.

The woman of the above scriptures, represents an apostate church. A church which persecutes the saints and commits fornication with the kings of the earth. This woman rides a beast. As the book of Daniel clearly reveals, in prophetic terms, a beast represents a king, or more over, a kingdom ( Dan. 2&7 ). In bible prophecy a women represents a church. A pure woman represents God's true church, but an harlot represents an apostate church. This woman riding the beast is an apostate church that is using the kings, or governments of this world to enforce it's apostate religious dogma upon the world. It is none other than the church of Rome. The Church of Rome is the Mother of Harlots, and rightly so. She was the first supposed Christian church, to use the stiff arm of the government to enforce her dogmas upon others during what we now call the dark ages.

Whenever religion and government are united, persecution is the result. The Roman Catholic Church persecuted those who spoke against her dogmas once she established a firm relationship with the kings of the earth, or state. When the reformation grew large enough, and certain Protestant denominations established themselves with the power of the state also, the result was the same, persecution. This persecution included the Roman Catholic Church. Once Roman Catholicism united itself with the state, it was a long time before Christianity realized the magnitude of this apostasy. This problem persisted until, by the grace of God, the United States of America established a form of government which separated Church and State.

According to the scriptures though, before Christ returns, this persecuting power will arise again on a world wide scale. This prophecy is being fulfilled today. The Church of Rome is ever increasing her political clout, and no where is she doing so more than in the United States of America. The U.S. is a leading power in this world, and it is tossing separation of Church and state out the window. For this reason, it will be responsible, in a big way, for bringing the apostasy of the Church of Rome back to life on a worldwide scale. This will be the darkest hour if this worlds history. As the Church of Rome is exalted in this world, her abominations will bring desolation to this earth. Even now as her power has been increasing in this world, and in this country, natural disasters, wars, and terrorism are ever on the rise. Her rise to power in this world, will only mean this worlds destruction. Even so, come Lord Jesus.


One of the identifying marks of Babylon is that the kings of the earth commit fornication with her. The church of Rome has always had relations with the kings of the earth in order to wield her power. Today she is once again daily gaining influence and power among all the nations of the earth, and when she has their alliance, she will once again use their power to persecute those who do not go along with her agenda. Rev 18:3 "3 For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her,..."

Read Ezekiel chapter eight. Note that when Israel mixed pagan practices with the worship of the true God, these abominations were the cause of God’s judgment upon them. The last, and greatest of these abominations, was that they turned their backs on the temple of God, in order to bow down and worship the sun. Immediately after this, in chapter nine, God sends forth His destroying angels to slay men women and children without mercy, saving only those who had the mark in their foreheads.

God used the kingdom of Babylon to fulfill this judgment upon His supposed people. He constantly warned them that He would send the king of the north upon them as judgment. Nebuchadnezzar, was the king of the north whom God chose for this purpose. God’s judgments come from the north.

After Christianity became established within the Roman empire, apostate Christians began mixing pagan practices with the true worship of God. Sun worship being the predominant pagan religion which was infiltrating the Church. The result was Roman Catholicism. As the Church of Rome rose to power within the western Roman Empire, desolations followed swiftly. There abominations caused desolation. By the time the Church of Rome became firmly established, the western Roman empire, over which she presided was no more. God sent the barbarians from the north who completely desolated the western Roman empire. God’s judgments come from the north.

Then, when the church of Rome ruled, the people of God were persecuted severely. Ignorance prevailed, and the dark ages were well under way. Becoming completely corrupt herself, her plague spread throughout her kingdom. Only God knows the extent of her atrocities, and their influence upon the people whom she ruled. This He will take care of at judgment day.

Now the Church of Rome is swiftly rising to power again in this world. God will send His judgments from the north. So death and destruction, yes desolation will follow her ascendance to power in this world. Her abominations will have their influence, and their effect. Then she will set up the abomination of desolation, after which God’s judgments will be released without mercy upon a world in rebellion, under the leadership of the Church of Rome, the MOTHER OF HARLOTS, AND THE ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH. Desolations have already begun, but when the day of the sun is set up by law in place of the holy, the true Sabbath of God, then complete ruin will follow. These things are swiftly coming upon us.

By for now. Y. b. in C. Keith

 

[D28guy]

tragicpizza,

"Not to put too fine a point on it, but "Sola Scriptura" (a doctrine I adhere to) implies a "scriptura" to begin with... and there wasn't a complete Bible until the fourth century."

Are you talking about all of it being bound together with nice gold detters saying "Holy Bible" on it?

If so...SO WHAT!

My goodness friend, cant you come up with anything better than that?

It doesnt make an ounce of difference wether they were bound up together or not, or whether the Catholic Church burns copies of them to get them out of people hands or not.

By *approximetly* the time of the destruction of the Temple in 70AD every book that we now know of as being part of the "new testament" was written, was considered by all in the body of Christ to be part of "scripture" as penned by God Himself through humen instruments, and was considered by all to be Gods only unchanging standard of truth to judge all doctrine against.

And this was 3 to 4 centuries before Constantine invented what is now the Catholic Church.

God bless,

Mike

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by D28guy:
By *approximetly* the time of the destruction of the Temple in 70AD every book that we now know of as being part of the "new testament" was written, was considered by all in the body of Christ to be part of "scripture" as penned by God Himself through humen instruments, and was considered by all to be Gods only unchanging standard of truth to judge all doctrine against.

]

Umm...not quite. John's writings date to the last decade of the first century. And not "all" considered each of the (eventual) 27 books to be canonical until the early 5th century at the earliest. In fact, the very first list that exactly matches our 27 book NT canon is found in the Paschal letter of Athanasius in AD 367. Before that, no list of NT books had the exact same books. Some lists had less--James, Hebrews, Revelation, 2 & 3 John, Jude, and 2 Peter were the ones that were most often left off. (These had local canonicity to varying extents, but not universal canonicity until at the earliest the 400s.) Some lists had more--Barnabas, First Clement, the Didache, and Hermas had local canonicity in some areas. But no list before AD 367 (ie mid 4th century) exactly matched our present canon. It took awhile for the Church to arrive at this consensus...in fact, after the time that Constantine allegedly invented Roman Catholicism. But don't let the facts get in the way of a good polemic.

 

[D28guy]

It was brought up, incredibly...earlier in this thread the idea that Jesus Christ founded the Catholic Church of Rome.

Of course Constantine actually invented the Catholic Church.

Here is an excerpt from an excellant article I came across regarding this issue.

A link will follow...

"The Church Becomes Corrupted

There is a great danger whenever the church becomes POPULAR! In the days of Constantine it was no longer a shame to be a Christian; it was an honor. It was to your advantage to become a Christian. It was the fashionable thing to do.

After all, everyone was doing it and the government put its blessing upon it. [Note: During the years that Jimmy Carter was President–1976 to 1980–it became very fashionable to say that you were BORN AGAIN. Many people started saying they were born again, including many who did not even understand what the new birth really means.]

What was the result of Constantine's new approach to Christianity? Since being a Christian was the popular thing to do, MANY JOINED THE BANDWAGON! Thousands of heathen joined the church! Suddenly it seemed like the whole world was crowding into the church. Many of these people were Christians in name only. Can a person "name the name of Christ" but not really be a true Christian (see 2 Timothy 2:19)? ______

It has been said that in the year 324 twelve thousand men with women and children in proportion, were baptized in Rome, and that the emperor had promised to each convert a white garment and twenty pieces of gold. This report may be somewhat exaggerated, but this is the kind of thing that was happening. Even today we have many churches who try to use gimmicks to get people saved: "If you come to Sunday School you will get a free ice cream cone and a stuffed animal" etc. This type of thing started way back in the days of Constantine!

Thousands of unsaved pagans became baptized and started calling themselves "Christians." Did water baptism make them true Christians? The church gained in QUANTITY but it lost in QUALITY. There was a massive growth in numbers but no growth in purity. The church was becoming more and more worldly and corrupt. The host of hypocrites and pretenders that was entering the church was multiplying beyond control.


In earlier years the church stayed pure because it cost something to be a Christian. Often it meant suffering and persecution. Believers were not popular with the world. But in Constantine’s day it did not cost anything to be a Christian. It was to an advantage to be one! Today in our country it is somewhat easy to be a Christian. There is little persecution and little cost. Suppose the government suddenly made a law that every Christian would lose his head. Do you think you would soon find out who the true Christians really are?

As you can well imagine, many heathen customs and practices crept into the church. The pagan images and statues were still honored, but they were given "Christian" names such as Peter or Mary.

Artemis (Diana) worship was changed to Mary worship. Also Isis, the Egyptian goddess was easily transformed into Mary. Worshippers of Isis called her "the Great Virgin" and "Mother of the God". Some surviving images of Isis holding the child Horus are in a pose very similar to that of some early Christian Madonnas (showing Mary holding the infant Jesus). Heathen temples were consecrated and changed into churches. Heathen feasts were given Christian names. It was just the same old paganism or heathenism under a new name!

The church had not conquered the world. THE WORLD HAD CONQUERED THE CHURCH! Paganism had put on new clothes but it was the same old paganism."

Click here for web page

Of course this is just an excerpt, but even the entire article isnt completly comprehensive. The the premise holds no matter how far one might dig and how exhaustive ones study is.

Grace and peace,

Mike

[ April 04, 2006, 11:55 PM: Message edited by: D28guy ]

 

[D28guy]

Doubting Thomas,

You missed the word "approximetly" in my post. A few books may have been written a bit after 70AD, but certainly nowhere near 4-5 centures later.

Mike

 

[Matt Black]

Yes, but DT's point was that Christians didn't know what books actually constituted the NT until the 4th century.

DHK, you said:

I can never understand why, when a person starts a thread on Catholicism such as this one (RC: cult or not) someone must bring in red herrings such as persecution by Protestants, slavery, the KKK, etc., etc., If one wants to discuss the atrocities of the IRA or any other group in the world at any other time in history why not start a thread on it. This thread is explicitly on the RCC, and reasons why or why not it should fall in the category of a cult. What does slavery or the persecution by Protestants have to do with that?

As Chemnitz and TP have pointed out, those who wish to go on about Catholic atrocities, of which there are many, must also be prepared to have their own denominations scrutinised similarly; "those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones". You go on:

But the doctrines existed since the time of Christ.

Show me where.

Sola Scriptura did not come from Luther it comes from the Bible.

Show me where (Hint: II Tim 3:16 "is not the proof-text you're looking for, Luke". In fact, there isn't one). But do go on:

In fact there have always existed groups of believer outside the Catholic Church that have been true to Christ.

Correct; they're called the Orthodox.

the Albigenses, a peace-loving, Bible-believing sect of Christians

I'm sorry, but that is priceless!

 

[BobRyan]

The ones slaughtering the Albigenses Christians during the dark ages say "yes but they were all bad and neededed to be brutally exterminated... see?".

How "unlike" all cases where one human being brutally murders another and then is asked to justify those barbarian actions. The response "those women and children needed killin'" is not that "unnexpected" given the nature of the crime.

What really has to be asked is "why would anyone listen to them as they make that kind of bogus defense".

And there is the "real" rub on this subject.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

The duplicitiy of the "pro-extermination" arguments presented is beyond limits.

#1. It will first argue that "extermination" is meant in a "nice way" but when confronted with cases like the Albigensis - turn a blind eye to its own duplicitous position - defending brutal extermination - without reservation!

#2. When confronted with the fact of exterminiation and even defending those brutal acts - the same poster will not be able to bring theselves to suggest the same barbarian practices be used today. Thus admitting to the base crime as being a crime against humanity - while ostensibly trying to defend the RCC at all costs for her atrocious actions in the dark ages.

That too is "telling".

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I can never understand why, when a person starts a thread on Catholicism such as this one (RC: cult or not) someone must bring in red herrings such as persecution by Protestants, slavery, the KKK, etc., etc., If one wants to discuss the atrocities of the IRA or any other group in the world at any other time in history why not start a thread on it. This thread is explicitly on the RCC, and reasons why or why not it should fall in the category of a cult. What does slavery or the persecution by Protestants have to do with that?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Matt said
As Chemnitz and TP have pointed out, those who wish to go on about Catholic atrocities, of which there are many, must also be prepared to have their own denominations scrutinised similarly; "those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones". You go on:

The comparison only serves to futher highlight the enormous magnitude of the RCC atrocity over many centuries as it commits its misdeeds over all of the former Roman Empire and beyond.

Comparing that massive monolith claiming infallibility at each monsterously atrocious step in its crimes against humanity - to the incidental localized hot spots created by the non-Catholic groups who DO NOT claim infalliblity for their misdeeds - is only FURTHER clarifying the magnitude of the RC atrocities by comparison.

I welcome the effort as long as it is not a blinder's-on all-for-the-RCC style of revisionist histories against non-RC groups.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Chemnitz]

to the incidental localized hot spots created by the non-Catholic groups who DO NOT claim infalliblity for their misdeeds -

Actually they do claim infallibility because they believe they are doing God's work. You can not downplay the events because they happen in a small geographical area, because it is no different than the localized persecution of other groups.

The duplicitiy of the "pro-extermination" arguments presented is beyond limits.

An odd statement considering nobody is defending the acts of extermination, only stating that such acts cannot be used as proof of cult status for a church.

 

[Bro. James]

Not some brainwashing cult...

Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee..
Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee..
Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee..

And on and on and on--I was brainwashed by age 6. I am now 60, and still remember the programming. The Lord led me out of it a long time age.

It is a cult--the oldest in the world--it goes back to the days of Nimrod and Astoreth etal. Most of Christendom will be celebrating them soon--they call it Easter.

New Testament churches do not celebrate such things, but rather consider such to be pagan idolatry.

Someone mentioned the Waldenses--yes, they are evidence of those not connected to Rome. There are others--in every generation--who have refused to bow to antichrist. The Bride is undefiled, preserved by the Lamb of God, kept by the Holy Spirit.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

[Matt Black]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
The ones slaughtering the Albigenses Christians during the dark ages say "yes but they were all bad and neededed to be brutally exterminated... see?".

Show me where I said that. I have never denied that the extermination of the Cathars was a heinous crime. I do however take issue with the assertion that the Cathars/ Albigenses were some kind of Christian group.

Bro James, show me the evidence of these groups' existence.

 

[Bro. James]

See: History of the Inquisitions, not sure of author; also History of the Churches of the Valleys of Piedmont, by S. Morland

Another good source: Catholic Library: read about "heretics".


Selah,

Bro. James

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Yes, but DT's point was that Christians didn't know what books actually constituted the NT until the 4th century.

Thanks, Matt. That was indeed my point. There was no final consensus regarding the NT canon until well after Constantine allegedly brought all those corrupting influences into the Church. I say "allegedly" because those things which "Baptist-ic" groups decry as pagan accretions--the episcopacy, baptismal regeneration, the Real Presence, infant baptism, asking the departed saints to interecede, prayers for the departed, honoring Mary (ie calling her the "New Eve" and "Theotokos")--were practiced and believed in the Church BEFORE (and in most cases, long before) Constantine came on the scene. On the other hand, one can search in vain for examples of proto-Baptistic groups in the historical record during this time, despite what J.M. Carroll alleges in his pseudo-historical work. A certainly more objective look at the history of early Christian beliefs would be J.N.D.Kelly's EARLY CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES.

 

[tragic_pizza]

Originally posted by D28guy:
tragicpizza,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />"Not to put too fine a point on it, but "Sola Scriptura" (a doctrine I adhere to) implies a "scriptura" to begin with... and there wasn't a complete Bible until the fourth century."

Are you talking about all of it being bound together with nice gold detters saying "Holy Bible" on it?

If so...SO WHAT!

My goodness friend, cant you come up with anything better than that?

It doesnt make an ounce of difference wether they were bound up together or not, or whether the Catholic Church burns copies of them to get them out of people hands or not.

By *approximetly* the time of the destruction of the Temple in 70AD every book that we now know of as being part of the "new testament" was written, was considered by all in the body of Christ to be part of "scripture" as penned by God Himself through humen instruments, and was considered by all to be Gods only unchanging standard of truth to judge all doctrine against.

And this was 3 to 4 centuries before Constantine invented what is now the Catholic Church.

God bless,

Mike </font>[/QUOTE]Actually, depending on which scholar you reference, at least 2, and possibly more, were written after the fall of Jerusalem. It's commonly agreed that the Gospel of John and Revelation were written 90-100 AD, and there are arguments for dating the Epistles of John around this time as well.

Remember, too, that the known world was, even then, a big place, and dissemination of writings would have been slow by mdern standards. Printing presses were a millenium and a half away, so different groups of Christians had different books of the New Testament. One region had Mark, andother some Pauline epistles, etc. There was disagreement, in fact, throughout the first four centuries or so which books were canon, with some arguing for various writiings which didn't meet the final criteria, and others arguing against books which did. Revelation is one example of the latter, the Gospel of Thomas an example of the former.

I would argue that Constantine, in a single act, did more for Christianity than Luther in that, in 325 AD, he convened the Council of Nicea which confirmed the eternal deity of Jesus Christ. Up until that point, you see, Christians were about evenly divided on whether Jesus had become divine at His baptism (a group having only Mark's Gospel or a Pauline epistle might reach such a conclusion), or was preexistent and eternally God.

History would argue against Constantine "creating" the Catholic Church in any case. The bishop of Rome was, at the time, a pretty minor figure, and Constantine wanted his newly-established city, Constantinople, to be considered the center of the Empire in any case.

 

[tragic_pizza]

Originally posted by Doubting Thomas:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by D28guy:
By *approximetly* the time of the destruction of the Temple in 70AD every book that we now know of as being part of the "new testament" was written, was considered by all in the body of Christ to be part of "scripture" as penned by God Himself through humen instruments, and was considered by all to be Gods only unchanging standard of truth to judge all doctrine against.

]

Umm...not quite. John's writings date to the last decade of the first century. And not "all" considered each of the (eventual) 27 books to be canonical until the early 5th century at the earliest. In fact, the very first list that exactly matches our 27 book NT canon is found in the Paschal letter of Athanasius in AD 367. Before that, no list of NT books had the exact same books. Some lists had less--James, Hebrews, Revelation, 2 & 3 John, Jude, and 2 Peter were the ones that were most often left off. (These had local canonicity to varying extents, but not universal canonicity until at the earliest the 400s.) Some lists had more--Barnabas, First Clement, the Didache, and Hermas had local canonicity in some areas. But no list before AD 367 (ie mid 4th century) exactly matched our present canon. It took awhile for the Church to arrive at this consensus...in fact, after the time that Constantine allegedly invented Roman Catholicism. But don't let the facts get in the way of a good polemic. </font>[/QUOTE]OK, so you answered him first. And correctly. Thanks.

 

[Matt Black]

Originally posted by Bro. James:
See: History of the Inquisitions, not sure of author; also History of the Churches of the Valleys of Piedmont, by S. Morland

Another good source: Catholic Library: read about "heretics".


Selah,

Bro. James

Try this link , which is very much from an anti-Catholic perspective; in particular the following quote:

In the course of time the consciousness of this change was obscured, and in their polemic zeal against Romanism they traced the Reformed doctrines to their fathers, who certainly prepared the way for them. Their manuscripts were interpolated and assigned to a much earlier date.1083 Some of their historians even constructed an imaginary Waldensian succession of pure evangelical catholicity up to the apostolic age, in opposition to the papal succession of an apostate pseudo-catholicity, which they dated from the fictitious donation of Constantine to Pope Sylvester and the consequent secularization of the Church. This is the Protestant counterpart of the Romish caricatures of the Reformation, and deserves equal condemnation in the name of common honesty and historical truth.(Italics mine)

I'll give you the Waldenses as proto-evangelicals* but not any group pre-1160 other than Catholics and Orthodox, unless you can come up with better evidence than you have so far.

*However, what do you make of their criteria for salvation in their Catechism (hint: the three virtues to which they refer are the same three which Catholicism espouses)?

 

[Chemnitz]

Not some brainwashing cult...

Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee..
Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee..
Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee..

And on and on and on--I was brainwashed by age 6. I am now 60, and still remember the programming. The Lord led me out of it a long time age.

It is a cult--the oldest in the world--it goes back to the days of Nimrod and Astoreth etal. Most of Christendom will be celebrating them soon--they call it Easter.

New Testament churches do not celebrate such things, but rather consider such to be pagan idolatry.

Apparently memory work is now the mark of a cult, so I guess all the churches running AWANA or similar programs are cults.

Not to mention all the Lutheran Churches who for years have been having children memorize the Ten Commandments, the Apostle's Creed, and the Lord's prayer.

I can't speak for others but I have never worshipped nimrod or any other god on Easter.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Doubting Thomas:
There was no final consensus regarding the NT canon until well after Constantine allegedly brought all those corrupting influences into the Church.

This is unverifiable opinion and the Catholic standard lie which they would have you believe. Even the Bible itself teaches us otherwise. Peter verifies the inspiration of the epistles of Paul. Peter also states that it is the writings of the Apostles that the believers were to take heed to, just as they valued the writings of the prophets of the Old Testament. Jude, one of the last books to be written, tells us to "contend to the faith" the faith being that body of doctrinne already in existence through the original written manuscripts.
The Catholic Church would have one to believe that the early believers were too ignorant and not intelligent enough to know which books were inspired and which were not, even though they were the ones that had the Apostles living among them. The Catholic Church had nothing to do with the preservation of the Word of God. It was the early churches. The Catholic Church never came into existence until the fourth century and the canon of Scripture was well established before that time. If the Catholic Church was unaware of that then that only shows how paganized they really were, following man's traditions rather than the Word of God.

I say "allegedly" because those things which "Baptist-ic" groups decry as pagan accretions--the episcopacy, baptismal regeneration, the Real Presence, infant baptism, asking the departed saints to interecede, prayers for the departed, honoring Mary (ie calling her the "New Eve" and "Theotokos")--were practiced and believed in the Church BEFORE (and in most cases, long before) Constantine came on the scene. On the other hand, one can search in vain for examples of proto-Baptistic groups in the historical record during this time, despite what J.M. Carroll alleges in his pseudo-historical work. A certainly more objective look at the history of early Christian beliefs would be J.N.D.Kelly's EARLY CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES.

Those things which you have mentioned are not taught in the Bible (baptismal regeneration, (the new Eve, etc.) were never taught by the Apostles, were unknown to the early churches, have no foundation in Scripture and are found only after the paganized Catholic Church started in the fourth century.
What Baptists believe today has been taught since the days of the Apostles since we teach what the Bible teaches. If Peter taught it we teach it. If Paul taught it we teach it. We didn't event the allegroization of Scripture: Augustine did. Obviously then Peter and Paul did not allegorize their own Scriptures which Aurgustine did. We take literally the the teachings of Peter and Paul and the rest of the Apostles as they were meant to. But the Catholic Church has come along and added to the Bible as a second authority their Oral Tradition wherein there are man-made doctrines entirely apart from the Bible and totally unbiblical.
DHK

 

[tragic_pizza]

Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Doubting Thomas:
There was no final consensus regarding the NT canon until well after Constantine allegedly brought all those corrupting influences into the Church.

This is unverifiable opinion and the Catholic standard lie which they would have you believe. Even the Bible itself teaches us otherwise. Peter verifies the inspiration of the epistles of Paul. Peter also states that it is the writings of the Apostles that the believers were to take heed to, just as they valued the writings of the prophets of the Old Testament. Jude, one of the last books to be written, tells us to "contend to the faith" the faith being that body of doctrinne already in existence through the original written manuscripts.
The Catholic Church would have one to believe that the early believers were too ignorant and not intelligent enough to know which books were inspired and which were not, even though they were the ones that had the Apostles living among them. The Catholic Church had nothing to do with the preservation of the Word of God. It was the early churches. The Catholic Church never came into existence until the fourth century and the canon of Scripture was well established before that time. If the Catholic Church was unaware of that then that only shows how paganized they really were, following man's traditions rather than the Word of God.</font>[/QUOTE]Actually, early belivers were quite good, for the most part, at discerning inspired Scripture.

However, the fact remains that, while some of the books in our New Testament were accepted pretty much universally, there is evidence that differing groups of Christians had different canons, and it wasn't until the fourth and fifth centuries that the governing body of the only orthodox church at the time (and by "orthodox" I mean "right belief," not a specific segment of Chritianity as opposed to others) made a firm canonical decision.

DHK, I'm not trying to start an argument here, but what you call the Catholic Church and the early church are one and the same -- not institutionally, no, but it's important to note that by the time of Constantine, cities already had bishops in place. Many came to the Council of Nicea bearing the scars of torture for their faith. I'm not of a mind to argue that the doctrine of the Catholic Church is 100% kosher, but I fail to see how demonizing a large segment of our Christian brothers and sisters helps anything.

You know of folks who have been messed up by Catholic beliefs. I know o folks who have been messed up by Protestant and Evangelical beliefs. I contend that in both of these cases, it is not the doctrine but the incorrect practice of doctrine that causes the damage.