When did it all go wrong?

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Not only met but raised by....I ment that statement to read you would never want to see it & when VAT 2 happened we had some that went wild & started parading around in them. Imagine, one day they they are covered head to foot & look like penguins & then the next..... Just isnt right.

Tar Mate!

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Hears a great youtube for breakfast that discusses reverance & universal connectedness....BTW, I'm in love with this lady.....enjoy!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFILSlo-TZQ

 

[DHK]

As a matter of fact, Jon-Marc, I am a Christian and I am Catholic. And for the record, Protestants persecuted and killed Protestant Christians as well as Catholic Christians.

But the Catholics never stop. They are still in the news today:

LONDON - A report says that more than half of British Catholic priests convicted of sexually abusing children in the last decade are still listed as clergy members.
An investigative report by Channel 4 News says out of 22 priests convicted and jailed for more than a year for child sex abuse since 2001, 14 have yet to be "laicised" or removed from the church.
Priests facing laicisation are to be stripped of their priesthood and privileges of the post.
The National Catholic Safeguarding Commission said Wednesday that any priest being investigated for an offence against a child is automatically removed from active ministry. But the church must apply to Rome to strip a priest of his title.
About six applications for dismissing the 14 priests are being considered.

http://start.shaw.ca/start/enCA/News/WorldNewsArticle.htm?src=i56905.xml


Entitled:
Report: Half of British Catholic priests convicted of abusing children still listed as clergy

 

[kyredneck]

Has the Catholic church ever been right in their doctrine?

IMO, yes they were.

 

[kyredneck]

From my discussion with others there are many here with the primative baptist perspective which you call the Mormon view. It went wrong with the death of the Apostles save that not really. It just so happens that Satan's church through the help of the ECF brought Heresy to christianity and split off from the independent baptist churches in the Mediteranian area to create the infant Catholic Church. This infant church wasn't really too bad at persecuting the church however, they did make a lot of converts. Where it really went bad was when Constantine took over the Catholic Church he forced further Mythras type worship onto that community and went on a rampage of finding all written works of primative baptist for the past 300+years and burned their works killed their members. Destroyed their hymnals so completely that there is not one historical trace of their existance. These primative baptist went undersground and worshiped in secret for the next 1500 years and every time they got caught they were killed off. They had different names like Albegensians etc... and so it was.

Landmarkists, i.e. Baptists of several colors, believe that stuff, not just the Primitives. I honestly don't know how much of it to believe. I know there are some glaring discepancies in various accounts of Landmarkist history. I'm content to trace my roots back to the Separate Baptists of New England and the Particular/Strict Baptists of England. IMO, the Mennonites hold the legitimate claim to the Anabaptists.

 

[kyredneck]

Just off the cuff I voted 4th century. Isn't that when Constantine legalized Christianity and it started to become a state religion? I believe when the state got involved with the Church is when it started to go wrong.

 

[Matt Black]

Landmarkists, i.e. Baptists of several colors, believe that stuff, not just the Primitives. I honestly don't know how much of it to believe. I know there are some glaring discepancies in various accounts of Landmarkist history. I'm content to trace my roots back to the Separate Baptists of New England and the Particular/Strict Baptists of England. IMO, the Mennonites hold the legitimate claim to the Anabaptists.

Correct on all counts IMO.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Just off the cuff I voted 4th century. Isn't that when Constantine legalized Christianity and it started to become a state religion? I believe when the state got involved with the Church is when it started to go wrong.

Actually, I believe it was Theodocius that made Christianity the official religion of empire. Constantine just guaranteed tolerance. Constantine himself was a professed Christian as was his mother however, he didn't stack the entire deck in his favor. And in the end there is some confusion if he had arian leanings.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Actually, I believe it was Theodocius that made Christianity the official religion of empire. Constantine just guaranteed tolerance. Constantine himself was a professed Christian as was his mother however, he didn't stack the entire deck in his favor. And in the end there is some confusion if he had arian leanings.

That's pretty much it.

 

[BobRyan]

For those of you here who believe that the ecclesial organisation headed by an elderly gentleman in the Vatican is the Spawn of Satan, when do you say this organisation started up and hence when did Christianity start to go horribly wrong? Was it

1. When the last of the Apostles died (what I call the 'Mormon view')?

Yes that is when a big part of the problem happened.

In Acts 20 Paul says "after my departure - wolves will come in "

In 1Tim 1 Paul tells us that Timothy was left at Ephesus to fight the heresy ALREADY rising up in that church.

We see the same thing in Paul's letter to Titus.

Thus in the 2nd century A.D - error had already started to invade the pure Christian Church of the first century.

But it was not yet at the level of the Roman Catholic level of decline.

2. When the Constantinian-Theodosian Settlement was Established in the 4th century (what I call the 'Classic Radical Reformation' view)?

yes this is the point of the rise of the Roman Bishop edging out some of the other Bishops in terms of power and influence.

3. When the Western Roman Empire fell in 476 allowing the Papacy's power to rise (what I call the 'Whig' view; see eg: Gibbons' Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire)?

Yes. this is the rise of the Roman Catholic Church in terms of "Pontifex Maximus" claiming the right to rule over the other Churches.


The next significant milestone happens in 538 A.D when the Papal Pontif gains enough power to rightfully claim domination within the realm of the Holy Roman Empire. From there to 1798 we have the much predicted 1260 years of persecution of the sainst predicted in Daniel 7, Rev 11, Rev 12 and Rev 13.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Matt Black]

Hmmm... isn't that last date wrong, since the Holy Roman Empire was only established in 800 AD?

 

[targus]

The next significant milestone happens in 538 A.D when the Papal Pontif gains enough power to rightfully claim domination within the realm of the Holy Roman Empire. From there to 1798 we have the much predicted 1260 years of persecution of the sainst predicted in Daniel 7, Rev 11, Rev 12 and Rev 13.

Hmmm... isn't that last date wrong, since the Holy Roman Empire was only established in 800 AD?

Not if you are SDA. :laugh:

SDA disregard historical facts in order to not have their prophetess proved wrong.

SDA's have a lot invested in counting days and making stuff up to make it look like it works - like the whole investigative judgement thing.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

There is nothing more than figuring out the end times rapture stuff that the SDA love to do. And of course the Catholic Church is the enemy. I think with their knowledge of scripture if you added a real study of history you may have some excellent students of Christianity in the SDA but of course this isn't the case.

 

[dwmoeller1]

I voted Constantine. It was at this point that the church began to seriously confuse the kingdom of God with the kingdoms of this world.

Thats not to say that Constantine was the cause or that he introduced particular heresies, etc. Instead he merely opened the door to Christianity holding secular power. It was this that eventually drew the church down the wrong path and pursuits.

 

[lori4dogs]

When did it all go wrong? IT DIDN'T!! Jesus said 'Upon this rock I will build my Church and the GATES OF HELL will NOT prevail against it.' If it had 'all gone wrong' then the gates of hell would surely have prevailed against it and Jesus would have been wrong. Mormons claim 'it all went wrong' as well.

 

[DHK]

When did it all go wrong? IT DIDN'T!! Jesus said 'Upon this rock I will build my Church and the GATES OF HELL will NOT prevail against it.' If it had 'all gone wrong' then the gates of hell would surely have prevailed against it and Jesus would have been wrong. Mormons claim 'it all went wrong' as well.

No, it never went wrong. Jesus did build his church upon his rock--himself. "For other foundation can no man lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ" (1Cor.3:11).

1 Corinthians 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

The Rock is Christ; Peter a stone. Peter is no greater in Scripture than Levi (a publican--a horrible sinner), or Bartholomew, or doubting Thomas. They are all put on equal footing. They are called "The Twelve Disciples." Only one of them was not genuine, and Christ knew that from the beginning. He was replaced by Matthias (Acts 1), after the resurrection. In the same chapter we find that Mary is outside of this inner circle. She is among the 120, but not the 12. She does not have the authority, the importance as Bartholomew or Thomas, or even Simon the zealot. In authority she is placed beneath them.

Revelation 21:14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.
--Note that Mary's name will not be written there. Simon the zealot will be there. Bartholomew and Thomas's names will be there. But not Mary. her place in history is rather insignificant.

Think of it: She played a "Passive" role. She allowed her body to be used to allow Christ to come into the world. This was something that one of many other virgins of that time could have done. But God in his sovereign will chose Mary. He had to choose someone.
Like any parent she (and Joseph) raised Jesus (and the children that they had after Jesus), until the time of the beginning of the ministry of Christ.

After the death of Christ John took her to his home where she lived out the rest of her life, as well as being in presence of the disciples and other believers as found in Acts chapter one. There is little else written about her that is factual.

On the other hand all the other Apostles were cruelly martyred except John who was exiled. Even then, some believe that he was boiled in a great cauldron of oil.
Thomas went to India. There is ample evidence of Thomas being the Apostle to India, where he won many to Christ, and brought the gospel to South Asia. After a successful work he was murdered--shot through with arrows.
Who did the greater work?
1. God chose Mary that Christ would enter the world through her womb. Her body was being used as a vessel and that is all.

2. God chose Thomas to be an Apostle to the nation of India where the gospel was introduced to that continent. There hundreds, if not thousands, entered into the Kingdom of God because of work and obedience of Thomas. Thomas was martyred for his faith.

Jesus referred to "greater works will you do."
Thomas was doing these greater works--the works of winning souls to Christ. Eternity will show that his name will be found on the wall of the foundation of that heavenly city, and not Mary's. Eternity will show that Thomas won many more souls to Christ than Mary. Eternity will show that Thomas became closer to Christ than Mary, whom Jesus eventually referred to as "woman," for Thomas (and the other eleven) were his disciples, his followers, those who traveled, ate, slept and were closely taught by him.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

OK, so far we have one vote for Big Bad Constantine and one (by me) for 1054 And All That. Would the person who voted for The Big C please tell me why s/he did it?

GE:


If I remember correctly from my 'history' curriculum ‘1054’ was when the Catholic Church split into ‘East’ or ‘Greek Orthodox’ and ‘West’ or ‘Roman Catholc’ about the ‘quarto-decimen issue’.

IMHO that issue raged since Athanasius and Justin in the second century already.

So methinks it all went haywire even before Justin who INHERITED the status quo, referred to Sunday-observance in the Christian Church in the second halve of the second century.

 

[Zenas]

In the same chapter we find that Mary is outside of this inner circle. She is among the 120, but not the 12. She does not have the authority, the importance as Bartholomew or Thomas, or even Simon the zealot. In authority she is placed beneath them.

--Note that Mary's name will not be written there. Simon the zealot will be there. Bartholomew and Thomas's names will be there. But not Mary. her place in history is rather insignificant.

Think of it: She played a "Passive" role. She allowed her body to be used to allow Christ to come into the world. This was something that one of many other virgins of that time could have done. But God in his sovereign will chose Mary. He had to choose someone.
Like any parent she (and Joseph) raised Jesus (and the children that they had after Jesus), until the time of the beginning of the ministry of Christ.

After the death of Christ John took her to his home where she lived out the rest of her life, as well as being in presence of the disciples and other believers as found in Acts chapter one. There is little else written about her that is factual.
1. God chose Mary that Christ would enter the world through her womb. Her body was being used as a vessel and that is all.

Eternity will show that his name will be found on the wall of the foundation of that heavenly city, and not Mary's. Eternity will show that Thomas won many more souls to Christ than Mary. Eternity will show that Thomas became closer to Christ than Mary, whom Jesus eventually referred to as "woman," for Thomas (and the other eleven) were his disciples, his followers, those who traveled, ate, slept and were closely taught by him.

DHK, why do you find it proper to besmirch the name of Mary on this thread where Mary isn't even the issue? Some of what you reported above is correct but you have gone out of your way to minimize the role of Mary. Although I haven't gone back and reread the whole thread, I don't think anyone has even brought up anything about Mary until now. You closed the Mary thread yesterday.

As for Jesus referring to Mary as "woman", He was identifying her with Eve, the mother of all humanity. See Genesis Ch. 2 & 3 where Eve is called "the woman." This same name "woman" also shows up in Galatians 4:4 and Revelation 12. Just as Eve is the mother of all humanity, Mary is the mother of all believers. Revelation 12:17.

 

[DHK]

DHK, why do you find it proper to besmirch the name of Mary on this thread where Mary isn't even the issue? Some of what you reported above is correct but you have gone out of your way to minimize the role of Mary. Although I haven't gone back and reread the whole thread, I don't think anyone has even brought up anything about Mary until now. You closed the Mary thread yesterday.

As for Jesus referring to Mary as "woman", He was identifying her with Eve, the mother of all humanity. See Genesis Ch. 2 & 3 where Eve is called "the woman." This same name "woman" also shows up in Galatians 4:4 and Revelation 12. Just as Eve is the mother of all humanity, Mary is the mother of all believers. Revelation 12:17.

Your assertion is ludicrous. The word "woman" is used 346 times in the Bible. Does it refer each time to Mary?
Does it refer to Mary in this case?

Leviticus 24:10 And the son of an Israelitish woman, whose father was an Egyptian, went out among the children of Israel: and this son of the Israelitish woman and a man of Israel strove together in the camp;

Why wouldn't it refer it to Mary?
Why wouldn't every verse with woman refer to Mary?

Judges 19:27 And her lord rose up in the morning, and opened the doors of the house, and went out to go his way: and, behold, the woman his concubine was fallen down at the door of the house, and her hands were upon the threshold.

1 Samuel 20:30 Then Saul's anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said unto him, Thou son of the perverse rebellious woman, do not I know that thou hast chosen the son of Jesse to thine own confusion, and unto the confusion of thy mother's nakedness?

What good reason do you have for your eisegesis of Genesis of twisting the word "woman" making Eve referring to Mary, and not these other Scriptures? You have none, but bias. Eve has nothing to do with Mary. She has as much to do with Mary as the woman in 1Sam.20:30.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Your assertion is ludicrous. The word "woman" is used 346 times in the Bible. Does it refer each time to Mary?
Does it refer to Mary in this case?

Leviticus 24:10 And the son of an Israelitish woman, whose father was an Egyptian, went out among the children of Israel: and this son of the Israelitish woman and a man of Israel strove together in the camp;

Why wouldn't it refer it to Mary?
Why wouldn't every verse with woman refer to Mary?

Judges 19:27 And her lord rose up in the morning, and opened the doors of the house, and went out to go his way: and, behold, the woman his concubine was fallen down at the door of the house, and her hands were upon the threshold.

1 Samuel 20:30 Then Saul's anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said unto him, Thou son of the perverse rebellious woman, do not I know that thou hast chosen the son of Jesse to thine own confusion, and unto the confusion of thy mother's nakedness?

What good reason do you have for your eisegesis of Genesis of twisting the word "woman" making Eve referring to Mary, and not these other Scriptures? You have none, but bias. Eve has nothing to do with Mary. She has as much to do with Mary as the woman in 1Sam.20:30.

Mary has for millenia always been considered a second Eve. Part of the restoration of Man for her willingness to obey. You can see it in all the early church writings especially with Ireneaus.