Firstly, you are being angry again, and your use of continuously varying colors rather obfuscates your points, but that’s your choice I suppose. What I have stated is historical fact. The existence of the Gnostics, and revisionist Jews and others is plainly known. I haven’t misstated any of that. You may research that for yourself, or if you like you may contact the department of Theology and Religious Studies at any Catholic university to get clarification on that. By quoting the writings of Ignatius, you have confirmed that prior to the Roman Church there was more than one variety of the faith, which was my point. The fact that the people Ignatius wrote about were violently driven to extinction by the followers of Ignatius has no bearing on who was right. Yes, one prevailed, however through the use of some very un-Christlike actions. Eventually, what you follow did develop from that primordial mix, but it was done through a process of selection, based on which iteration of the many available arguments your church fathers chose to adopt. You are also quoting scripture a good deal from your interpretation of it. I could one for one give you other perfectly good explanations as well for each.
The “existence” of the Gnostics is not under dispute. The problem is that Gnosticism was condemned as heresy, just like all of Gnosticism’s spiritual decendents.
There was not “more than one variety of the faith”. Many of these “variaties” taught things that either directly contradicted other “variaties”-all variaties contradicted Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture; hence they we condenmed as heresy.
Heresy, BTW, the literal meaning of the word is “to pick out for one’s self.”
I have googled “revisionist Jews+first century” and there is nothing.
Your statement “that the people Ignatius wrote about were violently driven to extinction by the followers of Ignatius” is false. They were not “driven to extinction”, they started their own “churches”. You really should provide evidence when you make claims such as these.
There is historical evidence-as supported by actual records such as Roman trial records- that point to the fact that many Gnostic “Christians” turned in Cathoic Christians to Roman authorities during the Roman persecutions. The results of these trials lead to the unlawful executions of many Christians. Either by fire, or by being mauled by animals, crucifixtion, or beheading.
You might also note, that I haven’t offered any opinion as to what interpretation is right or which is wrong, so you have jumped the gun once again. That is the mark of a very defensive predisposition. Listen to me carefully. I didn’t say that the Gnotsics or revisionist Jews were right and you were wrong. I pointed out that your church developed through a process of evolution that involved selection of this gospel or that, this doctrine or the other and so on, in the same way that you noted that Protestants had. Your church fathers sorted through a variety of gospels and other writings that were either accepted or rejected, Whether they came to the right conclusions or the wrong ones is not my point. My point is that they went through the same process that you noted in regards to Protestants.
One, “evolution” implies that something was one thing and then changed into something other than what it was. This is false in terms of Catholic Christianity. Any supposed “evolutions” in doctrine were merely elaborations and improved understandings on that which was already believed-that which was already a part of the Deposit of the Faith. Practices are not the same as doctrines, they may change or done away with if need be, but doctrines do not change.
Now if it turns out that your church is right and everyone else is wrong, then what do you care about what the rest might follow? In that scenario, you should be okay, should you not? I would caution you in one regard though, even though I am not a Catholic or Protestant, I am a spiritual person, and you can discount that in any way you like. My caution is that your arrogance and anger toward those who see God differently from you may end up being a huge impediment to your own attainment of Heaven, making all of your certainty on the minutia of detail, fact doctrine and dogma a tragic waste of time in the end. Again, that is your business.
The corallary being that Catholics or Protesants aren’t spiritual people? How charitable…
That we should cease in our evangelization efforts just because we are sure of the truth is a low, selfish notion. If you knew a family member who was walking down the path to self-destruction would you not tell them? If you knew a piece of news that had the possibility of showering blessings beyond count would you keep that to yourself, or would you not want to share it with as many people as you could?
Our God is BOTH TRUTH and LOVE, He has a hard head AND a soft heart, as WE are suppose to have hard heads and soft hearts.
Will God give us a theology test to pass before entering heaven? No.
But He WILL ask us two things: have we loved, and have we OBEYED. Have we been FAITHFUL to His cammands and His grace, or have we done only what is right in our own eyes?
To love is good. To love blindly is foolish and irresponsible.
Today, we ALL eat bread or wafers, so we don’t “eat” His Flesh(literally, anyway), or drink His Blood!
Where did I say that I don’t follow the WHOLE Bible? And surprise!, I know the difference between redemption and salvation, and am well aware that salvation is a life long journey/process that does require faith! And every catholic service I have attended, including watching priests do communion for inmates, they use a wafer(DUH!) Do you follow the commands of Matthew 28:19-20? Can you say that youare atleast trying to honor the second greatest Commandment! And there are entirely too many arguments about Peter’s name! Sheeeesh! It is disingenuous to say that the ones who left were Protestants; they could have been what are known as catholics today, who didn’t trust Jesus or believe totally in Him! Was there a church established!