The papacy

[davidv]

Gee where do I start?

Yes, Paul was the true founder of Christianity.

False. Jesus founded Christianity.

His writings compose 7 books out of the NT. 6 others were written in his name. His theology is dominant and was the first to be written. Other than “John of Patmos Greece”, the other books including the Gospels are completely anonymous works. Ever wonder why the NT says the “Gospel according to Mark”? Not by, but according? I know you don’t believe me so why don’t you look it up. My own St. Jerome study bible admits the anonymous nature of the gospels. The fact that you do not know this is quite revealing.

The quantity of writing is immaterial.

{s(name removed by moderator)}.

 

[clmowry]

Any particular reason why you continue to list your religion as Catholic?

Chuck

Gee where do I start?

Yes, Paul was the true founder of Christianity. His writings compose 7 books out of the NT. 6 others were written in his name. His theology is dominant and was the first to be written. Other than “John of Patmos Greece”, the other books including the Gospels are completely anonymous works. Ever wonder why the NT says the “Gospel according to Mark”? Not by, but according? I know you don’t believe me so why don’t you look it up. My own St. Jerome study bible admits the anonymous nature of the gospels. The fact that you do not know this is quite revealing.

If you compare the qualities of Jesus to other son of God hero figures beforehand, you wll find striking similarities. Reference St. Justin Martyr in his first apology for an admittance of these facts. Jesus was very likely just a Jewish version of these myths. Any wonder why orthodox Jews rejected Jesus? They knew the story very well and rejected it wholesale.
Why is there nothing in contemporary history about “Jesus”. Nothing. Not one line written. Isn’t that odd? I wonder why?

" the old “conspiracy of the Romans’ and all that.” What does that mean?
The Roman branch of Christianity won the battle for orthodoxy. There were many competing sects. You know, I’m not making this stuff up. The Roman Emperor chose Roman Christianity for his own political reasons and the rest is history. Once the Roman sect of Christianity was given special privileges, the competing sects were eventually forced to concede and the conversions came in multitudes. The Christians were cruelest to their own kind.

Catholics and other Christians are told to be like little children and just accept what they are told. Sound familiar? Yes, too many religious people have very weak critical thinkiing skills. You yourself are proof of this. You didn’t even know that the Catholic Church admits the anonymous nature of the gospels! For sure, you have to find it out for yourself as you will never hear your pastor tell you this in a homily!

I “lost” my faith for one very good reason. No evidence and no reason to believe in any religion. I’m not going to a “hell” and neither are you.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Gee where do I start?

Yes, Paul was the true founder of Christianity. No, Jesus is the founder. That is why we practice CHRISTIANITY and not 'Paulism". His writings compose 7 books out of the NT. 6 others were written in his name. His theology is dominant and was the first to be written. Other than “John of Patmos Greece”, the other books including the Gospels are completely anonymous works. Ever wonder why the NT says the “Gospel according to Mark”? Not by, but according? I know you don’t believe me so why don’t you look it up. My own St. Jerome study bible admits the anonymous nature of the gospels. The fact that you do not know this is quite revealing. The fact that YOU ‘assume’ once again that because I do not accept your assertions that I somehow did not ‘know’ that these assertions exist is . . .quite revealing. Your bias is showing again as well as a veiled contempt for those who do not ‘agree’ with you based on your word. . .

If you compare the qualities of Jesus to other son of God hero figures beforehand, you wll find striking similarities. Reference St. Justin Martyr in his first apology for an admittance of these facts. Jesus was very likely just a Jewish version of these myths. Any wonder why orthodox Jews rejected Jesus? They knew the story very well and rejected it wholesale.
Why is there nothing in contemporary history about “Jesus”. Nothing. Not one line written. Isn’t that odd? I wonder why? Argument from silence? Is that what you have? Oh, the Jesus Seminar people really did a number on you, didn’t they?

" the old “conspiracy of the Romans’ and all that.” What does that mean?
The Roman branch of Christianity won the battle for orthodoxy. There were many competing sects. Many ‘competing sects?’ Really? Your definition of ‘sect’, s’il vous plait, m’sieu. You know, I’m not making this stuff up. The Roman Emperor chose Roman Christianity for his own political reasons and the rest is history. Once the Roman sect of Christianity was given special privileges, the competing sects were eventually forced to concede and the conversions came in multitudes. The Christians were cruelest to their own kind. OMG, another "Constantine and politics.’ What a . . .politicized and anachronistic picture you attempt to draw. . .

Catholics and other Christians are told to be like little children and just accept what they are told. Because YOU Say so???Sound familiar? No. . .wait, the silly argument sounds familiar as many pseudo-intellectuals attempt to paint this false picture as ‘truth.’ Yes, too many religious people have very weak critical thinkiing skills. You yourself are proof of this. You didn’t even know that the Catholic Church admits the anonymous nature of the gospels! For sure, you have to find it out for yourself as you will never hear your pastor tell you this in a homily! EXCUSE ME. If you want to criticize me, criticize something I really SAID, not your OPINION. How DARE you claim that “I didn’t know” something simply because I DO NOT CHOOSE TO ACCEPT YOUR CLAIM. I don’t accept the ‘anonymous nature of the gospels’ in the sense that YOU SPECIFICALLY STATED which was that they FOR SURE were not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke or John. POPE BENEDICT among others has not stated that the gospels were ‘anonymous’ so why should I believe you and some ‘scholars’ of the 20th century???

I “lost” my faith for one very good reason. No evidence and no reason to believe in any religion. I’m not going to a “hell” and neither are you.

I am very, very, VERY sorry for you, but while I certainly could never ‘put’ you into hell, YOU very certainly can place yourself there. I pray that you will turn back from a course which right now appears (appears, as I have no idea of the state of your soul which is between you and God, only of your written statements above) to be rather in that ‘downward’ direction. . .

 

[richardacombs]

Gee where do I start?

Yes, Paul was the true founder of Christianity. His writings compose 7 books out of the NT. 6 others were written in his name. His theology is dominant and was the first to be written. Other than “John of Patmos Greece”, the other books including the Gospels are completely anonymous works. Ever wonder why the NT says the “Gospel according to Mark”? Not by, but according? I know you don’t believe me so why don’t you look it up. My own St. Jerome study bible admits the anonymous nature of the gospels. The fact that you do not know this is quite revealing.

If you compare the qualities of Jesus to other son of God hero figures beforehand, you wll find striking similarities. Reference St. Justin Martyr in his first apology for an admittance of these facts. Jesus was very likely just a Jewish version of these myths. Any wonder why orthodox Jews rejected Jesus? They knew the story very well and rejected it wholesale.
Why is there nothing in contemporary history about “Jesus”. Nothing. Not one line written. Isn’t that odd? I wonder why?

" the old “conspiracy of the Romans’ and all that.” What does that mean?
The Roman branch of Christianity won the battle for orthodoxy. There were many competing sects. You know, I’m not making this stuff up. The Roman Emperor chose Roman Christianity for his own political reasons and the rest is history. Once the Roman sect of Christianity was given special privileges, the competing sects were eventually forced to concede and the conversions came in multitudes. The Christians were cruelest to their own kind.

Catholics and other Christians are told to be like little children and just accept what they are told. Sound familiar? Yes, too many religious people have very weak critical thinkiing skills. You yourself are proof of this. You didn’t even know that the Catholic Church admits the anonymous nature of the gospels! For sure, you have to find it out for yourself as you will never hear your pastor tell you this in a homily!

I “lost” my faith for one very good reason. No evidence and no reason to believe in any religion. I’m not going to a “hell” and neither are you.

The authorship of the Gospels and some letters of the NT is questioned by some Biblical scholars, but not all. There is great debate on this issue. For every handful of scholars that question authorship, an equal number assert that authorship.

Paul was not the founder of Christianity. He was an apostle and important primary theologian.

Jesus of Nazareth was the founder of Christianity. Flavius Josephus wrote specifically about Jesus and the early Christian movement in Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18, Chapter 3, Paragraph 3.

All orthodox Jews did not reject Jesus or the Christian movement. Jesus was a Jew as were his disciples, including Paul. Early Christians considered themselves a continuation and evolution of the Jewish religious system. As a matter of fact, Christians were not expelled from the Rabbinical Jewish faith until after the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70, and that was probably attributable to the fact that Jewish Christians had refused to aid the Jews in the rebellion against Rome and fled Jerusalem, when the Jews formally rebelled against Rome.

You’ve pretty well accepted distortions and misinformation as gospel. Perhaps, you should try to “find” your faith again,

 

[Sante]

Unfortunately, it is you that has accepted distortions and misinformation from extremely biased sources. The Church itself has always had an agenda that was plain to see during the sex abuse scandals. The abuse of children took a back a seat to protecting the image and reputation of the Catholic Church. How telling and pathetic.

I was a Catholic UNTIL I compared the claims of the church versus the critical analysis of the scriptures AND the history of the church over the last 1,880 years.

I’m not picking on Catholicism only. I lump all the major religions into the same category.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Unfortunately, it is you that has accepted distortions and misinformation from extremely biased sources. The Church itself has always had an agenda that was plain to see during the sex abuse scandals. The abuse of children took a back a seat to protecting the image and reputation of the Catholic Church. How telling and pathetic.

I was a Catholic UNTIL I compared the claims of the church versus the critical analysis of the scriptures AND the history of the church over the last 1,880 years.

I’m not picking on Catholicism only. I lump all the major religions into the same category.

Mmm-hhmm. **Our souces are biased and we must believe this because you say it is so. **

Why am I so very very not surprised that you brought up the sex scandal? Last I knew, the Catholic Church taught that sexual abuse was a sin. Therefore, those people who engaged in it --or who sought to deal with it wrongly–are sinners. They aren’t following Catholic teachings–they are denying and defying them.

So what’s the 'agenda?'

You see, the fact that you actually believe this sort of thing explains why you’ve fallen victim to real biased and incorrect teachings, Sante. I pity you.

 

[croix_de_fer]

It seems the only thing greater than Sante’s pseudo-intellectualism is his pride. Sante, your pride is writing out checks that your soul will not be able to back up.

 

[EquusNomVeritas]

That is just a small sampling of some Phd scholars who have studied the Bible critically. There are many more. Why don’t you look up Dr. Raymond Brown (Catholic) or Dr. Domenic Crossan (Catholic) if you think I’m only giving you non-Catholic scholars.
If you look at the Bible critically, you’ll see it in a very different light.

And by “critically” you mean “skeptically?” “With an eye to debunk?” “With an intent to create your own canon from whole clothe?”:yawn:

 

[Des]

The only difference is that I know why I don’t go to church anymore.

Leaving ‘Catholic’ up there as your religious affiliation is called intellectual dishonesty. You aren’t Catholic, you know you aren’t, yet you have it there to confuse the reader. You seriously expect any Catholic here to take you seriously when you immediately come to this forum and lie in your mini profile? Dream on.

And you’re not even in the same boat with the spiritually lazy Catholics you claim to be with since you readily admit to know why you are, where you are. So don’t even think for a second we’d fall for that rhetoric.

 

[diggerdomer]

That is just a small sampling of some Phd scholars who have studied the Bible critically. There are many more. Why don’t you look up Dr. Raymond Brown (Catholic) or Dr. Domenic Crossan (Catholic) if you think I’m only giving you non-Catholic scholars.
If you look at the Bible critically, you’ll see it in a very different light.

I am very familiar with both Fr. Brown and Dr. Crossan. Nothing they write contradicts the Catholic Church’s teaching on the papacy.

Do you disagree? Thanks.

 

[diggerdomer]

Totally agree with you. The Bible is the highest authority on God’s word.

Actually, I’d say Jesus Christ is the highest authority on God’s Word. Which in no way detracts from the authority of the Bible.

 

[diggerdomer]

Also, you are seriously misinformed if you think that the “Catholic” church predates the NT.

I disagree. I think anyone is seriously misinformed who thinks the Bible predates the Church. The writings of the New Testament were written anywhere from 20 to approximately 90 years after Jesus’ suffering, death, and resurrection.

Are we to believe that the “Church” (e.g. people of God, Christian community) did not exist until the final authoritative version of the New Testament was decided?

Really?

 

[diggerdomer]

Gee where do I start?

Yes, Paul was the true founder of Christianity. His writings compose 7 books out of the NT. 6 others were written in his name. His theology is dominant and was the first to be written. Other than “John of Patmos Greece”, the other books including the Gospels are completely anonymous works. Ever wonder why the NT says the “Gospel according to Mark”? Not by, but according? I know you don’t believe me so why don’t you look it up. My own St. Jerome study bible admits the anonymous nature of the gospels. The fact that you do not know this is quite revealing.

If you compare the qualities of Jesus to other son of God hero figures beforehand, you wll find striking similarities. Reference St. Justin Martyr in his first apology for an admittance of these facts. Jesus was very likely just a Jewish version of these myths. Any wonder why orthodox Jews rejected Jesus? They knew the story very well and rejected it wholesale.
Why is there nothing in contemporary history about “Jesus”. Nothing. Not one line written. Isn’t that odd? I wonder why?

" the old “conspiracy of the Romans’ and all that.” What does that mean?
The Roman branch of Christianity won the battle for orthodoxy. There were many competing sects. You know, I’m not making this stuff up. The Roman Emperor chose Roman Christianity for his own political reasons and the rest is history. Once the Roman sect of Christianity was given special privileges, the competing sects were eventually forced to concede and the conversions came in multitudes. The Christians were cruelest to their own kind.

Catholics and other Christians are told to be like little children and just accept what they are told. Sound familiar? Yes, too many religious people have very weak critical thinkiing skills. You yourself are proof of this. You didn’t even know that the Catholic Church admits the anonymous nature of the gospels! For sure, you have to find it out for yourself as you will never hear your pastor tell you this in a homily!

I “lost” my faith for one very good reason. No evidence and no reason to believe in any religion. I’m not going to a “hell” and neither are you.

According to Christians, Jesus and not Paul was the “founder” of Christianity. Sorry.

 

[diggerdomer]

I “lost” my faith for one very good reason. No evidence and no reason to believe in any religion. I’m not going to a “hell” and neither are you.

So sorry to hear. Care to share what the one very good reason was for losing your Christian faith?

Obviously, as you would I assume have to recognize, many people have strong evidence AND reason for believing in God.

 

[paul_c]

Gee where do I start?

Yes, Paul was the true founder of Christianity. His writings compose 7 books out of the NT. 6 others were written in his name. His theology is dominant and was the first to be written. Other than “John of Patmos Greece”, the other books including the Gospels are completely anonymous works. Ever wonder why the NT says the “Gospel according to Mark”? Not by, but according? I know you don’t believe me so why don’t you look it up. My own St. Jerome study bible admits the anonymous nature of the gospels. The fact that you do not know this is quite revealing.

If you compare the qualities of Jesus to other son of God hero figures beforehand, you wll find striking similarities. Reference St. Justin Martyr in his first apology for an admittance of these facts. Jesus was very likely just a Jewish version of these myths. Any wonder why orthodox Jews rejected Jesus? They knew the story very well and rejected it wholesale.
Why is there nothing in contemporary history about “Jesus”. Nothing. Not one line written. Isn’t that odd? I wonder why?

" the old “conspiracy of the Romans’ and all that.” What does that mean?
The Roman branch of Christianity won the battle for orthodoxy. There were many competing sects. You know, I’m not making this stuff up. The Roman Emperor chose Roman Christianity for his own political reasons and the rest is history. Once the Roman sect of Christianity was given special privileges, the competing sects were eventually forced to concede and the conversions came in multitudes. The Christians were cruelest to their own kind.

Catholics and other Christians are told to be like little children and just accept what they are told. Sound familiar? Yes, too many religious people have very weak critical thinkiing skills. You yourself are proof of this. You didn’t even know that the Catholic Church admits the anonymous nature of the gospels! For sure, you have to find it out for yourself as you will never hear your pastor tell you this in a homily!

I “lost” my faith for one very good reason. No evidence and no reason to believe in any religion. I’m not going to a “hell” and neither are you.

You have fallen prey to the secular musings of JD Crosnan and the like. They are not Catholic by any stretch of the imagination. have you looked closely at their methodology. They have a preconcieved notion of what is real in the bible and then systematically discard anything that doesn’t fit their views. First of all they eliminate anything that mentions miracles or Jesus’ divinity because they are secular and have ruled out the possibility that Jesus was the son of God before even starting their evaluation. . They have a view that Jesus talked in a certain fashion, so they eliminate any quotes that don’t fit the style they ascribe to him. Its all very self serving. They write a long of books and publish a lot of articles but these just expose their hypocracy.

Lets go through some of the specific things you note here:
→ Paul was the true founder of Christianity. He never claimed this. There is no documented data to support this. he was a great theologian and missionary. yes. But Acts clearly shows that he was send out on his missionary journeys by the church and that he was subservient to the Apostles.

→ The Gospels are anonymous. This is a stretch for works that can be documented to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John to the 1st century.

→ There is no written record of jesus in the secular history. Well, if they reported the truth about Jesus, like the Gospels and Epistles, you wouldn’t recognize those writings as secular, would you. but there are many Roman records of Christianity going back to the 1st and 2nd centuries.

→ the roman emporer chose Catholicism. Actually, if you do just a tiny bit of internet research, you will find that Constantine personally preferred Arianism to Catholicism. He was overruled by the Pope and the Council of Nicea.

→ Catholics aren’t allowed to think. This is hogwash. Catholicism has always valued reason and it won’t take you very long on this thread to realize it.

 

[BTTG]

Actually, I’d say Jesus Christ is the highest authority on God’s Word. Which in no way detracts from the authority of the Bible.

yes I agree

 

[Sante]

You are contradicting your own church. The gospels are indeed anonymous works. Your ignorance on such a basic fact is very revealing of your bias. Yet, you accuse critical scholars of the same. Read my post again. There is no contemporary secular documentation on Jesus. None. Look up the word contemporary if need be. I’m not talking about hearsay accounts written generations after his death. Also, some of the more famous passages are clear forgeries by known lying Christians such as Eusebius.
I should also point out that indeed I am a lapsed Catholic. One other poster accused me of deceit in my profile. In retrospect I should have put the word lapsed in front of catholic. However, the poster should know that once pabtized and confirmed the church considers you a catholic always. All I would have to do is call up a priest for confession and my “membership” is once again in good standing. Funny how I seem to know more about the church than your average poster on here. That’s probably why I’m at where I’m at.

 

[Sante]

Acts was written by the same author as Luke. Nothing in that book can be trusted. It just doesn’t’ add up. Too many errors and contradictions. Acts is a clear example of religious advertisement. Written for a clear purpose.
Yes, Paul invented Christianity. He was likely the only real person we know from the entire NT. The later gospels built on top of Paul by adding stories that were familiar to the pagans such as the virgin birth of a son of God, virgin births etc. The pagans bought into Christianity for one good reason. It was a story they were familiar with. The Jews recognized the sorry and rejected it. Why do you think Christianity had little success with the Jews?

The whole story of Jesus was a synthesis of pagan son of God hero figures with a Jewish twist thanks to Paul it’s author.

 

[clmowry]

Leaving ‘Catholic’ up there as your religious affiliation is called intellectual dishonesty. You aren’t Catholic, you know you aren’t, yet you have it there to confuse the reader. You seriously expect any Catholic here to take you seriously when you immediately come to this forum and lie in your mini profile? Dream on.

And you’re not even in the same boat with the spiritually lazy Catholics you claim to be with since you readily admit to know why you are, where you are. So don’t even think for a second we’d fall for that rhetoric.

Well “technically” unless having ever been Catholic is a complete lie, then Sante isn’t exactly lying. Sante would still be “Catholic”, a heretical Catholic, but Catholic none the less.

That said, I agree, putting Catholic down as your religion when you are a non-practicing Catholic who has come here simply to bash the faith is disingenuous at best.

Chuck

 

[Sante]

Thanks for the confirmation.
Yes, I was what you would consider a “good” Catholic. Not only did I attend Mass regularly, I was a reader and on the parish council.
However, when I starting reading works by critical scholars I gradually and slowly came to realize that it wasn’t true. I have been exposed to both sides of the discussion, so I can’t be accused of ignoring arguments for Christianity. At the end of the day the argument against Christianity won out by a lot. It really isn’t even close. Sorry.