In the Church-State debate sidebars that have broken out on the fringes of the 2012 culture wars, a common liberal argument recurs:
"You can’t have it both ways. You can’t demand government stay out of religion, and then attempt to insert your religion into debates about government. The Wall of Separation between Church and State applies to church as well as state."
That is wrong for a couple of reasons. First, there is no such thing as “a wall of separation” in the constitution. Here is what the First Amendment says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.So, contrary to progressive arguments, it is legitimate and constitutional to bring one’s religious values to the public square. You can even bring them to the House of Representatives, the Senate and the Presidency, secure in the knowledge that you are a good American acting in accord with the US Constitution.
The second error in this statement is related to the first. The Constitution prohibits the federal government from establishing or prohibiting religion. It places no such strictures on citizens, so it doesn’t go both ways.
Consequently, We the People can have it both ways, freely exercising our religious rights in all public arenas while demanding government stay out of our business.
NY Times - Rick Santorum isn’t Crazy
262 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 262 of 262So how do you explain going to Church on Sunday instead of the Sabbath?
1st Century Christians did both! As they were converting their fellow Jews (and later Gentiles) to faith in Jesus, they attended the synagogue on Saturday, and those they persuaded with the Gospel in synagogue met in fellowship with other believers the next day (Sunday).
In time, it simply became traditional for Christians to congregate in fellowship on Sunday.
[Galatians 4:10, 1 Corinthians 16:2, Romans 14:5-6, Colossians 2:16-17]
Do you celebrate Easter?
Of course. Traditionally this is when Baptists perform the Lord's Supper (Communion). Some Baptist churches do it every Sunday, most do it only on Easter Sunday to retain its context and significance.
Kevin,
Yes you did mention the Book of Revelation in your bizarre "Babylon = codeword for Rome" non sequitur. And yes indeed, the Book of Revelation is a 1st Century Christian work. But your argument that "Mystery - Babylon the Great - The Mother of Harlots" means Rome is as yours as it is non-sensical.
Now skitter on. The adult heterosexuals are having a discussion.
C'mon, Pat! Adult hetersosexual WHAT? Dispel the mystery already, it's such an old, tired Saturday Night Live skit!
Really, seriously, can anyone make a case that beamish is definitely at least pretending to be a man? Or a woman? I mean, I know that this is the internet and we can't be sure about that anyone is what he or she claims to be, but I don't even see a claim on beamish's part. The only thing that makes me suspect it is a dude is that it is obnoxious as hell, but I have corresponded with women who were just as bad as beamish. I'd like to get off this, but its refusal to dispel the mystery is very annoying. I want to tell it to man up and apologize if it is a man, and in the event that it is a she, not a he, to at least appeal once again to a Christian ethic of charity. It's a simple thing really, and easy to take for granted, but is a minimal courtesy to put yourself forward as being of your own gender rather than keep it a secret. Gender roles play a very basic in how we treat one another, and to refuse to assume one is a real failure in etiquette.
Who was the first Baptist, and how did this religion propagate itself?
The first Baptist was of course John the Baptist, Jesus' cousin. Jesus' ministry on Earth began with his baptism in the Jordan River and thusly Baptist churches baptize their new members upon a confession of faith in Jesus as a symbol of the beginning of their new life (as born-again) to begin their own evangelistic mission sharing the Gospel with others in their lives.
Who were the early personalities, and what were their writings, or the historical writings that tell us this is so?
Baptists trace their ideological roots to the "Anabaptists" (who never called themselves that, as that is a Catholic pejorative) - those that believed baptism means full immersion of one who has confessed faith in Jesus Christ rather than shaking drops of water on an infant that has made no confession of faith in anything whatsoever.
What did the early Church do before it had the New Testament?
They had the Greek Septuagint, and of course the witness testimony of Apostles (those that saw the resurrected Jesus firsthand - several scores of them on the Day of Pentecost alone!). They taught in synagogues, and of course outlined how Jesus' life, death, and ressurection fulfilled prophecies in the Greek Septuagint (Old Testament).
And of course, the early Christians wrote and shared the New Testament books at this time.
Regardless, the first compiled Bible combining what are now the New Testament Gospels and Epistles into one book was canonized by Marcion of Sinope between 130 and 140 AD, roughly 60 to 70 years after the martyrdom of Peter, Paul, Mark, and other Apostles. There's not much of a gap of time there between living Apostles and a canonized collection of their writings. Marcion's Bible was a collection of the Pauline Epistles (except for Hebrews) and the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and John. Marcion was deemed a "heretic" for his rejection of the Greek Septuagint (and subsequently the prophetic connections to Jesus it contains) because of a Gentile belief that the God that sent Jesus was not the God of the Israelites. Nonetheless, Marcion's collection inspired others to set out the canon of the Christian Bible we have today combining both Old and New Testaments to retain the tradition that Jesus was the fulfilment of Jewish Messianic prophecies.
Kevin,
I have a penis. No, I won't let you suck it.
I bind unto myself today
The strong Name of the Trinity,
By invocation of the same
The Three in One and One in Three.
I bind this today to me forever
By power of faith, Christ’s incarnation;
His baptism in Jordan river,
His death on Cross for my salvation;
His bursting from the spiced tomb,
His riding up the heavenly way,
His coming at the day of doom
I bind unto myself today.
I bind unto myself the power
Of the great love of cherubim;
The sweet ‘Well done’ in judgment hour,
The service of the seraphim,
Confessors’ faith, Apostles’ word,
The Patriarchs’ prayers, the prophets’ scrolls,
All good deeds done unto the Lord
And purity of virgin souls.
I bind unto myself today
The virtues of the star lit heaven,
The glorious sun’s life giving ray,
The whiteness of the moon at even,
The flashing of the lightning free,
The whirling wind’s tempestuous shocks,
The stable earth, the deep salt sea
Around the old eternal rocks.
I bind unto myself today
The power of God to hold and lead,
His eye to watch, His might to stay,
His ear to hearken to my need.
The wisdom of my God to teach,
His hand to guide, His shield to ward;
The word of God to give me speech,
His heavenly host to be my guard.
Against the demon snares of sin,
The vice that gives temptation force,
The natural lusts that war within,
The hostile men that mar my course;
Or few or many, far or nigh,
In every place and in all hours,
Against their fierce hostility
I bind to me these holy powers.
Against all Satan’s spells and wiles,
Against false words of heresy,
Against the knowledge that defiles,
Against the heart’s idolatry,
Against the wizard’s evil craft,
Against the death wound and the burning,
The choking wave, the poisoned shaft,
Protect me, Christ, till Thy returning.
Christ be with me, Christ within me,
Christ behind me, Christ before me,
Christ beside me, Christ to win me,
Christ to comfort and restore me.
Christ beneath me, Christ above me,
Christ in quiet, Christ in danger,
Christ in hearts of all that love me,
Christ in mouth of friend and stranger.
I bind unto myself the Name,
The strong Name of the Trinity,
By invocation of the same,
The Three in One and One in Three.
By Whom all nature hath creation,
Eternal Father, Spirit, Word:
Praise to the Lord of my salvation,
Salvation is of Christ the Lord.
There is no other God,
nor ever was, nor will be,
than God the Father unbegotten,
without beginning,
from whom is all beginning,
the Lord of the universe,
as we have been taught;
and His son Jesus Christ,
whom we declare to have always
been with the Father, spiritually and
ineffably begotten by the Father
before the beginning of the world,
before all beginning;
and by Him are made all things
visible and invisible.
He was made man, and,
having defeated death,
was received into heaven by the Father;
and He hath given Him all
power over all names in heaven,
on earth, and under the earth,
and every tongue shall confess
to Him that Jesus Christ is Lord and God,
in whom we believe, and whose advent
we expect soon to be,
judge of the living and of the dead,
who will render to every man
according to his deeds; and
He has poured forth upon us
abundantly the Holy Spirit,
the gift and pledge of immortality,
who makes those who believe
and obey sons of God and
joint heirs with Christ;
and Him do we confess and adore,
one God in the Trinity of the Holy Name.
Lá Fhéile Pádraig Sona Daoibh
beamish,
All right dude, more detail than I required joined with a restriction that was about as necessary as demanding that I refrain from eating a bowl of cockroaches, but fine. Now, I must insist that you stay consistent with this role of "adult heterosexual male" that you have accepted for this thread. Since you have claimed to have male genitalia, I will say something to you that will certainly result in your saying that I continue to be obsessed with them (indicating, I hope, just how much I am concerned with your childish taunting): REACH DOWN, FIND A PAIR, AND APOLOGIZE, MAN! If you have any balls at all underneath that penis you profess to have you will man up and do that so I can do the same and then proceed with the summary and assessment that will certainly play an indispensable role in your becoming an educated man skilled in critical reasoning and informed, perhaps for the first time in your life, about that with which you have taken such great pains to disagree with such a vain show of force.
Finntann,
Thank you for posting the breastplate of St Patrick. I have tried to memorize it many times, but it is so long that I inevitably flub a line when I try to recite without a written copy at hand. It is so lyrical that I fell in love with it the first time I encountered it. It is one of my all time favorite prayers.
Something tells me Anonymous is even more upset with me than with beamish now. Sorry about that. I hope that the gender confusion and corresponding anatomical discussions will end. For my part, I think it will because I have said my peace.
Beamish,
Then you go to synagogue as well? Jesus and his Apostles did. After Our Lord's Ascension they did meet on Sundays, but they also still went to Synagogue.
Also, they celebrated Passover, so you do as well?
You trace it back to Marcion and John the Baptist...
"That Marcion, for example, did not have the account of John the Baptist's announcement of Jesus as Messiah or the story of Jesus' temptation is almost certainly to be accounted for by Marcion's omission of these passages. Not only are they inconsistent with Marcion's theological position but (more important) they are also deeply imbedded in the Synotpic tradition, and to explain them as late additions to a Gospel which was already dependent (as Marcion's was) upon that tradition is next to impossible." John Knox, Marcion and the New Testament, at 95.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/info/marcion-layman.html
Thanks for clarifying. This is a very old controversy.
When I click the link to the comments from the post in western hero blog, it now takes me to the first 200 comments with no link to anything more recent. If it weren't for my having an old comment box tab open that I forgot about with a "newest" link I would not be able to read anything from 201-217, so it might be time to move this discussion to another thread or another blog. If it is agreeable to everyone involved I can host the continuation of the debate at Catholibertarian.com as long as beamish behaves himself. I am even willing to do the summary I offered (though I will not be taking great pains to be as critical of my own part or as charitable to beamish's as I would have been if I got the apology I demanded).
Kevin,
You have many bizarre beliefs beyond your Catholic polytheism, particularly your obsession with my genitalia and your belief that you will be both prosecutor and judge in your desired inquisition of this thread. But perhaps the most absurd belief you've expressed here so far is that I have anything to apologize to you about and that an apology to you will miraculously transform you from a Biblically and historically illiterate twit into someone suited to participate in this discussion or someone who could escape God's judgment in your judging the Christian humility of others. This I can humbly forgive you, being that you are after all Biblically illiterate and unfamiliar with the workings of the religion of Christianity. You seem to feel you have wronged me, but your chest-thumping sense of pride requires of me to bow to you before you will attempt to make amends for your Biblical and historical illiteracy and unsolicited homosexual advances towards me.
I humbly submit that your problems are much larger than not being taken seriously in this discussion.
Can we call a truce here, and take Kevin's suggestion and pick it up at Catholibertarian, after he has had a chance to summarize?
I'd like to get off the subject of genitalia and back to the topic at hand, which has a fascinating history.
So, can we continue at Kevin's?
Silverfiddle,
I only mentioned Marcion because he is the first among early Christians to attempt to canonize New Testament scriptures, but mainly to show that copies of every book that became collected into the New Testament were in wide circulation among Christian congregations in Marcion's time whether they were universally accepted or not. That's within 40 years of the last of them being originally written. Anyway, Marcion's idea to create a Christian canon perhaps inspired others to do so, particularly those of the evangelical tradition that wished to correct Marcion's error and show both the Scriptures Christ Himself was refering to and the prophecies that foretold the coming of Christ. This is why we have both Old and New Testament in one Bible today.
As for tracing back to John the Baptist and his declaration the Jesus was the Messiah, many of Jesus' followers were from John's sect and began to follow Jesus upon this announcement. One of the remarkable things about Peter is that he came to the conclusion that Jesus was the promised Messiah in a different manner entirely, though he no doubt knew second-hand of John the Baptist's proclamation from some of the other Apostles.
Can we call a truce here, and take Kevin's suggestion and pick it up at Catholibertarian, after he has had a chance to summarize?
I'm somehow reminded of a passage from St. Sun Tzu. ;)
I do not have any pretentions that Kevin's fortifications will hold under scrutiny in any venue, either here or in the Potemkin village he's building.
I'd like to get off the subject of genitalia and back to the topic at hand, which has a fascinating history.
I'm here for the history too.
So, can we continue at Kevin's?
If I'm allowed to ignore him there, sure.
Sorry, Kurt, but in my benighted illiterate nincompoopery it looks to me like Mr. Beamish has comtemptuously rejected my hospitality. My request that he behave like a civilized human being there if he couldn't bring himself to act like a Christian was apparently still too much to ask. Offer refused, offer rescinded. Too bad. It would have been a fruitful discussion. Now I have a new rule for Catholibertarian.com - No Asshats Allowed. That means beamish is not welcome there PERIOD. That means it wouldn't be necessary for me to wait for him to step out of line before refusing to allow him to pollute my bandwidth with his vile presence. I would have liked to have continued to participate at Western Hero, but I cannot feel welcome anywhere he squats.
BTW, Kurt, it really should go without saying, but I won't let it - you are still abdundantly welcome at Catholibertaian.com anytime (now more than ever). Your contributions there to date have been delightful, and I hope to see more from you there in the future.
OK Beamish, glad you were not tracing your roots back to Marcion. That would have been a fun one for you to defend.
So Christian tradition came first, then came the Christian writings. It was a struggle sorting the made up stuff from the divinely inspired.
Evangeglical Biblical scholar F.F. Bruce provides a short, scholarly explanation
http://www.bible-researcher.com/bruce1.html
I will stop by Kevin, but I am woefully ill-equipped to jump into those conversations.
Kevin,
I've been prematurely banned from far more hospitable venues than your Christians-are-icky clubhouse. Needless to say, I have no doubt your self-delusions extend to even convincing yourself you could participate in a neutral discussion in which you're setting yourself up as scorekeeper. You are, perhaps, too absurd to recognize even how absurd you are.
I did not refuse your offer to point out your absurdities in any venue. It isn't me, after all, that is making you look stupid.
SF,
Well you got your over 200 record beaten I grant you that. I will most certainly not return to this actual thread and look forward to good conversation on others that do not include the words "Catholic" or "Santorum".
Damien Charles
OK Beamish, glad you were not tracing your roots back to Marcion. That would have been a fun one for you to defend.
LOL! Nope, the roots go back to John the Baptist, proclaiming the Messiah has come and preparing the way for His return and such. Basically the evangelical tradition encapsulated, pointing the way to Christ.
So Christian tradition came first, then came the Christian writings. It was a struggle sorting the made up stuff from the divinely inspired.
Yep. Marcion's attempt at creating a New Testament canon pretty much created a backlash (and several dozen different alternative canons) before it was all pretty much nailed down. The evangelicals pretty much won this contest.
An interesting way to look at the development of the New Testament and the history of the early Christian church is to place the NT books into the chronological order they were first written. This would yield a listing that looks like this:
Paul's Epistle to the Galatians (48 AD)
Paul's 1st Epistle to the Thessalonians (51 AD)
Paul's 2nd Epistle to the Thessalonians (51 AD)
The Gospel of Mark (sometime between 48 - 55 AD)
Paul's 1st Epistle to the Corinthians (55 AD)
Paul's 2nd Epistle to the Corinthians (56 AD)
Paul's Epistle to the Romans (57 AD)
The Book of James (sometime between 50 - 60 AD)
The Gospel of Luke (sometime between 57 - 62 AD)
Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians (sometime between 60 - 62 AD)
Paul's Epistle to the Phillipians (sometime between 60 - 62 AD)
Paul's Epistle to the Colossians (sometime between 60 - 62 AD)
Paul's Epistle to Philemon of Colossae (sometime between 60 - 62 AD)
Luke's accounting of the Acts of the Apostles (sometime between 62 - 63 AD)
Paul's Pastoral Epistle to Titus (63 AD)
Paul's 1st Pastoral Epistle to Timothy (63 AD)
Paul's 2nd Pastoral Epistle to Timothy (64 AD)
[continued]
Peter's 1st Epistle (to the churches of Asia Minor) (sometime between 64 - 65 AD)
Peter's 2nd Epistle (sometime between 65 - 67 AD) *this Epistle quotes the Book of Jude extensively, and refers to prior existing New Testament books*
The Epistle to the Hebrews (author unknown) (sometime between 50 - 68 AD)
The Gospel of Matthew (sometime between 65 - 70 AD)
The Book of Jude (sometime between 65 - 67 AD, earlier date likely due to Peter quoting it in his 2nd Epistle)
The Gospel of John (early 90s AD)
1st John (90's AD)
2nd John (90's AD)
3rd John (90's AD)
The Book of Revelation (95 -97 AD)
---
This creates quite a timeline to plug in historical references such as Nero burning Rome in 64 AD and the destruction of the Temple of Solomon in Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 AD.
Plugging historical dates in also make's Kevin's "Babylon = codeword for Rome" argument silly, as Mark established the Church of Alexandria in 42 AD, the Book of Acts (62 - 63 AD) speaks of the state of Christianity in Rome [Acts 28:31] (which places Christian congregations in Rome prior to Peter's arrival and subsequent death there in 67 AD...) and also Kevin's "Babylon = codeword for Rome" absurdity drawn from his bizarre interpretation of the book of Revelation has such alleged "code" established some 50 years after Peter allegedly used it in his 1st Epistle.
I will just note here again the existence of Christian congregations in Rome prior to Peter going there in 67 AD by Paul's Epistle to them in 57 AD (and Paul accounts there that he'd desired visiting them "for years") and Luke's record of the Acts of the Apostles has Christians in Rome at the time of writing this book in 62 - 63 AD. We also know from Acts that Peter believed his primary mission was to evangelize Jews (charging Paul with evangelizing Gentiles) and that Peter spent quite some time imprisoned in Jerusalem for doing so.
Christianity got to Rome before Peter did. Peter did not establish this pre-existing congregation. Even if the doctrine of apostolic succession were not Biblically indefensible, it absolutely cannot turn the Church of Rome into a congregation founded by the Apostle Peter. The Catholic claim of apostolic succession from Peter is unmitigatable nonsense.
I don't know how the "evangelicals won" when it was the Catholic Church that established the canon...
And now we're back to square one, with you refusing the Babylon reference, which you must to sustain your argument, which has historical evidence and writings supporting Kevin's side.
Also, apostolic succession is not nonsense. It too, is documented by historical writings, and it starts with Christ putting Peter in charge in the Bible.
So we're back to square one.
"The partisan, when he is engaged in a dispute, cares nothing about the rights of the question, but is anxious only to convince his hearers of his own assertions."
~ Socrates (470-399 B. C. )
Change the word "partisan" to "MONOMANIAC," and you have defined the essence of this shameless exhibition of verbal diarrhea coupled with moral imbecility and intellectual constipation.
People who think they're smart are rarely correct. Vehement verbosity run amok is hardly a sign of superior intelligence.
~ FreeThinke
A few points.
Apostolic succession does not hinge upon who started the Christian community in Rome or when Peter got there.
John refers to Rome as Rome in the Acts of the apostles because he is telling a straightforward story story, unlike what he is doing in Revelations.
Peter used "Babylon" for Rome in his first epistle because it was a letter to be hand delivered and the use of the known-at-the-time code word protected his whereabouts.
I don't know how the "evangelicals won" when it was the Catholic Church that established the canon...
While it is true that the Catholic Church has no evangelical interest in leading people to Christ (prefering to lead people into Papism), the arguments carried by the Christian churches that were subsumed by the authority of Constantine did preserve the evangelical tradition that the Old Testament prophecies of a coming Messiah were fulfilled by Jesus and that the scriptures Jesus refered to extensively were important. Catholicism then, for centuries, set about a course of persecuting and exterminating anyone who sought to make the Bible available to people in their own language. Fortunately there were both Christian churches that never subsumed themselves to Roman authority at any time and Protestant churches which broke away from Roman authority that were successful (at great and bloody cost) at preventing a Roman monopoly upon the Christian texts, thus preserving Christianity while the Roman Pontifex Maximus continued to expand its polytheistic pantheon to include even recently African animist spirit deities as "saints."
And now we're back to square one, with you refusing the Babylon reference, which you must to sustain your argument, which has historical evidence and writings supporting Kevin's side.
We never left square one. The Apostle Peter's reference to Babylon in his 1st Epistle is not a code. He actually was in Babylon (Egypt) near Alexandria with the Apostle Mark (who founded the Church of Alexandria in 42 AD. We can glean from historical references and the dates the New Testament books were written and the information they contain. We know, for example, that the Apostle Mark served as the Apostle Peter's translator in his journeys, and that much of Mark's Gospel contains eyewitness accounts that only Peter was present for. We know (from Coptic documentation) that Peter went to Alexandria and departed with Mark (serving as his translator). We know Mark thusly accompanied Peter in his journeys back to Jerusalem, then to Corinth, then to the churches in Asia Minor, and then to Rome where he was executed. We know from the book of Acts that Peter spent time imprisoned in Jerusalem for preaching the Gospel to Jews. We know from the ecclesiological discussions between Peter and Paul in the Book of Acts that Peter felt his mission was to evangelize the Jews into Christianity, while Paul felt his mission was to evangelize the Gentiles. We know that Peter's first and only trek to Rome resulted in his imprisonment and execution. We know that a Christian community existed at Rome well before either Peter or Paul got there. We know that Peter and Mark accompanied Paul on his third and final trip to Rome.
[continued]
Why doesn't Peter mention that he is with Paul as he does mention that he is with Mark in his 1st Epistle? Simple - he wasn't in Rome with Paul. This is important because Paul HAD ALREADY sent epistles to the congregations in Corinth and Rome and the various churches in Asia Minor well before Peter sent his 1st Epistle to them from Babylon (near Alexandria and Mark's church). Peter's first and only trip to Rome was Paul's third and last trip to Rome. And we know the Christian congregation at Rome formed YEARS before Paul himself ever took his first trip there.
Also, apostolic succession is not nonsense. It too, is documented by historical writings, and it starts with Christ putting Peter in charge in the Bible.
The Church of Rome claims its authority via apostolic succession from Peter, just as the Church of Alexandria claims its authority via apostolic succession from Mark. We have clear evidence that Mark indeed founded the congregation at Alexandria. We have clear evidence the congregation at Rome pre-existed Peter's arrival and subsequent execution there by at least 25 to 30 years. The congregation at Rome existed while Peter was still in prison in Jerusalem. They existed before Paul sent an epistle to them. The Church of Rome was not founded by Peter, irrespective of the issue of whether or not Jesus put God or Peter in charge of the full body of the Christian church as a whole. Even Catholic "official" history (revised, manufactured, confabulated, and reconstituted as needed as it is) contains linear breaks in the listings of Popes from the posthumous nominated of the Apostle Peter to today's Hitlerjugend Ratzinger. The Biblically indefensible concept of apostolic succession can't even be imposed on the Church of Rome due to various times over the centuries where "who is the Pope and who was the Pope" was not a decided question. Formosus, for example.
So we're back to square one.
Nope, we never left square one.
John refers to Rome as Rome in the Acts of the apostles because he is telling a straightforward story story, unlike what he is doing in Revelations.
Luke wrote the Acts of the Apostles.
Peter used "Babylon" for Rome in his first epistle because it was a letter to be hand delivered and the use of the known-at-the-time code word protected his whereabouts.
Nope. Peter said he was in Babylon (Egypt, near the church of Alexandria) with Mark in his 1st Epistle because that is where he was.
And we are back to square one, proving my earlier comment that such arguments are futile.
Aside from the fact that your supporting argument contains as many holes and assumptions as you attribute to the Roman Catholic one.
Babylon itself (in Iraq) was in ruins the time of the writings, Babylon in Egypt was a Roman militaryfortress, an unlikely location for Peter, not to mention. There are far more scholarly arguments for 'babylon' being either Rome or Jerusalem than any other location.
The books you cite as canon were not established as such until relatively recently; Council of Trent (1546), Thirty-Nine Articles (1563), Westminster Confession of Faith (1647), Synod of Jerusalem (1672), etc. Not to mention the fact that there is a wide variety of books that are considered to be canonical by one sect and not another.
So when you want to argue over the bible, the first question would have to be which one?
Cheers!
Failure to affirm
Makes you lower than a worm.
Incessantly debunk,
And you're a lousy skunk.
Yet, always playing ostrich
Will put you in the Lost Niche.
Put your thoughts in airless vaults;
Entertain no hero's faults,
And your grasp of what is real
Fails with each loved false ideal.
Deride, debunk and you are sunk,
Yet allegiance to sweet lies
Forms a climate where Good dies.
~ FreeThinke
Finntann,
So when you want to argue over the bible, the first question would have to be which one?
Irrelevant. The canon and texts recognized by the polytheistic religion of Catholicism as the "New Testament" adequately make my case when their authorship is placed in chronological order and the historical information contained within them is extrapolated to find who of the Apostles was where, and when.
And we are back to square one, proving my earlier comment that such arguments are futile.
Only in the Catholic "who cares if we're full of shit, we have the torture rack" sense. For Christians among sects that Catholics persecuted for not bowing to Roman pretentions to authority over Christianity, the argument is not futile outside and free of aforementioned torture racks.
Unless, of course you wish to present a Biblical case for polytheistic Catholics placing Christians in torture racks or burning them at the stake or exhuming and desecrating their corpses, preferably if you would connect such an argument to Peter's apostolic authorization for them to do so.
Just checking in to see how things were progressing. It is regrettable that the discussion could not have been continued over at Catholibertarian.
Well Beamish, If you believe Eusebius, Dionysius of Corinth, Tertullian, Clement, Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus (who Mentions that Linus succeeded Peter), Peter of Alexandria are all lying, then there is nothing I can say or cite that will sway you.
If only those millions and billions who accept these historical events were as smart as you and your narrow kook fringe sect!
And you a published scholar, one blog blob at a time! No respect, (adjusting his tie nervously) Beamish don't get no respect!
Teresa:
Things went south very fast between Beamish and Kevin.
It's a waste of time anyway. Every thing he says is right, while every citation I bring is wrong, even as he quotes his childhood Sunday school teacher as Gospel.
It's a waste of time. My only purpose in rebutting him was to leave links to authoritative and scholarly information in case some poor soul wandered in.
Can't just let bs stand.
Here's a good article on infant Baptism
1. O God, our help in ages past,
our hope for years to come,
our shelter from the stormy blast,
and our eternal home.
2. Under the shadow of thy throne,
still may we dwell secure;
sufficient is thine arm alone,
and our defense is sure.
3. Before the hills in order stood,
or earth received her frame,
from everlasting, thou art God,
to endless years the same.
4. A thousand ages, in thy sight,
are like an evening gone;
short as the watch that ends the night,
before the rising sun.
5. Time, like an ever rolling stream,
bears all who breathe away;
they fly forgotten, as a dream
dies at the opening day.
6. O God, our help in ages past,
our hope for years to come;
be thou our guide while life shall last,
and our eternal home.
~ Isaac Watts
Here is a link to that evil pagan catalog known as The Catholic Catechism
It's searchable!
Here is a sample of how many hits various topics are mentioned in that book.
Bible, Scripture, Old/New Testament: Over 100
Prayer: 329
Jesus: Over 500
Christ: Over 1000
Pope or Pontiff: 26
Rome: 10
Vatican: 16
Tradition: 116
Bible, Scripture, Old/New Testament: Over 100
Prayer: 329
Here's more about Scripture and Tradition, for those looking for the other side of Beamish's arguments:
Scripture and Tradition
Some keep the Sabbath going to Church
I keep it staying at home ––
With a Bobolink for a Chorister ––
And an Orchard for a Dome.
Some keep the Sabbath in Surplice ––
I just spread my Wings ––
And instead of ringing the bell for Church ––
Our little Sexton sings.
God preaches –– a noted clergyman! ––
And the sermon is never long.
So, instead of getting to Heaven at last ––
I'm going all along.
~ Emily Dickinson (1830-1886)
1. For all the saints, who from their labors rest,
who thee by faith before the world confessed,
thy name, O Jesus, be forever blest.
Alleluia, Alleluia!
2. Thou wast their rock, their fortress, and their might;
thou Lord, their captain in the well-fought fight;
thou in the darkness drear, their one true light.
Alleluia, Alleluia!
3. O may thy soldiers, faithful, true, and bold,
fight as the saints who nobly fought of old,
and win with them the victor's crown of gold.
Alleluia, Alleluia!
4. O blest communion, fellowship divine!
We feebly struggle, they in glory shine;
yet all are one in thee, for all are thine.
Alleluia, Alleluia!
5. And when the strife is fierce, the warfare long,
steals on the ear the distant triumph song,
and hearts are brave again, and arms are strong.
Alleluia, Alleluia!
6. From earth's wide bounds, from ocean's farthest coast,
through gates of pearl streams in the countless host,
singing to Father, Son, and Holy Ghost:
Alleluia, Alleluia!
~ William How
"All the miseries and evils which men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible."
- Noah Webster
'“God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this. I also believe that, without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel”
~ Benjamin Frankin
“ Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.”
~ John Jay
Well Beamish, If you believe Eusebius, Dionysius of Corinth, Tertullian, Clement, Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus (who Mentions that Linus succeeded Peter), Peter of Alexandria are all lying, then there is nothing I can say or cite that will sway you.
Perhaps Peter's greatest miracle was founding and leading a Christian congregation at Rome 30 years before he arrived there, or founding the polytheistic religion of Catholicism 246 years after his death, only to become the first "Pope" of it 456 years after his death.
If only those millions and billions who accept these historical events were as smart as you and your narrow kook fringe sect!
Nothing wrong with actually believing the Bible.
Beamish, I do believe you are intelectually challenged.
"Irrelevant. The canon and texts recognized by the polytheistic religion of Catholicism as the "New Testament" adequately make my case when their authorship is placed in chronological order and the historical information contained within them is extrapolated to find who of the Apostles was where, and when."
I'm not arguing Catholic-Protestant. What I am saying is that the books you cite are translations of translations, each a little different than the other. Not to mention that the books you list as canon are not the full extent of Christian or even Scriptural writings.
Even if the gospels were directly written by the hand of god, I'd challenge you to find a copy.
No what we are left with are flawed copies made by man. each rendition twisted by the writers own prejudices and beliefs. Which is why the many versions are different from each other, translation is never an exact science.
1 John 5-7
American Standard:
For there are three who bear witness, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and the three agree in one.
King James:
For there are three that bear record in Heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one.
And the fact that it doesn't appear in any manuscript earlier than the early middle ages.
So I'll ask you again, which one is the literal word of god, and why?
Careful, FinnTann, you're overfilling the thimble...
And Beamish, We can all tell that you have not read the early church fathers, but rather you are cribbing anti-Catholic polemics.
You're putting on an amusing display, an anonymous man in the blogisphere playing at anti-papist theology. As I said, it's amusing, kinda like watching a dog standing on its hind legs and barking along to Sinatra.
I'm not arguing Catholic-Protestant. What I am saying is that the books you cite are translations of translations, each a little different than the other. Not to mention that the books you list as canon are not the full extent of Christian or even Scriptural writings.
They are, however, the texts canonized as divinely inspired into the New Testament, and the information contained therein clearly shows that Rome had a congregation of Christians that recieved an epistle and two visits from Paul before Peter ever got there. Either you believe the Bible and the historical accounts it contains concerning the existence of Rome's population of Christians prior to Paul's and Peter's arriving there, or you're Catholic.
Catholics have so much vested in the mythology of Peter actually founding the Church of Rome and thusly that the Church of Rome is Supreme over all of Christendom that inconvenient facts such as Peter himself recording that he was in Egypt with Mark at the time he wrote his first epistle and records of Coptic Christian history at the Church of Alexandria confirming this. Even the Apostle Peter himself must be declared a liar in order for Hitlerjugend Ratzinger to claim apostolic succession from him.
Even if the doctrine of apostolic succession was not Biblically indefensible and even if it were not purely mythological that Peter founded the Church of Rome, there is no unbroken line from Hitlerjugend Ratzinger back to Peter.
Given that the Roman Catholic Church derives its pretentions to authority from an imagined connection to Peter, any recorded break in that line is sufficient to nullify its preposterous claim of apostolic succession from the date of that break onward. Even if the doctrine of apostolic succession were not a farce, and even if Peter somehow magically created the Roman Catholic Church 246 years after he died, I think it's pretty safe to say that by the time Catholics dug up the corpse of Pope Formosus to desecrate it we're no longer talking about a religion the Apostle Peter would have partaken in. The Roman apostolic succession argument probably loses its validity with the conflicting and controversial claims to the Bishop of Rome title in the early 3rd Century (Antipope Hippolytus...) but is totally voided by such rivalries and enmities resulting in the desecration of Pope Formosus' corpse in 897 AD. *IF* if were possible to validate the doctrine of apostolic succession with anything written in the New Testament about the authority of churches founded by Apostles (hint: there is nothing there) the Church of Rome stopped meeting its own criteria for such 1,115 years ago.
Silverfiddle,
You're putting on an amusing display, an anonymous man in the blogisphere playing at anti-papist theology. As I said, it's amusing, kinda like watching a dog standing on its hind legs and barking along to Sinatra.
And you're playing the role of the rationality-fearing Catholic ready to drop into worship of a Mary-shaped water stain quite admirably.
LOL
You just don't get it, do you?
"They are, however, the texts canonized as divinely inspired into the New Testament"
Canonized by whom? and which Canon? There are many.
The Protestant Bible (Old and New Testament) consists of 66 books, the Catholic one 73, and the Orthodox one 78.
I would presume you don't want to discuss 1 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, 3&4 Maccabees, Manasseh, or Baruch.
As far as divine inspiration goes:
King James I convened the Hampton Court Conference in respone to Puritan perceived problems of earlier translations. James gave the translators instructions intended to guarantee that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England.
The KJV removed positive examples of civil disobedience from Exodus, and criticism of the King in Chronicles, sounds more politically than divinely inspired to me.
The King James version also orginally included the Apocrypha between the Old and New Testaments. These were removed by order of the Long Parliament, another purely political move.
As far as the subject of Apostolic succession goes, you are plainly ignorant.
Apostolic succession has absolutely nothing to do with the Pope. Apostolic succession is the consecration of new bishops by existing consecrated bishops. You could eliminate all the popes and still have apostolic succession.
Do your homework!
Apostolic succession has absolutely nothing to do with the Pope.
And I have to do my homework?!
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Next.
And how quickly Peter got to Rome has nothing to do with it either. That Christians preceded him there takes nothing away from his being the head of the church.
And what Finn said is true.
Apostolic succession was started by Jesus, and carried forward by Peter and his successors. The Papacy with all its trappings was made by men, just like any other church.
Next...
Peter was the head of this church?
Not at the time.
And we can play this game till the cows come home, but it does nothing but remind us that we are humans in need of God's grace...
Stop Baptist Predators
Wherever you find human beings you find bullshit -- layers and layers of bullshit.
Paraphrased from Thornton Wilder in "Our Town"
Did you know that an excessive propensity for confrontation and dispute indicates a neurotic inability to form enduring intimate relationships and an active avoidance of the same?
Now you do.
~ FreeThinke
Post a Comment