Digital image by Judy Green
It seems the biggest irony that Pope Benedict XV a German should be under pressure at this time because of the role the Catholic has played in covering up sex offences through the years. Perhaps now more than at any time in recent history the moral authority of the Church is being challenged. Other denominations may want to believe that they are absolved from the growing public perception that problems in the Church is confined to one or the other. The reality of the situation is that the perception of the Church is probably seen by many as having a more amorphous meaning. The Church still represents to many the moral anchor, the possibility that it maybe losing its relevance at a time when cultural relativism is on the rise continues to be a big concern to many.
In 1989 the dismantling of the Berlin Wall signalled the end of the cold war period, Reagan the Capitalist had triumphed over Gorbachev the Communist, from their current locations they both might agree it was truly an epiphanous event. Some are wondering at this Eastertide if Pope Benedict XV will demonstrate the courage to use his position to signal to the world once and for all that the Catholic Church is ready to exorcise the sex demon which continues to besmirch the work of the Church. Twenty years after the felling of the Berlin Wall we live in a world which still wants to believe that there is someone greater, they maybe ready for yet another epiphanous event.
In any society there is always a place for the wise and intellectual among us. One thing we know is that to believe in God requires faith, no amount of debate whether in a docile or rancorous form can change this reality. While some may argue that religion has been used to brainwash the ignorant; there is the value position which some forget religion teaches of good and bad which has played its role in weaving modern day societies now under threat from moral degradation. If we are to believe that religion has no place in the emerging multicultural societies the question must be answered – What will replace it?
Last week a caller to a radio show who we identified to be Marsha Hinds-Layne, a call-in moderator in her own right, used the fact that there is now a growing distrust of the Church because of the sex scandals. She went on to make the point that many may feel disincline to send their children to Sunday School because of it. One would hope if a parent saw the benefit to be had of sending their children to Sunday School, there are simple remedies which could be put in place to counter the fear expressed by Mrs. Hinds-Layne. More importantly what the argument has exposed are those who would say that they are Christians but would surrender at the first sighting of a challenge to their faith. What if Jesus Christ would have been so meek?
Easter represents an important event on the Christian calendar. To quote Wikipedia, The New Testament teaches that the resurrection of Jesus, which Easter celebrates, is a foundation of the Christian faith.[6] The resurrection established Jesus as the powerful Son of God[6] and is cited as proof that God will judge the world in righteousness.[7] God has given Christians “a new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead”.[8] Christians, through faith in the working of God[9] are spiritually resurrected with Jesus so that they may walk in a new way of life.[10]
Alluded to above, the Church is losing its relevance in today’s world and we can debate why. The pragmatists among us see the urgent need for the Church to give itself a chance by cleaning up its act. It will be hard enough for those who represent the Church to win the hearts and souls of the heathens among us without the distractions which have become part and parcel of religion nowadays. The sex scandals, the greed, the hypocrisy…
Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counsellors there is safety – Proverbs 11:14
@ac: “Sorry my bad!I forgot you are a little slow
Yeah. Sorry about that. It is probably genetic…
Good to know Peter was not claimed to have lived over 400 years….
Mr. Halsall addresses me directly and then poses a question.
Here is Mr. Halsall:
“@Adam Sherman… I’m sure you’ll correct me if I’m wrong…
But are beliefs not different than actions?”
Again, in reverse order.
1. Yes, beliefs are not action.
2. Almost always, and without question in your context, it’s “different from”, not “different than”.
3. Have you ever noticed a correlation between people who write badly and people who think poorly? Don’t want to tax you too much on that one. A simple yes or no is enough.
All best wishes to you.
David why are you allowing Halsall to talk to himself?
It’s important to get this straight.
Mr. Halsall says: “Thank you for confirming my point Adam … This is why I respect *all* beliefs.”
This means, unavoidably, that Mr. Halsall respects Afrikaners’ belief in apartheid.
Peter born c. 1BCin Bethsaida
Died AD67 in Rome by crucifixion
Christ died AD 33
Church started in AD 33 in Jerusalem according to Acts 2
Peter arrived in Rome AD 30 and started church before Christ died?
RC organization started in AD 313
How could he be the first Pope?
Also the early church never had a single leader. Note that the “church” i.e the body ie the membership gathered together to make decisions.
If the early church had a single leader (and it did not) it would seem to have been James from reading the account of the church council meeting in Jerusalem in Acts 15 verses 6 et secq
We need to read the Word for ourselves and check out things. Don’t go by what your church says. Go by what the Bible says like Luther and Calvin and Zwingli and Knox et and others did
6. And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.
7. And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.
8. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; 9. And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
10. Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? 11. But we believe that through the grace of the LORD Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.
12. Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.
13. And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me: 14. Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.
15. And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, 16. After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: 17. That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.
18. Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.
19. Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: 20. But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
21. For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.
22. Then pleased it the apostles and elders with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas and Silas, chief men among the brethren: 23. And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia.
The early church had a plurality of leaders as all churches are supposed to have if we go by the NT. Read the NT again and you will see that church leaders were always in the plural.
Nowhere in the NT will you read of pastor X or bishop Y or elder G, lording it over anyone you always read about the saints (or membership) and the bishops and deacons.
It is noteworthy that Peter himself taught with respect to church leadership in 1 Peter 5:1-2 that The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: 2. Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; 3. Neither as being lords over God’s heritage, but being ensamples to the flock
Bishop = elder = pastor. All are designations for the same person. And a bishop does not stand at the top of a hierarchy in the church of our times. Now we gone into the realm of Church Administration now
If all church goers of all denominations would all follow the Scriptures that we say that we are all going by we would all be closer together, and the holes about which Islander speaks would not exist. Or at least they would be fewer.
@Adam Sherman: “It’s important to get this straight.
Indeed it is.
@AS: “This means, unavoidably, that Mr. Halsall respects Afrikaners’ belief in apartheid.
I respect the right of everyone to hold their own beliefs. This includes, for example, Negroman’s right to hate everyone.
And I reserve the right to disagree with them.
And I reserve the right to support the “state” to oppose any *action* which negatively impacts anyone else based on these beliefs.
I agree with Donville Inniss (and I am NOT a D. I am NOT a B either), I don’t think that we need to spend scarce tax money to build a multifaith center on the Cave Hill Campus. There are literally dozens of Christian churches, a mosque, and a place where Rastafarians gather for fellowship within a 20 minute bus ride of the UWI, Cave Hill campus. I am sure that all of these congregations would love to welcome UWI students and faculty. Some UWI folk worship at my church from time to time and we are always glad to see them. We would be happy to see Sir Hillary and Minister Inniss as well. However most congregations should do a bit more outreach to the university community.
@GP
In your paragraph which referenced Peter as speaking to Leadership. He could have only done that if he was in a more influential position them .Therefore he was able to command their respect.
J
I agree with you wholeheartedly.
Maybe Hilary wants to set up a beautiful church building like the Chapel at Mona.
Students at Mona tended to go to their denominational churches in the contiguous Kingston areas, and even some distance away. Even the priests in training at UTCWI did this.
I agree with you that most congregations should do a bit more outreach to the university community. But I suspect the church going students go to their denominational churches in the Cave Hill area and even further a field.
GP has not accurately reported or understood my speculative reason why child abuse may seem more prevalent in the Roman Catholic Church than elsewhere.
He wrote “… Annonymous’(sic) argument that the leadership of the Roman organization is characterized by “pedophile priests playing pouchie poking” because they do certain services or ministry does not hold much water.”
He cites the SDA church as a comparable entity without similar cases of abuse. First I do not believe that the RC priesthood is characterised by pedophilic practices. There are unfortunately such priests in the RC church (and elsewhere) and because of the relative size of the RC Church there will be more cases of abuse assuming a similar degree of prevalence in the background population. Some comparisons to make the point.
Membership: RC 1.15 Billion, SDA 16 million
no.of primary schools: RC 91,694 SDA 5,666
no. of secondary schools: RC 41, 210 SDA 1,470
no. of priests: RC 408 024 SDA 15 813
no. of hospitals: RC 5 500 SDA 168
no. of nursing homes: RC 27 000 SDA 138
Now for those who wish to be balanced in their assessment please view the following list of documented child abuse cases by protestant clergy including at least one SDA person. However it is notable the large number of pedophiles associated with “evangelical” churches.
http://www.reformation.com/CSA/variousabuse.html
Some have even stated that child abuse is actually more prevalent among protestant clergy than for RC priests. see
http://www.catholicleague.org/research/abuse_in_social_context.htm
an excerpt from this admittedly RC associated report : ” in the authoritative work by Penn State professor Philip Jenkins, ‘Pedophiles and Priests’, it was determined that between 0.2 and 1.7 percent of priests are pedophiles. The figure among the Protestant clergy ranges between 2 and 3 percent.”
It should be noted that Jenkins is not RC.
For a more balanced view of the North American situation:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/clergy_sex8.htm
The Roman Catholic Church certainly has to answer for its covering up of criminal acts by some of its priests. However, the problem of pedophilia and clergy is not confined to the RC church. Contrary to the crass presentation of some on the matter (and I am NOT referring to Biblical interpretations, hermeneutics or exegesis etc), the theological position or claimed fealty to Biblical declaration of any particular church does not appear (to me) to correlate with the degree of prevalence of pedophilia among its clergy or membership.
My final comment to posters with regard to the moral authority of any person or institution and in protecting one’s children from harm, is to echo my initial comments in this thread in particular that all persons “believe in their own intelligence and common sense and subject their own beliefs and actions as well as those of others to transparent and vigorous scrutiny.”
OK Annonymous
This time your apologetics is in order, and accepted. LOL
Let me hear you now on holes in the bucket. And let me hear your definition of what the Evangelical Church is (that you like to attack!) LOL
Onlookers let us understand that Christ is the head of the church, not the Pope or the Archbishop of Canterbury etc. The church has a libving Head who ever lives to make intercession for the saints. There have been several Popes and Achbishops in my life time.
There are two officers of the church according to the NT. Pastor=elder= bishop and deacon. You will not see any hierachy in the early church. You will see that the apostles advised churches to appoint leaders in local churches acording to certain parameters. And one of those parameters was that the leaders be MEN and be married to ome woman!
Let us understand by checking it our selves that the NT does not teach a clergy and a laity since ALL BELIEVERS are priests. Both Paul and especially Peter teaches this.
It is Peter who set forth the concept of the pristhood of the NT believer in 1 Peter 2:
At the church council in Acts 15 the apostles and the church, not the elders only or the bishops only or the cardinals or the Diocesan council- the church at Jerusalem and the apostles met to discuss some issues raised by Paul and Barnabas about Gentiles and thier acceptance into the church etc.
Peter spoke but James seems to have had the final say.
I am not saying that James was the head or the Arch bishop or that Peter was just a vicar or the reverse. I am saying that there was a PLURALITY OF LEADERS IN THE CHURCH. I am saying that in the Pauline epistles that Paul always addressed a plurality of church leaders.
I am saying too that according to 2 Petert 3 that Pater saccepted the authority odf Pauls writings as sacred scripture.
It seems to me that Peter was just another hurch leader in the early church and considered him self to be just a elder /pastor and refers to himself as such in relationship to the CHIEF SHEPHERD in 1 Peter 5:4.
If you read Philemon you will see that Paul begged Philemon to recieve Onesimus rather than ordering him to do so.
What the NT is treaching about these men is that they were not the autocratic one man show people that I have seen leading churches in the Baptist church especially and other assemblies.
Peter and Paul were PROMINENT LEADERS IN THE EARLY NT CHURCH but neither of them sought to be nor were they PRE-EMMINENT. They both knew better. Neither of them were DIOTROPHETIC LEADERS (see 3 John 9).
This tendency for contemporary “church” leaders to be DIOTROPHETIC & PRE-EMMINENT is one of the things that destroys even good Bible teachig and believing churches contributing to the “holes in the bucket” to which Islander correctly alludes.
Mr. Halsall’s respect, it seems, is endless. He will “respect” Nazis and Pol Pot and slave-traffickers and the Vatican (a.k.a a Mafia cover-up for men who rape children). Mr. Halsall “respects” all their “beliefs” as long as they don’t “act” on their beliefs. Mr. Halsall is counter-historical and (with all the respect due to him) a man lacking in moral imagination.
Here, again (“sigh”), is Mr. Halsall: “I respect the right of everyone to hold their own beliefs. This includes, for example, Negroman’s right to hate everyone.”
Mr. Halsall, I make you a wager. One single bet, Christopher. Here is the wager …
If I win, it would be my pleasure to invite you and any significant other of your choosing to have dinner with me and my significant other in any place on this island.
When I lose (and I will lose, because the subliterate owner/publisher/editor of this blog has already determined what is and what is not a thought-crime), I invite you to dinner anyway, with your significant other and my significant other.
And here is what is going to make this wager pointless. I’ve tried this before, Mr. Halsall, and every single time the subliterate owner/publisher/editor of this blog has deleted my message.
Here we go:
Dear “BU Family”:
Recently you have signally failed to report ANYTHING, not a SINGLE word, about one of the vanishingly few news stories that are actually about Barbados.
If you failed to notice that international story while you were busy trying to incite racial hatred among some of your less bright and less educated readers, the ones who don’t know the difference between “isle” and “aisle”, please let me try to help.
Here we go, BU.
Very recently, a Barbadian man was convicted of manslaughter in a Barbadian court because he hunted down an elderly Canadian tourist on a popular Barbadian beach and beat her to death in public and in broad daylight with a piece of wood.
One of the regular contributors to BU, one of the “BU Family” (let’s call him Negroman, as you do, Christopher, though it’s this little world’s worst-kept secret who the dunces behind “Negroman” actually are), repeatedly referred to that murder victim as “white thrash”. Negroman and the people behind him couldn’t even spell “trash”, the garbage word with which he wished to characterize an older lady beaten to death in Barbados on a public beach by a Barbadian.
I will send you this entire thread as a personal message, Mr. Halsall. And let’s see if the owner/publisher/editor of this blog censors it or not.
All best wishes to you, Mr. Halsall
@GP,
You mentioned in an earlier posting that the SDA’s are a “cult”
If they are, wouldn’t they be a very “open -cult”.
What disagreement do you have with them?
Here is a link to a documentary about the sex crimes by the Vatican and the pope.
http://www.documentarywire.com/sex-crimes-and-the-vatican
Mr. Done has a link.
Perhaps you should consult Mr, Done’s link. Perhaps not. Your choice, obviously.
MR cult? SIR
1- YES I did mention in an earlier posting that the SDA’s are a “cult”
2- I do not know what a very “open -cult” is SIR.
3- If you can understand the doctrine of the church as outlined in my earlier posts, anf if you can understand the teaching of the epistle to the Ephesians you will see why the SDA’s are a “cult”
If you would read Martin’s book THE KINGDOM OF THE CULTS you will find their a definition of a cult and a discussion of why the SDA’s are considered a cult.
Dr Martin’s work is considered among sane sound simple students of the sacred scriptures to be an excellent resource source on this topic.
I am not here to denigrate anyone’s “church” choice. I have in my post done two things
1- present as simply and accurately a simple systematic theology of the doctrine of the church
2- repeatedly appealed to readers to read the NT and check for themselves if these things are so or not, just as the saints at Berea did as recorded in Acts 17:11.
If you will do these things, the Spirit is more than capable of guiding you into all truth.
I trust that this explanation suffices SIR!.
I found many years ago, and still do, that reading the text for myself and using simple methods of hermeneutics and exegesis that I have had to correct much of what I had previously thought, or had been taught.
There are several testimonies of countless others who have had the exact experience, SIR!
The Roman Catholic Church!
The papacy: Is it Biblical?
The Papacy, is it Biblical? Does this religious/political Hierarchical Institution derive its structure, arise from, or originate from true Apostolic Christianity as we see and find in God’s Word, the Bible?
In answer to these questions, I will allow Roman Catholicism to speak loudly for itself, that is, I will quote primarily from Catholic sources all of which carry the official seal of approval from the Vatican, her Nihil Obstat, Imprimi Potest, Imprimatur. I will then contrast these decreees, dogmas and doctrines of Catholicism with the absolute, divinely inspired Word of Almighty God, the Bible. We will then see clearly if the papacy is biblical.
We must not add nor take away from God’s Word.
Almighty God gave three stern warnings in His Word, the Bible, NOT to ADD nore TAKE AWAY from His divinely inspired revelation. The first waring is found early in the Old Testament in Deuteronomy 4:2. The second serious warning is found in the middle of Scripture. “Every word of God is pure: DO NOT ADD TO HIS WORD, lest He rebuke you and you be FOUND A LIAR.” (Prov. 30: 5,6) emphasis added. The third and final warning is found in Revelation 22: 18,19. It is against the backgroung of these solemn warnings from God’s Word, that I now present a few of the historical evidences to show the utterly false and spurious manner in which Roman Catholicism created and invented its unbiblical system of Popery. I am quoting from ‘Catholicism Against Itself, Vol 1, by O.C. Lambert, who cites extensively from authorized ‘Catholic Encyclopaedia, 15 Volumes Special Edition under the auspicies of Knights of Columbus, Catholic Committee, The Encyclopaedia Press Inc., New York, 1913).
DARK AGES.
‘Forgeries, Fabrications, Falsehoods, Fakes and Frauds! Substituting of false documents with genuine ones was quite a trade in the Middle Ages.” (Cath. Ency., V1, 136).” On this period Lambert says: “The ‘Middle Ages’ a favourite designation of that period of history from the fifth to the sixteenth century, comprising more than a thousand years, it is not used so much by Protestants, who prefer ‘Dark Ages’ instead. Catholics admit that it was ‘an age of great ignorance, when criticism was neither in favour nor provided with means” (Cath. Dict, 105). Catholic Encyclopaedia speaks of ‘the distorted and legendary view the Middle Ages had in ecclesiastical antiquity” CV, 779).
Apostolic Canons.
On the supposed canons, Lambert writes: “With reference to one of the most monumental forgeries of that age, Apostolic canons, Catholic Dictionary says: “A tradition (accepted because unexamined) long prevailed that these canons were dictated by the Apostles to St. Clement of Rome, who committed them to writings. Accurate research has dispelled this notion .” (pp. 41,42).
Forgeries began before ‘Middle Ages.’
“Writers of the fourth century were prone to describe practices i.e., The Lenten Fast of Forty Days, as Apostolic Institutions, which certainly had no claim to be so regarded” ( Cath Ency, 111, 484). “One is forced to admit that the gradual corruption of Christianity began very early” ( Cath Ency., X11, 414).
The Bible the Only Book used by early Church.
“There was no written liturgy in the first three centuries..(Cath Dict, 523). “It would of course be a monstrous anachronism were we to ascribe a belief in Papal infallibilty to Ante-Nicene Fathers” (Cath Dict. 694).
Apostolic Church Ordinances.
“This ‘Pseudo Apostolic collection” was fabricated ‘in the third, or at latest, in the early part of the fourth century” (Cath Ency, 1, 635). It is described as “The so-called Apostolic church Ordinances” (Cath Ency, V, 339)/
Apostolic Constitutions.
On this massive fraud, Lambert states: “The mass of forgeries contained in this document has always been used since its creation in the fifty century, and though it has been recognised and acknowledged to be simply a monstrous forgery for hundreds of years, it is no less popular and useful to Catholic writers in their efforts to validate Catholic innovations today. As an acknowledgement of its character, Catholic Dictionary says: “They profess to contain the words of the Spostles written down by St. Clement of Rome” (p.43). Again on the same pages Catholic Dictionary says: ‘Pearson assingns the work as it strands to the middle of the fifth century.”
“The Apostolic Constitutions consist of eight books purporting to have been written by St. Clement of Rome…The eight books contain litergy and the eighty-five ‘Apostolic Cannons…It has been suggested that the compiler of the Apostolic Constitutions may be the same person (forger) as the author of the six spurious letters of St. Ignatius” (Cath Ency, 1, 571).
Dionysius the Areopagite.
“It is admitted to be a forgery (Outline of Dogmatic Theology, 11, 279). “It is plainly for the purpose of deceiving ” (Cath Ency., V, 13). It was intended to accentuate…immunity (Commentary of the Canon Law, Augustine, 1, 26). It was intended “To create the impression that the author belonged to the time of the Apostles” (Cath Ency., V 14). It was planned as a document “to serve the authority of the Roman Pontiff” (Commentary of the Cannon Laws, Augustine, 1,25).
The foreging is just literally scartching the surface of the volumes confirming the utter fradulent creation of the Papacy and its maze of unbiblical false doctrine. Roman Catholicism DID NOT come into existence until around A.D. 311-325.
“After this victory at Rome (which occurre October 27, 312) Constantine, in conjunction with his eastern colleague, Licinius, published in January, 313, from Milan, an edict of religious tolerance, which goes a step beyond the edict of the still anti-Christian Galerius in 311, and grants in the spirit of religious eclecticism, full freedom to all existing forms of worship, with special reference to the Christians. The edict of 313 not only recognised Christianity within existing limits, but allowed every subject of the Roman Empire to choose whatever religion he preferred. The reign of Constantine the Great, marks the transition of the Christian faith from under persecution by the secular government to union with the same; the beginning of the state-church sysytem, Roman Catholicism.” (History of the Christian Church, by Dr. Philip Schaft, Vol. 111, 311-600, pp. 4-29).
A bit later, I’ll look at ‘Catholicism, Neither Apostolic, nor Scriptural.’
Adam Sherman: “Mr. Halsall’s respect, it seems, is endless. He will “respect” Nazis and Pol Pot and slave-traffickers and the Vatican (a.k.a a Mafia cover-up for men who rape children).
My apologies all. Last night I thought I would not respond to this, since I feel the record stands and I know many grow tired of my posts.
But today, having thought about it a bit, I feel I *must* respond to Mr. Sherman’s twisting of my words — in case anyone reads only his posts, and not mine. Managing the message, if you will.
For the record, I do *not* respect the *actions* of Nazism, nor Pol Pot, nor slave-traffickers, nor the Vatican, or *anyone* else who have caused harm to others.
(As an aside, I have personally visited Pol Pot’s S21 and the “Killing Grounds”, and read many books on the subject. Deeply, *deeply* moving. How can we humans be so *stupid* and cruel?)
However, also for the record, I believe that everyone should be allowed to believe whatever they want (since one cannot actually control what another thinks) even if I and others don’t agree, SO LONG AS IT DOES NOT NEGATIVELY IMPACT ON ANYONE ELSE.
I personally believe it is better to get the disagreements out in the open so they can be recognized and seriously debated.
I will refrain from quoting my own language which Mr. Sherman has twisted. But if anyone questions my position, please review my previous posts before coming to a final decision.
Namaste to all.
@All…
For anyone who likes to use what they happen to find between their ears, this week’s eSkeptic is out:
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/10-04-07/
@Georgie porgie
“I am not here to denigrate anyone’s “church” choice. I have in my post done two things”
You called the people’s church a CULT
Are u a Lunatic ? or just living in some dream world as a modern day saint or prophet
stupse, the more u write the less i hear
Mr Islander Sir?
Quid dixii et scripsi, dixi scripsique!
Instead of engaging in your ad hominems why dont you read Galatians and the doctrine of salvation by grace through faith only, as taught throughout the NT and especialy in Galatians. Check Romans 4;4 Ephesians 2:8-9 Titus 3:5 etc
The SDA’s as you know are a spin off from the Baptist church. The Baptists still teach corretly what the Bible states on the doctrine of salvation by grace through faith only as taught throughout the NT and especialy in Galatians.
One of the basic things id rightly dividing the Word of Truth is determining between the purpose of LAW and the purpose of GRACE.
Instead of engaging in your ad hominems why dont you read the NT for yourself to see if the things I said are so or not? Why dont you follow the example of the Bereans in Acts 17:11?
Roman Catholicism: Neither Apostolic Nor Scriptural.
“For through Him (Jesus) we both have access by one Spirit( The Holy Spirit) to the Father” (Eph. 2:18) “Do not add to His words, lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar” (Prov. 30: 5,6).
In my earlier above, we saw that Roman Catholicism and its Religious/Political Hierarchical Papacy, was established upon Forgeries, Fabrications, Falsehoods and Frauds; as there is absolutely no basis whatsoever from Apostolic Christianity, nor the early Post-Apostolic era to give any credence to the title of office of Pope, Cardinal, or any of the other ecclestiastical designations that constitute this institution.
That Catholicism had to fraudulently fabricate documents to establish a totally unscriptural religious/political system, that bears absolutely no resemblance to true biblical Apostolic Christianity, is clear-cut and obvious from its very own Catholic Dictionary and Encyclopaedia volumes, confirming that the Roman Catholic church, gradually developed into the Sacerdotal (Priestcraft) Sacramental religion, with no basis at all from the New Testament for such a system; plus the warranted historical facts that no such system existed for at least the first 300 years of the true Church of the Lord Jesus Christ. The Apostolic Church A.D 30-100, the Pentecostal Church, and the Persecuted Church, A.D. 100-313, bear no likeness, affinity, or semblance to Roman Catholicism, which came into existence when Emperor Constantine issued the edict of Toleration in 313, thus creating the official State/Church, and gave birth to historic Roman Catholicism. These warranted credible facts, simply cannot be denied by any intellectually honest person; yet, the monstrous lie that the Roman Catholic church has its origins in Apostolic Christianity, has been propagated for centuries and sadly accepted by multitudes who are unware of the facts and truth.
Catholic Documents ‘Quasi-Historical!
On this Lambert says: “Catholic Encyclopaedia proceeds to point out that the sources of their hierarchy as ‘Quasi-Historical’ (V11, 326, 341, 342), and under this classification lists Polycarp, Wusebius, Dionysius, Hegesippus, Tertullian, Irenaeus, Cyprian, Jerome, Isadore, Ambrose, Eutychius, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen. The hierarchy today does not hesitate to still cite these writings in order to persuade men to accept the precepts and commandments of men! It is a gigantic fraud supported by forgery.”
No Hierarchy For Centuries After the Apostles.
Let us hear once again from the Catholic church itself. “The divine institution of the threefold hierarchy cannot, of course be derived from our text; in fact, it cannot in any way be proved directly from the New Testament; it is a Catholic dogma by virtue of the dogmatic tradition, i.e., in a later period of ecclesiastical history, the general belief in the divine institution of the episcopate, presbyteriate, and diaconate can be verified and thence, be followed on through the later centuries. But, the dogmatic truth cannot be traced back to Christ Himself by analysis of strict historical testimony” (Cath Ency., V11, 334).
Four Hundred Years Too Late.
“At the end of the fifth century, the Roman Chruch was completely organised” (Cath Ency., 1X, 61). She does not claim to have had an archbishop until the end of the fourth century (Cath Ency., 1V, 44), and it was several centuries later before she had Popes and Cardinals.”
Liber Pontificalls- Book of the Popes.
According to Catholic Encyclopaedia. the author of this forgery, “took over” the Liberian Catalogue, and also used Clementine Recognition (1X, 225), both of which are acknowledged forgeries. This is simply a reworking of these earlier forgeries. It is one of the principle sources for the list of Popes, of which the Catholic Church boasts. Catholic Ency, contrary to the popular claim of Roman Catholicism, says: “But the chronology of these bishops of Rome cannot be determined with any degree of exacititude by the help of authorities today” (V11, 593).
False Decretals of Isadore.
“Of far greater influnce was another forgery or series of forgeries, the False Decretals of Isadore, published about AD 850. These professed to be decisions given out by early bishops of Rome, from the Apostles, such as the absolute supremacy of the Pope of Rome over the universal church; the independence of the church from the state; the inviolability of the clergy of every rank from any accountability to the state. These forgeries are the MOST NOTORIOUS LITERARY FRAUD ever committed in history, and the fradulent basis on which the Papacy has established itself, as these lies sought to antedate the rise of the Papacy by 10 centuries. This elaborate code, now called the False Decretals of Isadore, was simply a re-working of all the forgeries that had gone before in order to bring them up to date. It was the most elaborate and pretentious code that came into being up to this time.” Catholic Dictionary states: “Six centuries passed before it was discovered that the Pseudo-Isadorian or False Decretals, as they are now called, were to a great extent a forgery” (105).
On the same false decretals, prominent Church Historian, Dr. Philip Schaff, writes:
“During the chaotic confusion under the Carolingians, in the middle of the ninth century, a mysterous book made its appearance, which gave legal expression to the popular opinion of the Papacy, raised and strengthened its power more than any other agency, and forms to a large extent the basis of the canon law of the church of Rome. This is a collection of ecclesiastical laws under the false name of bishop Isador of Seville (died 636)…but the Pseudo-Isadorian collection is the MOST COLOSSAL and effect FRAUD known in the history of ecclesiastical literature” (History of the Christian Church, Vol 1V, Mediaeval Christianity, AD 590-1074, pp. 267,268) emphasis added.
That Roman Catholicism is Alias Paganism, will be seen from what comes next!
that was a bit harsh Mr Porgie, I actually took time and read some more of ur posting and in some cases it seems rather logically put out, however i still think that the tool called the bible has been mis used and misrepresented throughout history by those in power or seeking power to control the masses…and i have a big issue with these fire and brimstone would be demi popes who would tell ME what the bible really says as if if i am incapable of cognitive judgement
I think i understand what u are trying to put out there but , will stay on my side of the fence
Ps u didnt answer my questions about the islamic population of the world
Here is my point, who is to say what is the truth and what is fabrication or misuse of the word of (our) lord…. If the SDAs decided through what they think is the truth and the word of god that they should be disassociated with the founding baptist church. well so be it, i cant see them as a cult or incorrect in their thought pattern, who is to say that the Bahai religion have not come along and got it right, u see, i admit, I DO NOT KNOW, and i put it to u, that the RCs do not know, the SDAs do not know, Islam doesnt know, the Bahais dont know, and my freind, i am sorry to disappoint u, but u dont know either.
Mr. Zoe,
your logical analysis of the Catholicism continue to impress…..
….my concern to you is related to the below question…..
***********************************************************************************************
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but perceives not the beam that is in thine own eye?
Either how canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out the mote that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not that it is in thine eye?
*********************************************************************************************
…..if you get my drift….?!
Re Respecting one’s opinion, worldview, etc!
There is a fundamental and vast difference between ‘respecting’ one’s opinion, which is his/her civic constitutional and God-given right to have and express, AND respecting that person(s) opinion, views, etc.
I respect another persons right to have and express their world view, BUT, I am not called or expected to RESPECT what they believe!
Simple enough!
@Zoe: “There is a fundamental and vast difference between ‘respecting’ one’s opinion, which is his/her civic constitutional and God-given right to have and express, AND respecting that person(s) opinion, views, etc.
Really?
Please elaborate your point more clearly.
To be honest, it isn’t yet clear to me based on your immediate above the “fundamental and vast difference” you argue.
I’m probably just being slow. Please educate me.
islander
Your ad hominems are relatively mild compared to some with which I was recently reviled on BU by two “family members.”
I am glad you took the time to read more, because I actually thought about your valid point with respect to “holes in the barrel” and offered some valid observations that support that view.
If the Bible has been misused as a tool by those in power or those seeking power in their quest to control the masses, that was never the purpose of the Bible. Also I am sure that you can see that that ploy has definitely not worked really. Because the “masses” are clearly out of control, and the “masses” have never really conformed to the teaching of the Bible anywhere in the cosmos diabolicus.
Islander, my friend if you have not studied the Bible your cognitive judgement can not come into play man about Biblical matters. You are not a fool, man think about that. And if you check the Bible, you will find that the person who spoke the most about fire and brimstone was JESUS HIMSELF. Ah lie? Check it man.
You have the right to sit on the fence or on any side of the fence you like, but there is an accounting….some day.
And I did answer your questions about the islamic population of the world. I did so in a way that allows you to use your cognitive judgement, Sir!
You ask reasonably “Here is my point, who is to say what is the truth and what is fabrication or misuse of the word of (our) Lord.”
Since all so called Christian denominations SAY that they are following the Bible, then they ought to be doing so. Now if you read your NT, you will find that there were always errant persons seeking to bring error into the true church. A lot of the NT teaches against these various errors which are still with us today. It was predicted that would be so by Jesus, Paul, Peter, Jude and John. And their predictions have come to fruition. Hence, what you call holes in the bucket.
It is obvious that all denominations have deviated from NT church doctrine. And this is easy to see if one searches and studies the scriptures.
Perhaps you ought to read the History of what is called the Baptist Church (see the Trail of blood) and read the History of the origins of the SDA, and compare they polity and doctrine with what the NT teaches. Then use your cognitive judgement.
I am sorry that you do not know, I cant help that; but I disagree with you that I DO NOT KNOW WHAT I AM TALIONG ABOUT. Having copied the Bereans and checked studied and searched I think I have a grasp of the subject, whether or not you agree or not. .
@ZOEor GP
Speaking of cult . Then all churches which use the Holy sacrament can be called a cult. Remember the sacrament ask one to eat the body and drink the blood. Even though it is symbolic.
The word sacrament does not appear once in the NT.
The NT speaks about the Lord’s supper which is a memorial or a remembrance feast.
In no presentation of the Lord’s supper by the Lord himself in the Gospel or by Paul in 1 Corinthians are belivers asked to engage in a Holy sacrament or to eat the body and drink the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ.
There are no sacraments in the NT or the doctrine of the Church, but the NT teaches that there are TWO ORDINANCES OF THE CHURCH
1 BAPTISM and this is always by immersion
2 THE LORDS SUPPER
.
@GP
calling it Supper Does not remove the suggestion of cult worship. As people are being asked to symbolically Remember Jesus by his Body and Blood.
Zoe
Could you explain cults and cultic worship?.
Could you also explain the concept of the Lord’s Supper as a memorial feast that commemorates the Lord’s death until he comes again, and its real significance?
Could you explain the difference?
@ CH, I sense you are sincere in asking for a more detailed explanation of ‘respect.’
First, the Synonyms of ‘Respect’ are:
Respect- n ‘Regard, account, admiration, consideration, esteem, estimation, favor.
Respect- vb ADMIRE, consider, esteem, regard,
rel- revere, reverence, venerate.
(Webster’s Collegiate Thesaurus, p. 674)
Now, I respect your civic, constititional right, in fact, God-given right, to believe as you do, to be an ‘agnostic’ BUT, I do not *respect* that belief of yours.
I respect the right by choice, by some men to be rampant Homosexuals; BUT, I do not respect what they have chosen to do.
I respect the right of Hindus to believe in millions of *gods* polytheism, but I do not respect their belief system.
I respect all of the above ‘rights’ to believe and express their world views, but, I do not ‘Admire, esteem, favor, or revere any of them!
In short, I don’t *respect* any of these view, BUT, I respect their *right* to believe in, and express them.
Trust, that makes my position better understood, regarding the distinctions.
Someone was asking about priestly celibacy in the Roman Catholic Church.
This was one of the issues that bitterly divided the Medieval Roman Church. The Cluniac Reform Movement [centered in the monastery at Cluny, France] made priestly celibacy and chastity one of their hallmarks. Bernard of Clairvaux, Abbott of the monastery at Citeaux and a dedicated misogynist, believed that sex was an expression of Original Sin and incompatible with holiness.
It was not until around1215 that the papacy finally succeeded in imposing priestly celibacy, which indicates that for over 800 years of its existence, the Roman Church had tolerated married priests.
@ GP, The following is a very insightful exposition by the late E.W. Bullinger in his great work, ‘Figures of Speech Used in the Bible’ taken from the chapter dealing with ‘Metaphor or, Representation’ as he throughly explains Jesus words in Matthew 26: 26.
“This is my body” (touto esti to soma mou)
“Few passages have been more perverted than these simple words. Rome (RC) has insisted on the literal or the figurative sense of words just as it suits her own purpose, and not at all according to the laws of philology and the true science of language.”
“Hence the Latin idiom, “agere paenitentiam,” ‘repent’ has been rendered literally in all her (RC) versions from the Vulgate, in various languages, “do penance,” except when God is said to repent! Rome dared not translate ‘agere paenitentiam’ in these cases, which proves her design is thus systematically perverting the Word of God: and false doctrine is thus forced into the words under a show or semblance of literal translation. So the *Metaphor*, “This IS my body,” has been forced to teach false doctrine by being translated literally.”
“No perversion of language has been fraught with greater calamity to the human race. Tens of thousands suffered martyrdom at the hands of Rome (RC) rather than believe the ‘blasphemous fable’ forced into the words. The exquisite tortures of the Inquisition were invented to coerce the consciences of men and compel them to accept this LIE!”
“What a solemn and instructive lesson as to the importance of a true understanding of the figures of language.”
“The whole figure, in a metaphor, lies, as we have said, in the verb substantive “IS”; and not in either of the two nouns; and it is a remarkable fact that, when a ‘pronoun’ is used instead of one of the nouns (as it is here), and the two nouns are of different genders, the pronoun is always made to agree in gender with that noun to which the meaning is carried across, and not with the noun from which it is carried, and to which it properly belongs. This at once shows us that a figure is being employed; when a pronoun, which ought, according to the laws of language, to agree in gender with its own noun, is changed, and made to agree with the noun which, by Metaphor, represents it.”
“Here, for example, the pronoun “this” (touto) is neuter, and is thus made to agree with “body” (soma), which is neuter, and not with bread (artos), which is masculine.”
“All of this establishes our statement that, in a Metaphor, the two nouns (or pronoun and noun) are always literal, and that in the vast number of cases where the language is literal, and there is no metaphor at all, the verb is omitted altogether. Even when a Metaphor has been used, and the language passes suddenly from figurative to literal, the verb is at ONCE dropped, by Ellipsis, as not being necessary for the literal sense, as it was for the previous figurative expression: e.g., in 1 Cor 12:27, “Ye ARE the body of Christ,” Here is a metaphor, and consequently the verb is used. But in verse 29, which is literal, the change is at once made, and the fact is marked by the omission of the verb, ” [Are] all apostles? [are] all prophets? [are] all teachers? [are] all workers of miracles?”
Next compare other examples of Metaphors which are naturally used in the explanations of Parables. Note the Parables of the Sower, and of the Tares (Matt. 13: 19-23, and 37-43).
“He that soweth the good seed IS (i.e., represents) the Son of man.”
“The field IS (i.e., signifies) the world.”
“The good seed ARE the children of the kingdom.”
“But the tares ARE the children of the wicked one.”
“The enemy that sowed them IS the devil.”
“The harvest IS the end of the age.”
“And the reapers ARE the angels.”
“In all these (as in every other Metaphor) the verb means, and might have been rendered “represents” or “signifies.”
“So in the very words that follow “this IS (i.e., represents or signifies) My body,” we have an undoubted Metaphor. “He took the cup…saying…this is my blood.” Here, thus, we have a ‘pair’ of metaphors. In the former one, “this” refers to “bread” and it is claimed that “IS” means changed into the “body” of Christ. In the latter, “this” refers to “the cup” but it is not claimed that the cup is changed into “blood.” At least, we have never heard that such a claim has been put forward. The difference of treatment which the same figure meets with in these two verses is the proof that the former is wrong.”
“In 1 Cor. 11:25 we read “this cup is the new covenant,” Will Romanists, in and out of the Church of England, tell us how this “cup” became transubstantiated into a “covenant”?”
“Is it not clear that the figure in the words, “This is My body,” is forced into a literal statement with the set purpose and design of making it teach and support erroneous doctrine?”
“Other examples of Metaphor in this immediate connection are:”
” 1 Cor 10: 16. – “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not (i.e., does it not represent ) the communion of the blodd of Christ.” through which all blessings comes to us.”
“The bread which we break, is it not (i.e., does it not represent the communion of the body of Christ?| ie., does it not signify the fellowship of all the members of Christ’s mystical body, who, being many ARE one body ( 1Cor. 12:12)? “For we being many ARE one bread, and one body,” as 1 Cor. 10: 17 declares.” ( Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, pp. 738, 739, 740, 741) emphasis added.
When I take a picture of my departed Father, to show someone, I say, ‘This IS my father, (i.e., represents what my father looked like).
We can safely say, that some foot-ballers ‘eat and drink’ football, to mean Metaphorically that they love the game so much, we use the terms ‘eat’ and ‘drink but, they do not literally eat and drink the turf or the football.
When Jesus said except you ‘eat’ and drink’ My blood, you have no life in you, in John 6, He was not referring to any such literal eating and drinking as the Catholics insist He meant, but, rather to, the extent that we pursue with all of the earnestness and diligence, in Prayer, serious study of His Word, fellowship, worship, evangelism, teaching, preaching, etc, etc, THEN, we come to the Lord’s Supper, to partake of and in the elements of bread and grape juice, which He instituted as a memorial of His, ONCE-FOR-ALL Sacrifice on Calvary, which ALONE can Redeem us, from the penalty of our SINS, and give Him all the Praise, Worship, and Glory for having saved us from all that was taking us to eternal damnation.
@ Iain Edghill
Thanks for your teaching that the RC organization actually allowed / tolerated married priests for over 800 years of its existence and concerning the “duel” of sorts between those who held to Bible doctrine of marriage between men and women, as it was from the beginning, and those who sought to embrace and impose the dogma of priestly celibacy in the Roman Catholic organization
This dogma VS Doctrine is a major cause for church splits and is one of the “holes in the bucket” raised by Islander or islandman.
The Anglican or Episcopalian church evolved because of a split off from the RC organization because the King wanted to impose his dogma versus the church’s doctrine concerning divorce and remarriage.
John Wesley & George Whitfield (original Methodists) slit because the at the time unsaved Wesley did not believe in the doctrine of the eternal security of the believer as taught clearly in John 6:37 & John 10:27-30. Whereas part of the Methodist Church has lost its way and at least its vibrance the Wesley Holiness or Pilgrim Holiness continue to teach sound Bible doctrine.
The Brethren church (which never set out to be a denomination) and which still continue to teach the Word soundly though dying out as in England for example continues in its dead orthodoxy and dwelling in much dogma, or/and the inability to separate the spirit from the letter of the law ( the ipsima vox from the ipsimae verbae). The Brethren church church has split several times. The fact that we have three groups of brethren in Barbados is testimony to that.
Another church group that teaches the Word but which has tended to self destruction and this relative ineffectiveness, because of it turning the doctrine of separation in to a dogma such that they restrict their unity for function are the Baptists. Here is a group that stresses the individual priesthood of the believer but is often ruled by heavy handed SOLITARY pastors. Baptists practice the autonomy of the local church and prize this so much that churches in a region have been known not to come together for purchasing purposes to get price breaks on buying necessary church supplies.
Great post Zoe on what is basically again Hermeneutics. By recognizing the use of metaphor in the passages you so rightly divided you were able to make the issue clear to me; and as has been declared we all know that I am not so sharp. So if I can understand it, any one else can.
@Zoe
What happen to the Webster dictionary of the meaning of “BODY” and BLOOD”
It think webster meanings are self explainable .No conflict! NO confusion!
“It was not until around 1215 that the papacy finally succeeded in imposing priestly celibacy, which indicates that for over 800 years of its existence, the Roman Church had tolerated married priests.”
Mea culpa! I should have used the word “suggests” instead of “indicates.” Apologies!
In John 10:8 Jesus said that he is a door. What does that mean. Shall we use Webster dictionary’s meaning of door too. Would there be No conflict! NO confusion! there too?
Or should we decide that Jesus was using a metaphor. Is this sort of thing still taught in school? My children were doing metaphors for common extrance 20 years ago.
Can we walk through Jesus or slam him shut?
In fact, there were married priests. The Popes had their wives, mistresses and children living in the Vatican. Celibacy was instituted to stop the bleeding of “Church wealth” which some popes and priests squandered on their families. There was no separation between church belongings and the popes’ or priests’. Just goes to show how material the church has always been. How it centered part of its doctrine on the accumulation of riches. Today the Catholic Church is the richest institution in the world and is still raping the poor who practise this religion. cheupse.
Remember the Borgias? Remember Pope Alexander VI (i think)?
Pat
You have forgotten the Pope that was a woman!
Now thats an interesting one I read about about 40 years ago LOL. She was Pope Joan (really Joanna)
When she fell sick in mass and delivered a baby, they said it was a miracle.
Have you taken your Vitamin D today Pat?
It is now the cure for everything!
Take your Vit D and live for ever! Its the cure for all!
Perhaps we can work out the mechanism of action and the pharmacokinetics and phamacodynamics together, and mek a likkle money. Wuh you say?
Fair warning to all Georgie Porgie will never give up i truly believes he has the answer, even if he did it is no help to anyone because he simply cant put it in English he can only quote words from the Bible.
Ready
@GP
The use of the word “Door” is a poor example. You don’t expect me to believe the
word “body” and Blood as use in the context and connected with eating and drinking of a person is entirely the same as the word “door” . Jesus did explain want he wanted us to do at the last Supper.
Roman Catholicism: Alias Paganism!
Evils of the Union of Church and State. Secularization of the Church.
Here begings for all intent and purpose the birth of Roman Catholicism, which bears no resemblance to the true Apostolic Church.
As Schaff writes:
“Constantine, the first Christian Caesar, the founder of Constantinople and the Byzantine Empire, and one of the most gifted and energetic, and successful of the Roman Emperors, was the first representative of the imposing idea of a Christian theocracy, or a system of policy which assumes all subjects to be Christians, connects civil and religious rights, regards church and state as the two arms of one and the same government on earth.” (History of The Christian Church, Vol 111, Nicence and Post Nicene Christianity, A.D. 311-600, p.12).
Can any true Christian imagine Peter, Paul, John or Jude, the contenders of the FAITH, (body of doctrinal truth) ONCE for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3b), condescending to such vile paganistic, idolatrous union with an Emperor of Rome? They would rather be martyred for the cause of Christ, than to pollute, contaminate, and corrupt the pure Gospel of The Lord Jesus Christ.
Regarding Constantine, Schaff goes on to say:
“…and down to the end of his life he retained the title and the dignity of a Pontifex Maximus, or high priest of heathen hierarchy…died a few days after, on Pentecost, May 22, 337…so passed away the first Christian Emperor…the first Imperial patron of the Papal see, and of the whole Eastern church, the first founder of the holy places, Pagan and Christian, orthodox and heretical, liberal and fanatical” (Ibid., pp. 36,37)
Let us not forget that up to this point in time, no such office or title of Pope existed, but as Schaff points out:
“This was the end of Graeco-Roman Heathenism…but although ancient Greece and Rome have fallen forever, the spirit of Graeco-Roman paganism is not extinct. It still lives in the natural (sinful) heart of man, which to this day as much as ever needs regeneration by the Spirit of God. It lives also in the many idolatrous and superstitious usages of the Greek and Roman churches, against which the pure Spirit of Christianity has instinctively protested from the beginning, and will protest till all remains of the gross and refined idolatry shall be outwardly as well as inwardly overcome, and baptized and sanctified…also with the Spirit and fire of the Gospel…the dark side of the union of the church with the state…grew out of their altered relation after the time of Constatine, and which continue to show themselves in the condition of the church in Europe to our own time.”
“The line between church and the world, between regenerate and unregenerate, between those who were Christians in name and those who were Christians in heart, was more or less obliterated, and in place of the former hostility between the two parties, there came a fusion of them, in the same outward communion of baptism and confession. This brought the conflict between light and darkness, truth and falsehood, Christ and antichrist, into the bosom of Christianity itself.” (Ibid., pp. 125,126)
Catholicism in the Empire.
Prior to the beginning of Roman Catholicism, the official state/church union, with Constantine and his edict of toleration in 313, Christianity, as Schaff says:
“…had already, without a stroke of sword or intrigue, achieved over false religion the internal victory of spirit over matter, of truth over falsehood, of faith over superstition, of worship of God over idolatry, or morality over corruption.”
“Under three hundred years of oppression, it had preserved its irrepressible moral vigor, and abundantly earned its new social position.” (Ibid., p.92).
It is vital to always remember that God never leaves Himself without a witness to the True Gospel of The Lord Jesus Christ; and even though the hybrid state/church of the Empire produced Roman Catholicism, there has always being a remnant of true believers, and to this fact, Scaff asserts:
“…that the dissenting sects, who derived no benefit from this union, but were rather subject to persecution from the state and from the established Catholicism. In this regard, Tertullian had ever held the Christian profession to be irreconcilable with the office of a Roman Emperor. That these evils may be summed up under the general desigination of the secularization of the church. By taking the whole population of the Roman empire, the church became, indeed, a church of the masses, a church of the people, but at the same time more or less a church of the world.”
“The number of hypocrites and formal professors rapidly increased; strict disciplne, zeal, self-sacrifice, and brotherly love proportionally ebbed away; and many heathen customs and usages, under the altered names, crept into the worship of God and the life of the Christian people.”
Therefore, as Schaff continues to correctly point out from historical facts: “The reign of Constatine the Great marks the transition of the Christian religion from under persecution by the secular government, to union with the same; the beginning of the state/church system, Roman Catholicism.” (Ibid., pp. 4, 5, 125).
Sir George Sinclair could not have described Roman Catholicism more succinctly, when he wrote:
“Romanism is a refined system of Christianized Heathenism, and chiefly differs from its prototype in being more treacherous, more cruel, more dangerous, more intolerant.”
Jesus said this is my body and it is taken literally
Jesus said this is my blood and it is taken literally
But when Jesus said he is the door that is not to be taken literally?
When Jesus said “Behold I stand at the door and knock” in Rev 3 is that to be taken literally too?
When Jesus says I am the Vine is that to be taken literally too?
When Jesus says I am the resurrection and the life or I am the light of the world is that to be taken literally too?
Wonder what it means when he says I am THE WAY, the truth and the life?
I guess that is why 56% of so called evangelicals say that they are many paths to God and many other ways.
I guess all these folk who are into Ophrah’s and OH BAM A’s new age teaching are using Websters Dictionary to interpret the Bible.
Maybe they didnt learn about metaphor in school either.
The other problem they have is that the KKV NIV etc is not in English, its only in Bible Words.
I must confess that I have not met many dummies in my secondary or tertiary schooling, nor have I met them in teachng medical students…………………….but on BU where folk try to defend the indefensible and challenge this well read (but 3/10 teacher) the dummies come out in force. And I have to pull teeth like a dentist!
But I guess one must listen to and obey the advice of the first Pope who established the RC church in Rome some 200 years after his death when he wrote in 2 Peter 1: 5-7
. And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge; 6. And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance PATIENCE
Mr. Halsall claims that I have misrepresented him. It’s very important to be clear about this.
Here is Mr. Halsall:
“I feel I *must* respond to Mr. Sherman’s twisting of my words … I will refrain from quoting my own language which Mr. Sherman has twisted.”
Mr. Halsall, you can’t have it both ways. Though you might refrain from quoting your own language, I won’t so refrain. You said this:
“If one can not respect another’s beliefs, then one should not expect others to respect yours.”
That’s a straightforward, textual quotation. It’s not twisted in any way. It’s literally cut-and-pasted from your post.
Now, you can add as many late qualifiers as you want to that, Mr. Halsall. Later, you can qualify it so much that the original assertion is meaningless. But the original assertion stands, forever, as an absolutely clear and unambiguous statement of your personal opinion. Either you believe it or you don’t believe it.
Either you believe this: “If one can not respect another’s beliefs, then one should not expect others to respect yours” or you do not believe it.
I don’t know you from Adam, Mr. Halsall, but what little I’ve read of your writings suggests to me that you are a reasonably decent person who generally means well. That’s why I’m both surprised and saddened to read your making an absolutist assertion so obviously ill-thought that it sounds comically and almost dramatically adolescent.
Let me quote you again, without twisting a single word:
“If one can not respect another’s beliefs, then one should not expect others to respect yours.”
Pure nonsense, in my wholly subjective view. I DO NOT and NEVER WILL respect the “beliefs” of others who “believe” that all non-whites should be expelled from the UK, that Shia mosques in Baghdad should be bombed by Sunnis, that female genital mutilation is acceptable, that apartheid was a good idea, and that one of the most regular contributors to this blog isn’t a deeply unsettling douchebag.
Hope that’s clear. And I hope it helps. And I hope I didn’t “twist” your words.
Best wishes to you, sir.
**** ******** “Respect” also means: : to pay proper attention or consideration to: to respect Swiss neutrality. Reduced to being corrected by the natives, shame.
@Mr. Sherman: “Either you believe this: “If one can not respect another’s beliefs, then one should not expect others to respect yours” or you do not believe it.
You appear to have an agenda to discredit me.
You claim you are new here, so I will forgive your claiming to not having read my many posts from the past two plus years here on BU (and over on BFP (hmmm…)) where my position is very clearly defined.
However, you seem fixated on a single sentence, trying to claim that I must agree with genocide and hatred.
Are you familiar with the word “context” Mr. Sherman?
The sentence you keep quoting, and trying to leverage upon, was rendered within the context of religious beliefs.
Namaste to you. And to all.
CH is learning!
He has now grasped the understanding of the word “context” a word frequently used on BU by “the Bible teachers.”
If the dyslexic CH can grasp the concept of context, anyone can!
Mr. Halsall (and it truly saddens me to say this, since he has always seemed to be one of the4 few thoughtful people on this blog) persists in being disappointing.
He says this:
“You claim you are new here, so I will forgive your claiming to not having read my many posts from the past two plus years here on BU …”.
Mr. Halsall: please quote me chapter and verse, with links if it pleases you, when I have claimed
1. To be “new here”.
2. To having not read your many posts.
@Adam Sherman: “2. To having not read your many posts.
@Adam Sherman: “I don’t know you from Adam, Mr. Halsall, but what little I’ve read of your writings suggests to me that you are a reasonably decent person who generally means well.
Will that suffice Mr. Sherman?
Mr. Halsall has another question. It’s a reasonable question posed by a reasonable man.
Mr. Halsall quotes me at the start of his question. Here is Mr. Halsall’s question:
“@Adam Sherman: ‘I don’t know you from Adam, Mr. Halsall, but what little I’ve read of your writings suggests to me that you are a reasonably decent person who generally means well.’
Will that suffice Mr. Sherman?
You misunderstood me, Mr. Halsall, but in this case the failing is mine. I should have been specific enough to make plain that your writings to the “BU family” (and man, that term still makes me laugh out loud every single morning) are all I have read of you. I’d taken it as a given that it’d be understood I hadn’t read, say, your personal correspondence. But I have read your messages when you communicate with the “BU family”. Sometimes, when I’m reading the views of the “BU family” in the morning, I have to clean coffee off my monitor because they are so hysterically demented that they really do, quite literally, make me laugh out loud.
You strike me as a decent person, Mr. Halsall. To reiterate: that’s precisely why it’s disheartening to read you writing an opinion so endlessly adolescent and intellectually bankrupt as this one:
“If one can not respect another’s beliefs, then one should not expect others to respect yours.”
Best wishes to you, Christopher.
@All…
Please note the empirical above…
When the antagonist faces something which will obviously result in defeat, the context suddenly changes…
Welcome to “media” in the “new dark ages”….
Little boy who has lost his home!
**** ******** You cannot stay away so great is the attraction; you are nothing unless you are here..
@ Little boy who has lost his home! // April 8, 2010 at 4:08 PM
Little boy who has lost his home!
**** ******** You cannot stay away so great is the attraction; you are nothing unless you are here..
_____________________________________________________________
Who is **** ******** ?
Are You KPMG / Eversheds Bully boys?
Right. Sure. Whatever.
@ all
Please note all above.
When Mr. Halsall finds himself cornered, unable to make any empirical argument, he disappointingly resorts to the worst form of infantile demagoguery (that is: he relies on your idiocy to make his point).
I have tried to be polite to Mr. Halsall. I have paid him respect.
Mr. Halsall thinks this, which forever will stand as a statement of his world outlook:
“If one can not respect another’s beliefs, then one should not expect others to respect yours.”
Not even a child would say that.
@All…
I am slowly learning there is advantage in not responding.
Particularly to idiots….
We see Halsall talking to himself (i.e,Adam Sherman) and carrting on a conversation in which they curse each other with the hope thast this thread will be closed just as the last religious thread was.
This is the obvious ploy. It is very easy to see that.
@GP
You have to bring a clearer perspective in order for a person to understand the significance of the Lords Supper and its relevance in partaking of his Body and Blood . If in todays society a religious denomination would use such terminology it would be consider a “cult”.
@GP
iI have been away for some time; reason for my late response.
Please note:
1. I do have Dr. Walter Martin’s book:”Kingdom of the Cults”. I have owned it for 21
years. I am yet to see where he labels the SDA’s as a cult, as you have so
forthrightly done.
Please give me the page, and I’ll check it. You can never tell, I might have missed it.
2.Referring us to Galations and Ephesians as your basis for labelling the church as
a cult will not do. You have to tell us what the verses say, and your interpretation of
the verses
3. You said that the SDA’s are a spin off from the Baptist. WRONG! DEAD
WRONG! You know not what you are saying
If they are a spin-off from the Baptists, kindly inform us who the fouding fathers
were.
4. I thought the SDA’s were a church that believed in salvation by Grace. I thought
this was entrenched and documented in their Statement of Beliefs. But it is obvious
you seem to have a different version of their cannons.
I am wondering Dr Georgie, if your beef with the adventists comes down to “the Sabbath”
Have a good evening. I have to go right now.
When you respond, please quote simple English so that we all can understand and do our research.
Your friend….CULT
@
CULT
I am glad you have Dr. Walter Martin’s book :”Kingdom of the Cults” for 21 years
So then you can read it. I lent out my copy and have never got it back.
Re 2.Referring us to Galations and Ephesians as your basis for labelling the church as
a cult will not do. You have to tell us what the verses say, and your interpretation of
the verses
I know what Galatians says about Law & Grace . You need to read it for yourself and interpret it for your self. I don’t have to do a thing Sir. If you don’t agree with what I have said. Come teach me about it.
Maybe Zoe can address you on cults.. That is his area of expertise.
Re 3. You said that the SDA’s are a spin off from the Baptist. WRONG! DEAD
WRONG! You know not what you are saying
Texts of Church History state clearly the origin of the SDA. The SDA is a relatively late group on the “church” scene. Both SDA’s and JW’s are both spin offs from the Baptist church. If they are a spin-off from the Baptists, kindly inform us who the fouding fathers
were.
Sir I know who the FOUNDER OF THE CHURCH IS. I could not care two hoots who founded the SDA church. If you are a SDA you should know that.
Re 4. I thought the SDA’s were a church that believed in salvation by Grace. I thought
this was entrenched and documented in their Statement of Beliefs. But it is obvious
you seem to have a different version of their cannons.
Do you think Sir or do you know?
I have no beef with the SDA’s or any one else. When folk in my church group err. I don’t hide to say so You see I don’t defend a denomination . I try to align myself and my thinking with what the Bible teaches.
Re When you respond, please quote simple English so that we all can understand and do our research.
I speak and write good English despite my keyboard problems. If you don’t understand my vocabulary, LOOK UP THE WORDS! This is not an English class.
Zoe
Can you respond to Cult
And also delve into the Ordinance of the Lord’s Supper and its significance, and the various ways it is observed here and there?
I have some Biochem to teach. Cant do any Dentistry now
Georgie Porgie // April 8, 2010 at 12:13 AM
Nope! I did not take it for the last week. It has been very sunny and I have been outdoors. However, I take it during the winter! It is recommended to overcome SAD. That is supposed to be “seasonal adjustment disorder”, which affects our moods during the winter when there is less sun, less light, less out doorsy activities. The government recommeds that adults and children take it. They were even suggestions of adding it to food other than milk.
Send me the plan by private e-mail and I will see have we can develop the business venture. I am serious. If we are early on the bandwagon, we can capitalize big time.
Anon // April 8, 2010 at 6:00 PM
We see Halsall talking to himself (i.e,Adam Sherman) and carrting on a conversation in which they curse each other with the hope thast this thread will be closed just as the last religious thread was.
This is the obvious ploy. It is very easy to see that.
Can you share your method of determining this?
Why do you people make ridiculous comment that you can not prove. If you said you felt or thought this, you can be excused but to blatantly make such an ignorant statement that you know this well… *sigh*.
Pat
Re Take your Vit D and live for ever! Its the cure for all!
Perhaps we can work out the mechanism of action and the pharmacokinetics and phamacodynamics together, and mek a likkle money. Wuh you say?
I was sure that you realized that I was very sarcastic. Wuh happen ole girl? You losing it or wuh? Read my comments on the Vit D thread and give me your thoughts.
David raised the issue probably to stimulate interest or discussion, and some one called Researcher seem to want to capitalze or jump on the bandwagon to get all the folk in Bim that read BU out there spending there money on it.
I can understand the use for SAD, but NONE of the articles linked explained HOW Vit D is doing all these wonderful things for every malady known to man.
NONE of the articles linked explained what is happening to calcium levels and phosphate levels while the Vit D levels are low. That bothers me. Plus they are talking about increasing the RDA!
NONE of the articles linked explained the mecahism of action of Vit D in the indications postulated or what the body is doing to the Vit D, or what the Vit D is doing to the body that is different to what we know already.
I was taught NEVER BE THE FIRST TO EMBRACE THE NEW OR TO ABANDON THE OLD. LOL
I will consult my cousin (physician and naturopath on this and get back to you on this privately.
OK David YOu will get your cut, I will not treat you like MME did us with the apoptosis almost 2 years now ! LOL.
Techie ma boy
Re Why do you people make ridiculous comment that you can not prove. If you said you felt or thought this, you can be excused but to blatantly make such an ignorant statement that you know this well… *sigh*.
I have to agree with you 100 % my friend. Anon is remiss. But a few weeks ago I didnt hear you come out when RIDICULOUS IGNORANT BLATANT UNPROVEABLE LOW DOWN LIES WERE TOLD ABOUT ME.
@GP,
Sorry. I think you misunderstood me. I wasn’t referring to you command of English. Your English is impeccable; i mean’t your Latin quotes.
GP, I usually laud you when you write on theological matters. In fact, I find them interesting and stimulating. However, this is one where you have no answer. On this you score a big zero.
In deed, you cannot fight against truth.
Your solicitation of back-up help from Zoe sounds like a serious request for help.
You can now go to your Biochem. class, as you are over an hour late. I hope your students are still waiting.
CULT
@ Dr. Georgie
Man, sure you were not taking me seriously. ha, ha, ha. I would need the proof of any of these so called cures. Besides, I have already had my foray into ‘small business’ and being an entrepreneur.
Cult
Biochem was good
Zoe is the expert on cults and isms and schisms. I am into Eschatology and Methods of Bible Study (a ka Hermemeutics and exegesis).
Plus all of my books are in Barbados, so I am limited in checking my sources. Dont much use the internet for this. I can usually find stuff that I have marked in my books.
You cant mean quid dixi scripsique, dixi scripsique. You cant get it more elegant than that— putting que after the word instead of putting dixi et scripsi.
Pat
I just glad to be reassured that you still in control of your game. Cause I didnt get a peep out of you on the matter. We cant let these snake oil salesmen try to fool BU folk.
They fool think he can fool us.
He ought to have stuck to one disease! But he come wid a cure fuh all.
I dont really have the time to give him a proper whipping!
@ GP…
I have to agree with you 100 % my friend. Anon is remiss. But a few weeks ago I didnt hear you come out when RIDICULOUS IGNORANT BLATANT UNPROVEABLE LOW DOWN LIES WERE TOLD ABOUT ME.
That is for you to defend GP. Those lies were addressed to you personally and I can see from your track record that you can defend yourself well.
What I and commenting about is technology, I defend ignorance of it the same way you would defend correct Bible study..ah lie?
Techie
Quae cum ita sint (= that being the case) it is note worthy in Anon’s defence that neither of these two ??? have apeared together arguing except on religious blogs. Ah lie? LOL
Anon’s conclusion may indeed be incorrect, but it is noticeable that Anonnymous had, and shared the same opinion.
Annonymous
I am still waiting to hear your thoughts on who are “Evangelicals”.
@GP: “Quae cum ita sint (= that being the case) it is note worthy in Anon’s defence that neither of these two ??? have apeared together arguing except on religious blogs.
As I hope (and trust) you know GP, correlation does not mean causality. And the record will show that I’ve never interacted with Mr. Sherman before this single blog entry.
As I’ve said many times before, I only post under my own (real) name.
I personally believe only a coward would hide behind an alias.
Mr. Halsall,
Are you saying that GP and anon are one and the same person?
Why would a Christian practice such deceit?
halall didnt say it…you are! Ah lie?
And just in case GP and anon are one and the same person, when Saul of Tarsus was called deceit was that deceit? Does calling Jacob Israel constitute deceit or calling Cephas, Peter.
And I am sure that there are at least 316 names for Christ in the Bible according to one Brethren scholar from New Zealand as recorded in his books THE INCOMPARIBLE CHRIST. (Sorry you cant google dat.) I suppose he was decitful too.Eh?
Off course Tecchie will not come to my defence here either.
With respect to who are called Evangelicals or Fundamentalists, Miss.
At the turn of the last century it was generally decided that Evangelicals or Fundamentalists were any church group that believed and taught
the Deity of Christ
the Virgin Birth of Christ
the sacrificial substitutionary death of Christ as the only way for salvation
the resuirrection of Christ
the visible return of christ.
This involved an amorphous collection of groups. To call a “church” evangelical is in my view an oxymoron , or at best redundant, since by definition evangelism is one of the 5 purposes of a ;ocal “church” according to NT teachings.
Many of the “churches” that are today called “evangelical” have very little in common.
Now you see I have gone from GP to Anon to Annoymous, while all the time of course being totally annonymous. What irony! What hilarity! Where shall I go next?
@”Georgie Porgie”: “Now you see I have gone from GP to Anon to Annoymous, while all the time of course being totally annonymous. What irony! What hilarity!
Rather trivial, isn’t it?
@””Georgie Porgie”: Where shall I go next?
That’s up to you.
the teachers on this blog is not doing a good job in educating the students. Maybe it because the classroom is not in acontrol setting as they are used to. Rather than saying they don’t know they would continue to demean the student or dismiss a question as irrelevant. However everything has rellevancy in one way or another. Maybe some of these “TEACHERS” need to go back to TRAINING COLLEGE
The Pope Benedict story continues to heat up. Note the role of the press in unearthing the letter.
ac // April 9, 2010 at 6:47 PM
the teachers on this blog is not doing a good job in educating the students.
************************************
Hello ac:
This teacher will give you a leg up.
The sentence above, the first in your post, has two grammatical errors.
No, no, no! I am not Jack Bowman nor Adam Sherman. There are more in the same post, but I don’t want to pick nits.
@PAT
CORRECTION
The teachers onthis blog are not doing a good job educating the students. O.K.
However teacher I prefer to have my legs down or sit crossed leg.
@ ac
Touche!