prove the Anglican church (and 36098 other protestant churches) legitimate

Keirador said:
I cut out the remainder of your argument because if one wants to they can just go back and see it, and it was very long. Didn't want to take up too much space. Furthermore, it was sort of a non-argument. Catholics claim that Peter was the first leader of the Church, with a Bible verse for support. You claim (or rather the writer you appeared to be quoting claims) that this is not so because there is not enough supporting evidence in the rest of the Bible.
The quote is nothing but a theory. Just like, imho, Peter being the first pope is nothing but a traditional theory.

Anyway: let's assume for a moment Peter did found the catholic Church and indeed was the first pope.
that still cuts the part that the Roman Catholic Church had nothing to do with the first Christians (merely a Jewish sect, possibly lead by Jesus' brother (or step-brother, or cousin) James, from 30-62 A.D.).
If Peter is supposed to have founded the church (btw, where did he do that, according to Roman Catholic tradition? I assume Rome, so correct me when I'm wrong), he did so between 30 and 40 A.D. right?
Then, in 90 A.D., there appears a gospel, written in Greek, possibly in Syria (but nobody really knows) where the foundation of the church is 'predicted'.

So, Catholics claim Peter was the first leader of the Church, with a Bible verse, that was written long after Pete was the first leader, for support.
That's just fishy, isn't it?

I do realise I can easily analyse this matter from a 100% historical point of view.
 
cgannon64 said:
Sure, it could, but where is the evidence?



A lack of evidence. (Before you throw in the cheap shot - Where is the evidence of God - the existence of a person would be a historical fact, the existence of a diety would not.)

Anyway, the debate is worthless anyway. I do not care if Jesus had a brother, but I will argue against someone who claims it as fact.

We have evidence (is not the same as proof):
The Bible sais:
Isn't that (Jesus) the son of Maria, and the brother of <4 names>?
That more or less assumes they were real brothers, and not just cousins or distant relatives.

Furthermore: most couples did have kids, so why not J&M?

You won't here me claim it as a fact, but there is, imho, a historical probability Jesus had a brother James.
 
Had this on my mind since this OT topic started:
Rufus said:
Mary gave birth to CHRIST without having known a man's touch, that's true. But she did have a husband. And do you really think he'd have stayed married to her all those years if he wasn't getting laid? The nature of God and the Virgin Mary, those are leaps of faith. But to believe a married couple never got down? Well, that's just plain gullibility.
For those who haven't seen it, that's from the movie Dogma, which I think has a lot of good points about religion and the follies thereof.
 
Actually, the original Christians never died out. They simply kept a low profile due to persecution, mainly by the RCC, occasionally surfacing long enough for the Inquisition to burn a few at the stake with their Bibles chained to them as a warning to others not to read Scripture.
 
FearlessLeader2 said:
Actually, the original Christians never died out. They simply kept a low profile due to persecution, mainly by the RCC, occasionally surfacing long enough for the Inquisition to burn a few at the stake with their Bibles chained to them as a warning to others not to read Scripture.

Well these original Christians were there, before any part of the NT was written down.
 
privatehudson said:
Oh no, I'm not the bible believer my friend, I leave the explanation of that work to those who understand it better :D



Well he almost certainly should have. What you're mistaking here is that I'm not arguing that god should have removed those popes, but that the Catholic church should have.

But wouldn't they have the same problem removing the pope as the people would have removing King David? If the pope was thought to be appointed by human agency alone then your idea carries, but it is considered done though the Holy Spirit in cooperation with the voters if I'm not mistaken. You see, it's not that the pope necessarily be "personally" a holy person, though that of course helps, but that the "position" of the pope is guaranteed from from error in ex cathedra teachings on faith and morals. As I said before, I'm not entirely sure how the Holy Spirit prevents it if some not-so-good pope wanted to contradict prior Catholic teaching and misuse the office that way. I have heard a story, probably mere legend, that there was a pope that was going to do that very thing, but somehow he got distracted by something else and decided against it making the announcement afterall. If I was a pope I sure wouldn't "ask for it" by doing something so dumb.

I'm also arguing that to retain such popes and continue to promote them through it's history amongst other things shows that the church during that period had deviated strongly from the teachings of Christ, had "lost it's way" you might say. Whether there is a single precedent in the bible is pretty irrelevant to this, what David did was also against Christ's teachings (and yes I do know the time difference). You can't simply dismiss putting a bunch of evil madmen in charge of promoting your religion by saying "well god didn't remove David did he?" or "they're only sinners like the rest of us".

Let me see if you can understand this. Admittadly, as we humans think, which isn't God's way of thinking btw, the church would be better off with a holier pope than a more rascally one, but the point is that though there may be people who would bolt because of a 'personally' bad pope, the teaching of the Church can and does stand 100%. It's not that Christ guarantees we will always have holy leaders, though it would be nice, but just that the office of the Pope will not officially teach anything contrary to what Heaven holds us to. A pope can murder the entire Swiss Guard and still not change the obligation of "thou shalt not murder" to all Catholics as being objectively grave sin. For so many false stories about the clergy that there are, and even for the genuine ones, do you recall say a pope fornicating and then telling Catholics ex cathedra that they can go fornicate, or murder, or anythign of the sort that was priorly contrary to Catholic teaching? No you cannot and that's what I'm talking about. Understandably you see think that the more evil the pope the more likely he would change such things, but Christ guarantees against his being able to pull it off. As I say I don't know how but the Almighty has endless ways needless to say.

I frankly don't give a monkeys whether God does or does not choose the popes of history, but I do believe that if an church puts those someone into it's highest office and retains them there, knowing full well that their attitudes and actions are wholly against what the church is supposed to stand for and teach, then it's to my mind gone awry.

So how does a fornicating pope, for example, display himself being "wholly" against the Church? The man fornicates he doesn't go out beating on little children, he doesn't rob banks, he doesn't abort babies and he sure doesn't teach ex cathedra that those actions are now morally neutral for Catholics. Even so, you're assuming that the bad things people do, particularly the popes it would seem, do so deliberately and don't put up the least resistance and are just chronic evil people and I would be a bit more charitable and conclude that they most likely had moments of weakness instead and fell. Having a high position brings a LOT more tempations as the example of king David shows easily. A man has to guard himself along with the Lord's grace to bear those new temptations, which apparently David and a lot of people do not. I mean, even in my youth when I was doing bad things, I didn't automatically teach against the Church because I was warped or weak.

Which brings me back to the point that this thread began on. The anglican church may have been founded on the whim of Henry VIII, but the rise of protestantism in the country and elsewhere didn't come about just because the King got divorced*. You can bet it had more than a small amount to do with a reaction against the abuses of the Catholic church at the time too.

Well I don't know but that's how I always heard it. I'm sure a believing Anglican would state it somewhat differently, but though it's entirely conceivable that somebody was abusing something somewhere (despite the official teaching not changing) this is nothing less than very vague vain speculation on your part. Are all the fallouts with the Church to be blamed on the Church, or is it possible that those that fell out could have been morally corrupt themselves if not more so (everyone already knows how corrupt King Henry got)?

I mean, for example, there were some heretics who believed that Jesus wasn't a man. Who cares who is more morally proper, the teaching is just plain wrong, so they were showed the door. Sinners come and go, but the teaching must remain.

Which is not to claim the branches of the protestant church are any better, but the argument that somehow because you're older, you have a better understanding of the teachings of christ is in direct contradiction to the fact that for a long while the Popes weren't very intent on following such teachings at all, or at least did not show it very well.

It isn't a matter of being older, it's because it was THE Christian Church that sprang from Christ and has been maintained by the Holy Spirit since. It's age is only important inasmuch that we're talkiing about the Christian world. If a church is younger than the Catholic one, then surely it did not spring forth straight from Pentecost but came from some man or men forming together apart from Her.

This whole series of posts is basically me just disagreeing with the theory that older must mean closer to what it should be.

I understand that view from my flesh side, since usually age means more dilution, however, when God acts to preserve, it gets better over time instead, as you say. The early teachings were just as true then as now, only sometimes, those teachings over time come out more clearly.

*For that matter the Anglican church didn't become Protestant until after he died anyway.

I don't know all that much about it, but I think it more or less started with the Henry's divorce. Now I don't know if he did this or not, as I don't recall all the details, but if you had a king organizing a church, or modifying the one you had there, something a King had not the power to do, to where the members could divorce and remarry for example, then that is no longer the same church by any means, though the same people may had been in it before and after (one day they're following Rome and the next day they are not). You can't just take charge of the local Catholic church for example, over the bishop, and then change what is considered sin and in any way still be Catholic. If the Catholic Church calls remarrying while any of your prior spouses are alive as adultery, and you teach it's okay, you can see how you're not Catholic anymore.

King Henry was the one who started the split. It wasn't something others did after he died, though they might have exasperated things.
 
Uiler said:
Wait a moment - wasn't David and Bathsheba's son Solomon? In fact I remember Bathsheba (being David's favourite) managed to extract a promise from David to make Solomon his heir even though he had older brothers. This then caused a lot of interfamilial disputes with the odd murder or a dozen. So the baby born from their illicit affair actually went on to rule Israel.

Yes, I think you have that right, but David really did get hit hard with the loss of Absolom, because for one thing the means of his death, and how Absolom conducted his life, probably gave David to think that Absolom was damned.
 
Stapel said:
The quote is nothing but a theory. Just like, imho, Peter being the first pope is nothing but a traditional theory.

Anyway: let's assume for a moment Peter did found the catholic Church and indeed was the first pope.
that still cuts the part that the Roman Catholic Church had nothing to do with the first Christians (merely a Jewish sect, possibly lead by Jesus' brother (or step-brother, or cousin) James, from 30-62 A.D.).
If Peter is supposed to have founded the church (btw, where did he do that, according to Roman Catholic tradition? I assume Rome, so correct me when I'm wrong), he did so between 30 and 40 A.D. right?
Then, in 90 A.D., there appears a gospel, written in Greek, possibly in Syria (but nobody really knows) where the foundation of the church is 'predicted'.

So, Catholics claim Peter was the first leader of the Church, with a Bible verse, that was written long after Pete was the first leader, for support.
That's just fishy, isn't it?

I do realise I can easily analyse this matter from a 100% historical point of view.

We don't believe the Catholic Church was something that came about later in Rome, we believe there is ONE Church, inspired by Jesus Christ and continued immediately by his Apostles, most notably Peter. This is why Peter, rather than, say, the rather influential Paul, was the first Pope: Paul wasn't there at the inception of the Church. Eventually, the Church schismed and splintered, but we identify our beginnings with that early Jewish sect.

As far as the whole thing sounding fishy, I'm gonna refer you back to:
Keirador said:
Don't get me wrong, I acknowledge that I can't prove, even in a theological sense, that Peter WAS the first Pope. Its just that you can't prove he wasn't, either. For this reason, among others, I respect most Christian sects. I do not believe that a good Catholic is more likely to get to Heaven than a good Methodist. To me, there are really only a few things you have to believe in order to be a good Christian. I choose to support Catholicism in part because I find it as or more valid than any competing Christian sect, in part because its simply family tradition, partly because I feel the Catholics make better use of my donation money than any other Church, and I find the masses familiar and comfortable.
 
Stapel said:
We have evidence (is not the same as proof):
The Bible sais:
Isn't that (Jesus) the son of Maria, and the brother of <4 names>?
That more or less assumes they were real brothers, and not just cousins or distant relatives.

How does that assume they are real brothers? (You'll have to pull up the real quote for me.)

Furthermore: most couples did have kids, so why not J&M?

That's a very poor argument.

---

Btw, Dogma, while a great movie, says that there is a giant Christian conspiracy to cover up the existence of brothers of Jesus. Not only would such a conspiracy be illogical, it is just that: conspiracy theory.
 
the100thballoon: I found this quote whilst reading a few pages of concordance which ought to give those without bishops pause, concerning the legitimacy you brought up, or if not legitimacy then certainly to question whether their church is "the church of God".

Acts 20. 28-29:

Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

I know that, after my departure, ravening wolves will enter among you, not sparing the flock.
 
But wouldn't they have the same problem removing the pope as the people would have removing King David?

Oh I'm sure the church of the time wouldn't have been above finding some way of removing a pope if it felt it necessary. Truth be told the church seems to have preferred those types of popes at the time they were in office, otherwise I very much doubt they'd have been repeatedly put into power. Since I don't believe the idea about God choosing the pope holds water I'm afraid I'm not going to buy the idea that they were there for a reason.

So how does a fornicating pope, for example, display himself being "wholly" against the Church?

You seem to be confusing things here. I said against the teachings of christ, not the church's institutions, teachings or methods.

You further seem to think the pope's I'm referring to were just a little naughty, whereas I'm referring to popes for whom rape of women and children were as I said a kind of hobby. The kinds of popes who poisoned people, or massacred people in wars. Gay popes (not that I have an objection to it, but it would be my understanding that the C. Church sure does), murderers, pirates and other such wonderful examples of the teachings of a man dedicated to peace and loving thy neighbour.

I heartily suggest before replying to this you read Kafka's article on the topic to get an idea of the kinds of pope's I'm referring to. I don't think you can suggest that Gregory VII was just a little bit nasty and deep down had the best interests of the church at heart. A pope should lead by example, and if that's the example they were setting then yes, I'm going to claim that this was just one way the church lost it's way.

I'm sure a believing Anglican would state it somewhat differently, but though it's entirely conceivable that somebody was abusing something somewhere (despite the official teaching not changing) this is nothing less than very vague vain speculation on your part.

So let me see if I've got this right, the anglican church was founded by Henry on a whim. People who otherwise would have had no objection whatsoever to the Roman church then proceeded to risk their lives, indeed later give up their lives just simply because of what then? Do you seriously believe that the formation of the Protestant church in England or elswehere came about on a whim? What about the sale of indulgences for example that irked Luther so much?

Are all the fallouts with the Church to be blamed on the Church, or is it possible that those that fell out could have been morally corrupt themselves if not more so (everyone already knows how corrupt King Henry got)?

I don't think I suggested the Church was solely to blame, but the theory that somehow these people split off on the whim of their king/queen seems a little stretched. It would seem only logical to me that people who risked their lives for their religion did so on a little more than the right of Henry VIII to get divorced. Faith differences and an annoyance at the Roman church would be my bet.

I mean, for example, there were some heretics who believed that Jesus wasn't a man. Who cares who is more morally proper, the teaching is just plain wrong, so they were showed the door. Sinners come and go, but the teaching must remain.

Oh yes, the teaching remained, unforutnately usually through brutal supression of anyone that didn't agree with it. I imagine that played no small part in people's reasons to split off either.

it's because it was THE Christian Church that sprang from Christ and has been maintained by the Holy Spirit since

That's simply unprovable, it's a matter of faith whether you believe that.

I don't know all that much about it, but I think it more or less started with the Henry's divorce

Henry did not magically make England protestant though, that came after his death under his son's reign. Henry may have effectively shoved two fingers up at the popes of the time, but he did not change the basic religion. He smashed the pope's power base here, he did not actively change much religiously (other than destroying monastries for money and removing the pope from the equation). In other words, had his eldest daughter took the throne after his death, lived and produced an heir, in all likelyhood the pope's power would have been secured once more. Henry began the split, but the process was not unstoppable, indeed Mary turned back the clock when she took the throne and restored much of what had been lost.

As for the notion that his actions stopped him being catholic, well I agree because to be a catholic then largely meant unswerving servitude to the whims of the pope of the time. I do not believe it stopped the country from being catholic though, largely because the only thing that had changed was the church heirarchy's lack of obediance to the pope. There wasn't a massive surge of divorces after Henry's for a start.

Quite why having to swear alliegance to some guy who you've never met who's as sinful as you and possibly 10 times worse than anyone you've ever met is such a crucial part of the faith though is beyond me. Then again, I don't hold much faith in the religion so I guess it always will be :D

Oh and on the divorce issue, from what I was taught in history, the biggest obstacle to the granting of it wasn't the catholic doctrine, or the pope himself. The biggest problem was that Catherine's nephew who had captured Rome and naturally wasn't going to let his aunt be dethroned. Henry even had a reasonably valid reason to "divorce" his wife in that she'd been married to his brother before she married him (I forget the details, but there was some biblical thing against such a marriage, so Henry argued the marriage was in effect null anyway). Who knows what ruling the pope would have come up with had he been free to choose?
 
privatehudson:
You seem to be confusing things here. I said against the teachings of christ, not the church's institutions, teachings or methods.

When the teachings of Christ are in the Church, as they are, then there is no difference.

I heartily suggest before replying to this you read Kafka's article on the topic to get an idea of the kinds of pope's I'm referring to. I don't think you can suggest that Gregory VII was just a little bit nasty and deep down had the best interests of the church at heart. A pope should lead by example, and if that's the example they were setting then yes, I'm going to claim that this was just one way the church lost it's way.

There's just something you do not understand. The entireity of the Church is NOT the pope, he is but the leader. The church, it's entireity CANNOT go astray even if Hitler were the pope. Sure some people are lost because they're unconcerned with where the truth is taught, but more concerned on how they 'appear' proper (running from very church with any hint of scandal) and it's a shame, but the teachign remains intatc nonetheless. Maybe you're impressed with 1% scandal and 90% truth, whereas nothing substitutes for the truth in my view. I would assume of course that you think you hold the truth, but from one who really has the truth, no scandal or bad circumstances can shift him off of it and I wouldn't expect anything less from anybody else. How other people sin, even the leader, is the least of my concerns. Until the pope teaches ex cathedra and he won't, that any of his sins are not sins and that it's a new observance on the Church for every Catholic, then and only then will it be relevant. Sure having somebody a great sinner is apt to make non-official teachings and utterances from the pope a problem with the weak and so on, but hwen you're grounded in what you already know is the truth and that it will not change, it's only another sinner partially destroying the world as we all do, and still I know the truth will remain. Despite millenias of sinners and sinful leaders, has one iota of the 10 Commandments changed to make what was evil, good? Nope. The Holy Spirit is tough enough to get around the dust He has to appoint to lead us, adn what's more important is that He said the church woudl prevail. hasn't it started to occur to you that the cause-effect of secular institutions is quite different to God's hand on the Church? If the Holy Spirit protects something, that's it.

Besides, you alluded to it somewhat, though I don't recall the passage, that God will grant the kind of leaders the people are, but that sure doesn't mean that HE then contradicts himself and it means the same thing as His Church officially teaching false ex cathedra because of bad guys. What kind of church did Jesus found if His teachings keep getting corrupted every time somebody in high position sins? So what do you do if that's true? Keep a morality gauge, despite no outward teaching dips, and bolt for the next church that will have some corruption? Jesus jolly well has a real problem keeping people following His teachings if it can corrupt like that, and how would we know that church A was any closer to the truth than church B if it's always susceptible to corruption? The Bible alone isn't enough, you still need incorrupt interpretation as it doesn't interpret itself, and we're far too susceptible to corruption or misinterpretation ourselves, let alone that we would have sufficient knowledge of all the languages and traditions and so forth.

Was God's Law any the more weaker for Moses killing somebody? Or how about his striking the rock twice? Or how about the people, basically everyone under Moses at Mt. Siani, any the weaker for their indiscretions? Nope. That behavior is less encouraging, the law doesn't bend, unlike the secular worls because a bunch of people, or even very imporant ones, ar acting like idiots.

I don't think I suggested the Church was solely to blame, but the theory that somehow these people split off on the whim of their king/queen seems a little stretched. It would seem only logical to me that people who risked their lives for their religion did so on a little more than the right of Henry VIII to get divorced. Faith differences and an annoyance at the Roman church would be my bet.

I wasn't so much saying that you did, but I do find it amazing for those who point at the sinners in the Church, would at the same time not draw the conclusion that all those other people in other churches have the very same problem, that God didn't necessarily make them immune from sin upon ordination, and therefore can scarcely be a gauge on the truth in the teaching, and of course the inherant problems I described above. I suppose when we find the perfect people with the perfect leader or no worse than 'less-than-perfect' then we know where to go, but it isn't ever going to happen. If it's any comfort, recall how Moses felt when he saw the people when he brought down the 10 Commandments.

Of course there were faith differences, but there are no faith differences in God. And of course those who didn't want to follow the rules of the Church were annoyed at them, so they would split and do whatever they had a mind for. Apparently Henry had a mind for women and heirs.

Oh yes, the teaching remained, unforutnately usually through brutal supression of anyone that didn't agree with it. I imagine that played no small part in people's reasons to split off either.

As opposed to the brutality of those who wanted to force change on those who followed those teachings? You see how useless it is using people's sins as a criteria of whether you're being told God's truth or not?

That's simply unprovable, it's a matter of faith whether you believe that.

There's quite a lot of documented evidence, but it's true it's unproveable if one doesn't have access or doesn't want it, or has been honed against it already. Both sides have their apologetics you know, you just have to cut through it somehow.

As for the notion that his actions stopped him being catholic, well I agree because to be a catholic then largely meant unswerving servitude to the whims of the pope of the time. I do not believe it stopped the country from being catholic though, largely because the only thing that had changed was the church heirarchy's lack of obediance to the pope. There wasn't a massive surge of divorces after Henry's for a start.

This is true, however, when speaking of the Anglicans, one is commonly thought that they're talking about the start with Henry. He allowed divorce and remarriage apparently and there might have been other differences. I was thinking of writing to you on just what a faithful Catholic would do in that situation of some crisis, but declined, and indeed there were a great many that remained steadfast as their situation would allow (how can you got to Mass for example if Henry's rule overtook them all (just a hypothetical)?

Quite why having to swear alliegance to some guy who you've never met who's as sinful as you and possibly 10 times worse than anyone you've ever met is such a crucial part of the faith though is beyond me. Then again, I don't hold much faith in the religion so I guess it always will be

This is not too surprising.

The biggest problem was that Catherine's nephew who had captured Rome and naturally wasn't going to let his aunt be dethroned. Henry even had a reasonably valid reason to "divorce" his wife in that she'd been married to his brother before she married him (I forget the details, but there was some biblical thing against such a marriage, so Henry argued the marriage was in effect null anyway). Who knows what ruling the pope would have come up with had he been free to choose?

If what you're saying is true, it's still a doctrine of obedience to wait till the appointed time until his case was heard and changed. I always understood that part or all of the deal, despite what excuses he may have had, was to get a male heir and his current wife would not be able to accomplish that, but then I'm fairly vague on Henry anyway.
 
What kind of church did Jesus found if His teachings keep getting corrupted every time somebody in high position sins?

Your whole post (an excellent one, btw) reminds me a bit of the Donatist controversy.

I care not whether my Pope or priest is a raging sinner...the truth is not poisoned if it comes in a damaged vessel.

(Btw, I've never been sure what to think of the ex cathedra infallibility thing. I think it might require more faith than I've got.)
 
When the teachings of Christ are in the Church, as they are, then there is no difference.

But when the church repeatedly showed evidence that it is operating against the teachings, there is.

There's just something you do not understand. The entireity of the Church is NOT the pope, he is but the leader

I understand quite well thank you. I direct you to below as to why I believe the actions have impact and importance.

The church, it's entireity CANNOT go astray even if Hitler were the pope

I disagree, when a church is actively supporting war, or promoting one after another people who are totally against the general teachings of it's mentor, or when a church persecutes anyone who opposes it, or any number of other reasons, then I believe it is possible to argue that as an institution it has gone astray of it's founding principles. Which is not to say every single member of that church is evil, but to say that people would be quite within their rights to take a look at the Roman church under any of those popes and decide for themselves that the way they can be saved, or the way they worship will no longer go through such a corrupt rabble. The teaching may remain intact, but the actions of the church no longer reflected the teachings any longer.

The Holy Spirit is tough enough to get around the dust He has to appoint to lead us, adn what's more important is that He said the church woudl prevail. hasn't it started to occur to you that the cause-effect of secular institutions is quite different to God's hand on the Church? If the Holy Spirit protects something, that's it.

Firstly I have yet to see any proof that the church referred to so often must be the catholic church. It would be my opinion that the "church" referred to rather talks about the teachings, morality and writings of Jesus which has continued to exist. Since I do not believe in needing a church or another person to understand these, I see no need to preserve any one branch of the church whatsoever. I especially see no need to proclaim whole branches of the religion invalid (if they teach the basic teachings and writings) simply because they disagree on ridiculous points (to me) like whether they should bow down to one person over everyone else.

but I do find it amazing for those who point at the sinners in the Church, would at the same time not draw the conclusion that all those other people in other churches have the very same problem, that God didn't necessarily make them immune from sin upon ordination

Be amazed all you like for that is not the kind of person I am.

Coincidentally, I got bored reading the rest of your large rant, so since it doesn't seem to relate entirely to the point I was origninally making (ie defending the idea that Anglicans have a valid church) you'll forgive me if I find some more interesting things to talk about. I will say though that you may have an interest in defending your church's eligability, unfortunately I don't have any interest in suggesting it is ineligable, so you're rather wasting your time frankly. I do have an interest in pointing out that the rise of protestantism in England was not solely down to the whim of a monarch though, hence my point as to why people would be annoyed with the church.

Of course there were faith differences, but there are no faith differences in God. And of course those who didn't want to follow the rules of the Church were annoyed at them, so they would split and do whatever they had a mind for

To my mind if they kept the basic teachings, which the anglicans certainly did or shall we said did as much as the Catholic church did at their core, I see no reason why they are any less valuable.

As opposed to the brutality of those who wanted to force change on those who followed those teachings?

The protestant Monarchs certainly were very violent in their conversion of England yes, I don't think I argued they were not.

You see how useless it is using people's sins as a criteria of whether you're being told God's truth or not?

Frankly? I think I would not listen to a homicidal maniac or a king with a need for an heir but to which made more sense to me.

There's quite a lot of documented evidence

That you can show here? (On second thoughts see below)

This is true, however, when speaking of the Anglicans, one is commonly thought that they're talking about the start with Henry

I believe I said that did I not?

He allowed divorce and remarriage apparently and there might have been other differences

I'm not sure just how much he "allowed" divorce in terms of it suddenly being ok in England to be frank. Other than his divorce, his major acts were to dissolve the Monastries (financial gain and break pope's power) and force the church to swear he was head of it rather than the pope. I'd rather like to think somehow that God wouldn't give a damn whether the King of England or the pope was head of the church of England though as long as the basic ideals were taught, but hey that's just me.

If what you're saying is true, it's still a doctrine of obedience to wait till the appointed time until his case was heard and changed

Again, I'm at a loss to understand what right the Pope has to interfere with the life of someone he's not met, but hey that's me.

I always understood that part or all of the deal, despite what excuses he may have had, was to get a male heir and his current wife would not be able to accomplish that, but then I'm fairly vague on Henry anyway.

That would be his central reasoning, though as I said, it wasn't like he didn't have a valid point.

Anyway, fun as this has been, no actually, discussing the finer points of Catholic dogma is boring, so it's not fun... Well, time consuming as this has been, I stand by and shall conclude with my reasoning:

Older is not necessarily more knowledgeable, especially if you loose your way in the methods you use to project those teachings onto the world
As long as the central beliefs, teachings and morality of Jesus/God are kept to, I would not consider a church illegitimate. I've yet to see a convincing reason why it should not either

I'm off back to the history forums where I don't have to listen to long drawn out points about a religion I don't give a monkeys about :D

Which will probably bring criticism, but since my original intention was to make a short point in favour of the anglican church's founding and eligibility, and disagree with this "older is better" theory, and I have done this. I'd rather not get dragged further into extensive debates about the morality of your church, or biblical figures, or the sinful nature of man, or whatever else you intend to come up with. I'm sure you could find pleanty of people to do this with who aren't bored with the topic :)
 
I did have something of a point-by-point rebuttal as we had started up somehow, but seeing as how this bores you, I'll refrain and leave my comments to these points made from these quotes you made and those beyond as it's quite different from your earlier posts.

Coincidentally, I got bored reading the rest of your large rant, so since it doesn't seem to relate entirely to the point I was origninally making (ie defending the idea that Anglicans have a valid church) you'll forgive me if I find some more interesting things to talk about.

Perhaps you should read the100thballoon's first post then, because if you read it you would have not only noticed that the word Anglican is there, but also
"(and 36098 other protestant churches)".

I will say though that you may have an interest in defending your church's eligability, unfortunately I don't have any interest in suggesting it is ineligable, so you're rather wasting your time frankly.

So you have been saying that the sins of the popes corrupt the teaching, or some such, and that's not an interest in suggesting ineligibility? Yeah, I just defended her for no reason. It's all my fault. Yeah I could see how defending her for no reason would be a bit boring, and with that I will cease the defense for no reason as far as you're concerned. I had no mind to go off in such extended fashion either, but it seems you matched me apace, and accusations are much easier to spout off then defenses if you hadn't ever noticed.
 
Perhaps you should read the100thballoon's first post then, because if you read it you would have not only noticed that the word Anglican is there, but also

I'm closer to the anglican church than any, plus a number of people criticised it specifically for some rather interesting reasons, hence why I concentrated my points on it.

So you have been saying that the sins of the popes corrupt the teaching, or some such, and that's not an interest in suggesting ineligibility

Yes I am. I don't consider any of them now any more or less ineligible than the others. I believe I have stated this before actually, or at least it wouldn't be difficult to determine I implied it. I merely commented on the Catholic church as part of the point of suggesting that older does not mean better/closer due to the periods when the link was very tenuous. So yes, you do seem to have rather missed the point of why I talked about those things.

Oh and while we're at it, I didn't say it corrupted the teachings of Jesus but went against it. To corrupt it would have been to alter the bible to become something entirely different or similar.

Unlike some in this thread, being agnostic I have absolutely damn all interest in suggesting any of the churches are ineligible :lol:
 
cgannon64 said:
Your whole post (an excellent one, btw) reminds me a bit of the Donatist controversy.

I care not whether my Pope or priest is a raging sinner...the truth is not poisoned if it comes in a damaged vessel.

(Btw, I've never been sure what to think of the ex cathedra infallibility thing. I think it might require more faith than I've got.)

Thank you for your comments. I'm not familiar with a Donatist controversy, but they were saying the same thing as I was it appears (which makes me feel good).
 
One thing though is:

1. The Pauline church was not the only early Christian church. It is just the one that became dominant in the Western world. That and it was better organised than its competitors and so was able to kill them off as heretics. For example, one of the alternative branches of the early Christian church was gnosticism:


http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_chov.htm

First century CE:

During the first six decades of the first century CE, Judaism was composed of about two dozen competing factions: Sadducees, Pharisees, Essenes, Zealots, followers of John the Baptist, followers of Yeshua of Nazareth (Iesous in Greek, Iesus in Latin, Jesus in English), followers of other charismatic leaders, etc. All followed common Jewish practices, such as observing dietary restrictions, worshiping at the Jerusalem temple, sacrificing animals, observing weekly sabbaths, etc.

Yeshua of Nazareth (a.k.a. Jesus Christ) conducted a short ministry (one year, in the Galillee according to the synoptic gospels; perhaps three years, mainly in Judea according to the Gospel of John). His teachings closely matched those of Beit Hillel (the House of Hillel). Hillel was a great Jewish rabbi who lived in the second half of the 1st century BCE one or two generations before Yeshua's birth.

Yeshua was charged with what would be called "aggravated assault" under today's law, for his attack on merchants in the Temple. This was apparently considered treason or insurrection by the occupying Roman forces. (Crucifixion, when used on a non-slave such as Jesus, was restricted to these two crimes.) He was executed by a detail of Roman soldiers, perhaps during the springtime, sometime in the late 20's or early 30's CE. Most historians date the event in April of either the year 30 or 33. According to the Gospels, his disciples initially returned to their homeland of Galilee immediately following their leader's death.

Four decades later, in 70 CE the Roman Army attacked Jerusalem and destroyed the central focus of Jewish life: the temple. This was an absolutely devastating blow at the time; Jewish life was totally disrupted. Jews were no longer able to worship at the Temple. Out of this disaster emerged two main movements: rabbinical Judaism centered in local synagogues, and the Christian movement.

There was great diversity within the Christian movement during the first few decades after Jesus' execution. Some of Jesus' followers (and those who never met Jesus but who were inspired by his teachings) settled in Jerusalem. But others spread across the known world, teaching very different messages. "Even in the same geographical area and sometimes in the same cities, different Christian teachers taught quite different gospels and had quite different views of who Jesus was and what he did." 1

During the latter part of the first century CE, the three largest groups within the primitive Christian movement:

1. Jewish Christian movement: Jesus disciples appear to have regrouped later in Jerusalem under the leadership of James, one of Jesus' brothers. The group viewed themselves as a reform movement within Judaism; they viewed Jesus as a prophet and rabbi, but not as a deity. They organized a synagogue, worshiped and brought animals for ritual sacrifice at the Jerusalem Temple. They observed the Jewish holy days, practiced circumcision of their male children, followed Kosher dietary laws, and practiced the teachings of Jesus as they interpreted them to be. They are frequently referred to today as the Jewish Christians. 2 (These should not be confused with followers of modern-day Messianic Judaism who generally follow an Evangelical Christian theology and who are sometimes also called Jewish Christians.) Many were killed, enslaved, or scattered during the Roman attack on Jerusalem in 70 CE.
2. Pauline Christianity: Saul, a Jew from Tarsus, originally prosecuted the Jewish Christians on behalf of the priests at the Jerusalem Temple . He experienced a powerful religious conversion, after which, he departed for places unknown for three years. Later, having changed his name to Paul, he became the single most active Christian missionary, from about 36 CE until his execution by the Romans in the mid-60's. He created a new Christian movement, containing elements from many forms of Paganism: Greek, Roman, Persian, Egyptian, Mesopotamian, etc. He included the concept of Jesus as "The Word", as a god-man -- the savior of humanity, the product of a virgin birth who was executed, resurrected and ascended into heaven. There are dozens of points of similarity between the life of Jesus and that of Krishna, the god-man and second member of the Hindu trinity. Many of the events which the Bible describes happened to Jesus appear to have been copied from the legends of Krishna and of other god-men from Egypt to India. Paul abandoned most of the Laws of Moses and rejected many of the Jewish behavioral rules that Jesus and his disciples had followed during his ministry. Paul taught that God had unilaterally abrogated his covenants with the Jews and transferred them to his own Christian groups.

Paul went on a series of missionary journeys around the eastern Mediterranean and attracted many Gentiles (non-Jews) to his movement. He was assisted by many co-workers, both male and female. Paul organized churches in many of the areas' urban centers, in competition with Greek Paganism, Mithraism, Mystery Religions, Judaism, many competing Christian movements, and other religions. His Epistles record how he and his movement were in continual theological conflict with the Jewish Christian movement centered in Jerusalem, and with Gnostic Christians. Paul ran afoul of the Roman Empire, was arrested, and was transported to Rome where he was held under house arrest. He was executed there about 65 CE. Paul's churches survived his death and flourished. Some of his letters to various of his church groups were later accepted into the canon of the Christian Scriptures (New Testament).

Christian groups typically met in the homes of individual believers, much like home churches and cell churches do today. Leaders were both men and women. There was no central authority, no standard style of organization at the local level, no dedicated church buildings or cathedrals. The Greek words episkopos (bishop, overseer), presbuteros (elder, presbyter) and poimen (pastor, shepherd) were originally synonymous terms which referred to the leader of a group of believers. 3
3. Gnostic Christianity: Gnosticism is a philosophical and religious movement with roots in pre-Christian times. Gnostics combined elements taken from Asian, Babylonian, Egyptian, Greek and Syrian pagan religions, from astrology, and from Judaism and Christianity. "Among Gnostic Christians there were communities under the name of John and Thomas and many other lesser and later disciples." 6 They claimed to have secret knowledge about God, humanity, and the rest of the universe of which the general population was unaware. They were/are noted for their:
bullet Novel interpretations of the Bible, the world and the rest of the universe.
bullet Belief that the Jehovah of the Hebrew Scripture (Old Testament) was a defective, inferior Creator-God, also known as the Demiurge. He was viewed as fundamentally evil, jealous, rigid, lacking in compassion and prone to committing genocide.
bullet Tolerance of different religious beliefs within and outside of Gnosticism.
bullet Lack of discrimination against women.

Some Gnostics formed separate congregations. Others joined existing Pauline Christian groups. Still others were solitary practitioners.

In addition to the above three main groups, there were many smaller religious communities, which have been referred to as Matthean Christianity, Johannine Christianity, etc. "Among Jews especially in the East there were Christian communities and literature under the name of Peter and James that stood in opposition to Paul and John." 6 Together produced over 80 gospels and hundreds of Epistles (letters). "Many of these other Gospels outside the New Testament had very different views of Jesus, produced in communities that held widely different understandings of Jesus." 7

Second and third centuries CE:

The three groups within the primitive Christian movement survived into the second century. One died out and the other two expanded:

1. The Jewish Christian movement: The failure of the Bar Kochba revolt (132 - 135 CE) was devastating for the Jewish people, including the Jewish Christians. Any Jews who remained in Palestine in 135 CE were killed, enslaved or permanently driven from the land. The Jewish Christian movement had a brief resurgence during the 2nd century CE, and then disappeared from the pages of history.
2. Pauline Christianity continued to spread across the known world. It started to develop a formal theology, a set of doctrines, and an unofficial canon of writings which were later to become the Christian Scriptures (New Testament). From the enormous supply of Christian gospels and epistles (letters) they chose a few that more-or-less matched the theology of the developing church. Admittance of the Gospel of John into the official canon had to overcome a great deal of resistance; many in the church felt that it had too much Gnostic content. The canon accepted:
bullet Four gospels, written by unknown authors, but attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
bullet Acts of the Apostles, apparently written by the same author as who wrote Luke.
bullet Thirteen Pauline Epistles -- letters which claim that they were written by Paul. Religious liberals accept that seven were written by Paul, one may have been written by him, and 5 were by unknown authors -- mostly from the second century many decades after Paul's death.
bullet Eight general Epistles -- James, John, Peter, Hebrews and Jude, -- all by anonymous authors with the possible exception of Hebrews which may have written by Priscilla.
bullet Revelation, a book about the end of the world.
3. Gnostic Christianity consisted of many separate groups with no appreciable central organization. Each group was under the leadership of a Gnostic teacher like Marcion, Valentinus, and Carpocrates. These groups shared some core beliefs, but otherwise differed greatly from each other. The Gnostic movement initially expanded, and at one point was the primary form of Christianity in the eastern Mediterranean. However, due to programs of persecution and extermination by Pauline Christians, it later went into a steep decline, and ceased being a significant force by the 6th century.

After the deaths of the Apostles, the Apostolic Fathers were looked upon for guidance. They included a number of teachers and bishops: e.g. Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus, Origen, Polycarp, Tertullian. A hierarchical organizational structure called the "monarchial episcopate" then developed in which the individual congregational leaders recognized the authority of their area bishop in matters of doctrine and faith. There was no person or group who could speak for the church as a whole. It was only in 325 CE that bishops from throughout the Christian movement would be able to meet at the Council of Nicea and attempt to resolve differences in Christian beliefs.

horizontal rule

The point is, whether the Catholic Church is the true "heir" can be contested given there were other early churches who were wiped out by a variety of factors, one of them being murder from the better organised Pauline branch. Of course one can say might makes right but I'm not that would work in this context.

2. Most of the Catholic Church rules and ceremonies and the entire hierarchy structure of their church, Papal infallibility isn't exactly in the Bible. It is part of the Catholic Church dogma but most of the stuff that differentiates the Catholic Church from the Protestant Church isn't in the Bible at all.
 
Back
Top Bottom