Just so we're clear...

[Ben Gash]

I was joking on the burning Catholics issue, OK :o

[rogue]

Oh, now you tell me. Now if you'll excuse me there is someone I have to put out. ;)

[joedoe]

Well, given the number of people the Catholic Church has probably burned in the past ... :D

[Becca]

Fair is fair. Early Catholics got fed to lions. Then later Catholics fed others to fire. The desendants of those who managed to not get burned get to have tier turn now. Wonder what they are going to do... :confused: :eek: ;) :D

[Mr Punch]

LMAO at Rogue.


Fair is fair.... and unfair is unfair!
Early Catholics got fed to lions. They'd be called Christians at best. Daniel's story was before Pauline ministry took off, and before the establishment of the Catholic Church.
Then later Catholics fed others to fire. The desendants of those who managed to not get burned get to have tier turn now. Wonder what they are going to do... :confused: :eek: ;) :D:eek: indeed! :D

[joedoe]

LMAO at Rogue.

... and unfair is unfair! They'd be called Christians at best. Daniel's story was before Pauline ministry took off, and before the establishment of the Catholic Church.:eek: indeed! :D

Wasn't Daniel Old Testament anyway?

Christians were fed to the lions by the Romans in the early days of Christianity.

[Mr Punch]

Wasn't Daniel Old Testament anyway?

Christians were fed to the lions by the Romans in the early days of Christianity.Er, isn't that pretty much what I said?! :confused: ;) :D

[Ben Gash]

No, it's not. Daniel wasn't a Christian, he was Jewish, and it wasn't the Romans who fed him to the lions.

[Becca]

Er, isn't that pretty much what I said?! :confused: ;) :D
And the word "catholic" means universal and was given by the Holy Roman Emporer (don't remember wich, maybe Charlamain's father) to early christians before there were so many flavors of christianity. Also, there are more Catholic churches other than Roman Catholic. :)

[joedoe]

Kind of funny how there is more than one 'universal' church isn't it? :D

[Becca]

I've often wondered about that myself... The only reason I'm still active in the church is my boys. I feel that they need to be christian, but I just can't find another that is any better, or worse for that matter... :rolleyes:

[joedoe]

I was raised Catholic but no longer practice. I think, as with everything, there are good things and bad things about it. You just gotta find your own way. ;)

[Ben Gash]

I always find the degree of partisan sectarianism evident in many church groups somewhat alarming. It is, after all, biblically wrong (indeed, described as carnal, a sin of the flesh, rooted in human pride). If we are all of one body, then you'd think people would get along better :rolleyes: The early churches under Paul, Peter,John and James were doctrinally different, but all recognised each other.

[Christopher M]

The early churches under Paul, Peter,John and James were doctrinally different

How so????

[BibitClerus]

dude, basicly there were some diferences between a small number of diferent groups
and then, basicly, one day this big time roman dude said "i rule rome and stuff and now chistrianims is official for teh empire... oh and btw, its John's peeps that are official, the others be underdog, mkay"

[Christopher M]

What differences? What dude? Who are "John's peeps"? Who are "the others"?

[Ben Gash]

Circumcision springs to mind as a big doctrinal difference between early churches.

[Christopher M]

Right: and didn't the Apostles convene the Council of Jerusalem in 51 AD where the issue was discussed, and the Judaizers anathematized? (Acts 15)

[GunnedDownAtrocity]

so why did we stop feeding christians to lions?

i bet there are a lot of hungry lions out there. there are a lot of hungry lions and living christians. i dont know which makes me sadder.

[Ben Gash]

And Paul left that meeting and promptly circumcised Timothy. I'm at work, and also not really a scholar of the apostolic age, so it's kind of difficult for me to operate at this level at the moment.

[Ben Gash]

But anyway, the point being that they worked it out in a reasonable manner.

[rogue]

No, it's not. Daniel wasn't a Christian, he was Jewish, and it wasn't the Romans who fed him to the lions.
Jesus was a Jew also. Also Dan wasn't fed to the lions, he just kind of hung out with them. And it was Darius who unwittingly put him there.

[Ben Gash]

Indeed, but as Daniel lived 5-600 years before Jesus, I think it would be a bit difficult to argue that he was a Christian.
"16So the king gave the command, and they brought Daniel and cast him into the den of lions." Not really just hanging out with them. Darius didn't do it unwittingly, he just found himself trapped by his own rules.

[Christopher M]

And Paul left that meeting and promptly circumcised Timothy

You're confusing the issue -- no one opposed circumcision. The issue was whether or not circumcision was an act required of Christians according to their covenant with God; the decision was that it was not. But it continued as cultural practice, principally among Jewish Christians.


But anyway, the point being that they worked it out in a reasonable manner.

I don't think that was the point. Your claim was that the early churches "were doctrinally different, but all recognized each other." But this incident demonstrates that from the very beginning there were points of doctrine upon which agreement was required for mutual recognition. Indeed, this concept was formalized in the Creeds which Christians of all denominations continue to recite as the core of their faiths today.

[Becca]

You're confusing the issue -- no one opposed circumcision. The issue was whether or not circumcision was an act required of Christians according to their covenant with God; the decision was that it was not. But it continued as cultural practice, principally among Jewish Christians...
Still comon among more than just Jewish Christians. Can't speek for any other Catholic sub groups, but Irish Roman Chatholics still practice it, as do many Prodistant, Luthrine and Methodist groups.

[BibitClerus]

What differences? What dude? Who are "John's peeps"? Who are "the others"?

The dude... was like the emperor (tough guy that pimps all)...
I dont remember it was John or Peter the guys name (or however you call it in english)... but there were 3 or 4 lineages know what im saying... Not all of the apostoles spread out the exact same things and therefore there were diferent forms of christianism at some point (dont ask me the exact date... but it was before Catholicism became the official religion in Rome, dude)
Speciffic diferences, i read them on a magazine (science based) we got in here. But i dont got it with me right now so what can one do, i dont remember the specifics.
Remember there were some evangelic books that were rejected by the "main catholics"? And those got called the "apocrif" (im translating from portuguese, unsure how you call these) evangelics... well those books for example were present on those other catholicisms.

[Christopher M]

Right: many people of all religious persuasions, including atheists, are currently circumcised as a cultural practice.

[BibitClerus]

Still comon among more than just Jewish Christians. Can't speek for any other Catholic sub groups, but Irish Roman Chatholics still practice it, as do many Prodistant, Luthrine and Methodist groups.

Most of the world and also most of the Roman Catholics dont pratice cicumcision. In fact... we (most of the world) find it rather funny when people cut off an anatomic part of their peepees.
The protestants and other christians groups also dont pratice circumcision in here either. Buddhists dont do it, Taoists dont do it...
Only the jewish do.
Im not sure about the muslims though, but i imagine they dont do (i dunno much about islam).

[BibitClerus]

And oh yeah i ment Peter (Pedro), not John, i was doing crack when i wrote that
god is going to punish me for this and delay my first humping activity for 2 more years, therefore i will only make it in 2019.

[Christopher M]

The dude... was like the emperor (tough guy that pimps all)...

I assume you're thinking of Constantine. However, in that case you'd be wrong -- Constantine didn't make Christianity the state religion.


I dont remember it was John or Peter the guys name (or however you call it in english)... but there were 3 or 4 lineages know what im saying..

Well if you can't remember what the traditions were called, who started them, who practiced them, what they believed, or anything else about them, then I don't think anyone can reasonably accept or critically consider your claim.


it was before Catholicism became the official religion in Rome

Roman Catholicism didn't exist as a distinct religion until 1054, which is after the (Western) Roman Empire fell. The Christianity which became the state religion of the Roman Empire was not Roman Catholicism, but included all of the Christian churches.


Remember there were some evangelic books that were rejected by the "main catholics"?

No, they were rejected by all Christians -- an act which took place in Egypt, not Rome. Again, Roman Catholicism didn't exist as a distinct religion until 1054. Seven centuries after the canon had been formed.

[BibitClerus]

Well if you can't remember what the traditions were called, who started them, who practiced them, what they believed, or anything else about them, then I don't think anyone can reasonably accept or critically consider your claim.

Roman Catholicism didn't exist as a distinct religion until 1054, which is after the (Western) Roman Empire fell. The Christianity which became the state religion of the Roman Empire was not Roman Catholicism, but included all of the Christian churches.

No, they were rejected by all Christians -- an act which took place in Egypt, not Rome. Again, Roman Catholicism didn't exist as a distinct religion until 1054. Seven centuries after the canon had been formed.

Dude, you seem to have a problem not to believe anything outside your "elected books" that you accpet as truth.
Of course i cant remember and no i will not show you cientific evidence (if thats what you want) cos im not a historian, nor a theologist. But you arent either, man :D
Either way id be to lazy to bring in since i dont really care much. Its not my livetime objective to convince you of anything, dude :)

I named it Roman Catholicism, ok, it was called Christianim. What im saying is there were diferent lineages of Christianism prior to Constantine converting. Know what im saying? You know what im saying, but of course you dont believe. Thats fine, i dont believe in god either :D lol
My source on this is a magazine, in portuguese. The magazine sources are several books. As ive said before i dont have the magazine with me now so i cant further point you to where the info is coming, sorry dude.
But anyway, as i was saying... The apocrifs were used by some lineages... and when those lineages unified into a big one they were cut off. Did all the lineages acept this? Did they all like this? Didnt mather cos the big time lineage (Peters) digged and they ruled, and they had most support.

[Becca]

Most of the world and also most of the Roman Catholics dont pratice cicumcision. In fact... we (most of the world) find it rather funny when people cut off an anatomic part of their peepees.
The protestants and other christians groups also dont pratice circumcision in here either. Buddhists dont do it, Taoists dont do it...
Only the jewish do.
Im not sure about the muslims though, but i imagine they dont do (i dunno much about islam).
A. I did specify Irish Roman Catholics. We are an odd bunch, and I freely admit it. I added the other three because I have known a signifigant number of families from this group who traditionally practice it, as well. This said, I am well aware that most Western cultures do not practice it.

[Christopher M]

Dude, you seem to have a problem not to believe anything outside your "elected books" that you accpet as truth.

If by "anything" you're referring to historical facts and by "elected books" you're referring to the best consensus of academic history, then you're right.


But you arent either, man

I don't have to be a historian to respect the consensus of academic history.


What im saying is there were diferent lineages of Christianism prior to Constantine converting. Know what im saying?

No I don't. Are you referring to the ethnic churches (Armenian Church, Alexandrian Church, etc.)? Are you referring to the schismatic traditions (Nestorianism, Monophysitism, etc.)? Are you referring to related Hellenic philosophical traditions (Gnosticism, Neoplatonism, etc.)?


Did all the lineages acept this?

If you mean the ethnic churchs and/or the schismatic traditions, then yes -- all lineages accepted this. The ethnic churchs and schismatic traditions all agree to the New Testament canon. If you mean the related Hellenic philosophical traditions, then it's a moot point since they were never Christian to begin with. So in either case your idea about "Peter's lineage" forcing canon on the others is wrong.

[BibitClerus]

I dont really know all those names you spoke... Hele... what? Nestor... who?
But thats fine with me.
I have never seen anyone ever convincing you of anything at all on this forum, man :D
I feel less then tempted to trying :D

Just remember one thing and consider carrying it along to your future as a reminder (if you choose to):
"consensus does not equal truth"
- BibitClerus (2005- )

[Ben Gash]

I thought the Gnostics were denounced as heretics in the 2nd century?

[BibitClerus]

If yall dont mind, id like to promote the religion that im part off, ok :)

http://www.geocities.com/ipu_temple/
http://www.palmyra.demon.co.uk/humour/ipu.htm

"The Invisible Pink Unicorns is a being of great spiritual power. We know
this because she is capable of being invisible and pink at the same time.
Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorn is based
upon both logic and faith. We have faith that she is pink; we logically
know that she is invisible because we can't see her."

[Christopher M]

consensus does not equal truth

The best academic consensus is certainly fallible, but the possibility of fallibility itself is not a critique, and there are rarely any better alternatives.


I have never seen anyone ever convincing you of anything at all on this forum

Well people here tend to argue by assertion (that is -- they simply state whatever their personal whim is), and that's not a very persuasive tactic.

[Christopher M]

I thought the Gnostics were denounced as heretics in the 2nd century?

In this sense, 'Gnosticism' refers to a philosophical trend, often identified by historians in hindsight, which had significant influence across the Hellenic world -- including on formative Christian theologians. Various premises of this trend, such as its pessimistic dualism, were indeed deemed heretical.

However, this is a different situation than having a distinct body of worshippers, a distinct administrative structure, a distinct culture, etc., which is denounced.

For example, compare 'Nestorianism' which did constitute such a distinct body. There were (and are) Nestorian churches, dioceses, and so on -- it wasn't merely a philosophical trend. The debate concerning Nestorianism resulted in a schism between the Nestorians and the other churches, where each deemed the other to be heretical.

There was never any such schism in the case of Gnosticism, since it never constituted such a distinct body in the first place.

[FuXnDajenariht]

dude. im pretty sure gnosticism was/is a sect of christianity. the roman catholic church did a very good job of supressing them though. infact, there was different brand of christianity on every street corner back then, but the catholics had this thing about executing people that didn't agree with them. the cathars are an example of a christian sect that got wiped out by the catholic church. mostly about politics (meaning the cathars humility and piety made the pope look bad) but then again, what wasn't about politics with them back then.

[Becca]

Just when exacly did it stop being a political thing??? :D And money, of course. I actually remember stitting through a mass in wich the priest gave an actual price tag on how much one should give to the church to be consitered a "good christian." :rolleyes:

Even the various Chatholic churches claim to be Gnostic from time to time throughout history. The current vough is apostalic, but it has fluxuated over the centuries.

[Christopher M]

im pretty sure gnosticism was/is a sect of christianity.

I encourage you to offer some reason for this belief rather than simply asserting it. And I encourage you to address the remarks that have already been made on this topic rather than simply asserting their converse.


the roman catholic church did a very good job of supressing them though... the catholics had this thing about executing people that didn't agree with them

There was no distinct Roman Catholic church until 1054. Are you suggesting that the Gnostics were suppressed after this date? Your remark here is confusing, given that this issue has already been raised.


there was different brand of christianity on every street corner back then

Are you talking about the ethnic churches, the schismatic traditions, the related Hellenistic philosophies, or something else? Again, your remark here is confusing, given that this issue has already been raised.


the cathars humility and piety made the pope look bad

I guess that depends on your value system. The Cathars were distinguished from the Catholics by two fundamental beliefs: that the body, matter, and all Creation were inherently and irredeemably evil, and that the only method of salvation was to be an official member of the church (there are some other differences that stem from these fundamental ones -- such as the Cathar antipathy towards sex in all forms, and their advocacy of suicide).

Personally, I think both of those beliefs are abhorrent, so I think it's the Cathars who look bad. Though I must admit that if you think those beliefs are wonderful, that you'd find the converse to be true.

[Christopher M]

Even the various Chatholic churches claim to be Gnostic from time to time throughout history. The current vough is apostalic, but it has fluxuated over the centuries.

What are you referring to here?

[red5angel]

Only the jewish do


That is an inaccurate statement.

[FuXnDajenariht]

lemme guess.. your catholic right? their good at rewriting history... :p


I guess that depends on your value system. The Cathars were distinguished from the Catholics by two fundamental beliefs: that the body, matter, and all Creation were inherently and irredeemably evil, and that the only method of salvation was to be an official member of the church (there are some other differences that stem from these fundamental ones -- such as the Cathar antipathy towards sex in all forms, and their advocacy of suicide).

those beliefs are exactly what distinguishes a gnostic christian from other forms.

[FuXnDajenariht]

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

"EARLY CHRISTIAN HISTORY
AS VIEWED BY ROMAN CATHOLICS

As described in the "History of the Christian Church" menu, three important beliefs about Christian origins by the Roman Catholic church are:

Jesus assigned to Peter the responsibility of establishing the Christian church. Peter traveled to Rome where he was the first pope. At his death, his work was continued by a continuous succession of popes. The 1st century CE popes were: St. Peter (30 to 67 CE, approximately)
Linus ( 67 to 76)
Cletus (76 to 88)
Clement of Rome (88 to 97)
St. Evaristus (97 to 105) 1

The Roman Catholic church was a fully functioning organization with authority centered at Rome, as early as the middle of the 1st century. "History proves that from that time [of Peter] on, both in the East and the West, the successor of Peter was acknowledged to be the supreme head of the [Christian] Church." 2
Jesus' Apostles ordained bishops, who in turn ordained the next generation of bishops. This continuous line of ordination, called the apostolic succession, has continued down to the present day. Thus the authority for the ordination of a new bishop today could theoretically be traced back as far as the individual Apostles -- except that accurate records were not kept in the early decades of Christianity.
The gospel message started in a state of purity. There was a consensus on all beliefs. All of the subsequent heretical movements represented deviations from this initial state.

These beliefs conflict with those of many liberal theologians and religious historians who maintain that:

The Bible describes Jerusalem as being the initial center of Christianity, with James the brother of Jesus at its head.
The book of Acts, Paul's epistles, and others describe Paul as being the main founder and supreme authority of the Gentile churches -- that is of Pauline Christianity. Meanwhile, Jesus' disciples formed the Jewish Christian movement centered in Jerusalem, under the leadership of James, the brother of Jesus.
Peter probably did not write any part of the Christian Scriptures (New Testaments). 1 Peter was probably not written by Peter; 2 Peter certainly was not.
The author of the 1 Peter claims that Peter was only an elder.(1 Peter 5:1)
Although churches are mentioned in the Christian Scriptures (as in Revelation 1:4) they are described as independent groups who met in believers' homes. They were apparently not part of a religious organization that is centrally controlled from Rome.
Siricius, who reigned at the end of the 4th century CE, was the first bishop of Rome to be called pope.
Pope Leo I, who reigned from 440 to 461 CE was the first to claim that the bishop of Rome was highest ranking of the bishops of the church.
It took many centuries before the pope could speak for the church. Before that, all decisions affecting Christendom had to be settled by all of the bishops meeting together, as at the Council of Nicea in 325 CE.
The early Pauline congregations were informal faith communities. A formal, hierarchical organization only came much later.
Except for the first few years after Jesus' execution, there was no consensus of belief among Christians. The movement was split into many different groups, each teaching different belief system. The main ones were Gnostic Christianity, Jewish Christianity and Pauline Christianity. Often, there were a number of competing congregations in the larger cities. "

the Catholics did it real smart. when you wanna rule an empire you dont come with some weak line about being a god ordained ruler. you tell people you know what god is thinking. when you control someones soul, their mind and body will follow. a religious beauracracy of course doesn't make one faith more legit than another. thats where the heresy thing comes in. you can't say they didn't have a plan tho. the beliefs might be questionable but they knew what there were doing other wise.

about Catholicism not being a distinct religion until 1054. i believe what this article is saying is that the roman pope finally said f*** that! i run this b!tch! so he decided to centralize church authority to rome. it was an internal power play, but the Catholic church pretty much ran europe religion-wise long before that.

[Christopher M]

lemme guess.. your catholic right? their good at rewriting history...

No, I'm not. And if you think I've made a historical error, please point it out.


those beliefs are exactly what distinguishes a gnostic christian from other forms.

I'm not sure what your point is.

And I can't figure out what you're trying to say at all in that second post.

[Merryprankster]

Well people here tend to argue by assertion (that is -- they simply state whatever their personal whim is), and that's not a very persuasive tactic.

You forgot that when you provide evidence to back up your point or refute others, you are accused of not having your own opinion or any original thoughts.

Fun times.

[red5angel]

You forgot that when you provide evidence to back up your point or refute others, you are accused of not having your own opinion or any original thoughts.

Fun times.

:rolleyes:

What book did you get that out of?

[BibitClerus]

That is an inaccurate statement.

how so red?

people that circumcise are: some by culture (like you yanks), the jewish and some tribes (like in africa i believe, where some tribes also clits off).
like i said i dunno about the muslims though.
as far as in here... only the jewish do that i know of (and i dunno the muslims again) you cant disagree with me, you dont live here dude :D

[red5angel]

how so red?

people that circumcise are: some by culture (like you yanks), the jewish and some tribes (like in africa i believe, where some tribes also clits off).
like i said i dunno about the muslims though.
as far as in here... only the jewish do that i know of (and i dunno the muslims again) you cant disagree with me, you dont live here dude :D


you didn't specify THERE. That may be true in Brazil but here you don't have to be Jewish to be circumsized.

[BibitClerus]

Merry and Christ M
you guys forget this is a simple forum for peeps to talk.
most people seriously dont give a shyt about going after evidence to handle it to you.
do you think im going after a book and will quote it here just to prove a silly point knowing that even if i do that you still wont accept it since its not part of your "consensus", dude?
:)


oh and btw none of you have an original opinion :)

and the stuff you said in no way cancel my awesome quote, Christ M. reconsider carrying it to your future intelectual enquirings (or inquirings?)

[BibitClerus]

you didn't specify THERE. That may be true in Brazil but here you don't have to be Jewish to be circumsized.

that was mentioned on my post dude... look where i refer to "culture" and "you yanks"

[BibitClerus]

and im laughing at your partially un-skinned ****s right now
lol :D

[Merryprankster]

Merry and Christ M
you guys forget this is a simple forum for peeps to talk.
most people seriously dont give a shyt about going after evidence to handle it to you.
do you think im going after a book and will quote it here just to prove a silly point knowing that even if i do that you still wont accept it since its not part of your "consensus", dude?

Then don't expect to be taken seriously - and don't expect people who are informed on the issue(s) at hand to simply go "oh, gee, you said it so it must be true."

You are entitled to your opinions, of course, but not your own set of facts, which is where the "consensus" you knock, is.

[BibitClerus]

Then don't expect to be taken seriously - and don't expect people who are informed on the issue(s) at hand to simply go "oh, gee, you said it so it must be true."

i really dont expect to be taken seriously. i do what i can not to take life seriously.
dont expect me to accept anything from you either just cos you are "informed on the issue" :D
since i do know that even amongst the "people who are informed on the issue" some dont agree with you and some do. consensus is just the majority then. and the majority does not equal truth either.
:)

[Merryprankster]

If you are talking about "truth" then you are right, consensus does not equal truth, in the metaphysical sense.

If you are talking about facts, then the consensus of the historical community is going to be the best you've got.

[David Jamieson]

Hail Sooty!!

And Cthulu is the only god any of you will meet. Get used to it puny humans. :D

[FuXnDajenariht]

where is the evidence for this thing you call human?!

the correct term is puny walking talking meat wad. ;)

i guess chris' consensus is different than mines.

all you gotta do is type in gnosticism and you'll get a million sites about christianity from association.

[Christopher M]

i guess chris' consensus is different than mines.

How so????

[ZIM]

Bibit:
Yes, muslims also circumcise. I believe its done much older in at least some countries, with Turkey, IIRC, performing it at age 12 or thereabouts.

African tribes of various sorts [Animists, largely] also perform the ceremony, with some requiring the young man to do it himself, prior to entering any warrior societies.

These are assertions, and no, I won't back them up, sorry. Consider them heresay and follow up on your own time, if you're so inclined.

=======

As for the earlier assertion found in a "portuguese magazine": It sounds vaguely like you're referring to the early churches founded by the Apostles and highlighting the differences in survived/evolved doctrine in the lineages, rather than examining the commonalities.
This is common in a survey piece. But you have to beware of that fascination with difference and not jump to conclusions.

For example: Yes, St. Thomas was said to have journeyed to India and yes, there does exist a strain of Christianity there known as the Indian Orthodox Church [among other names] and they may be considered by some as Nestorian, or descended from Nestorians. There were others, too.
The lineage of Peter & Paul was centered in Rome. They were historically on good terms with the other lines [see, for instance, the Epistles].

[Christopher M]

It sounds vaguely like you're referring to the early churches founded by the Apostles

This is why the equivocation/confounding of 'Roman Catholicism' and 'Christianity' is central. The 'Christianity' which became associated with the Roman Empire wasn't 'Roman Catholicism,' it was the collection of all the ethnic churches to which you refer here. This is indeed the origin of the term 'catholic,' meaning 'universal.' So to say that the religion of the Roman Empire silenced the ethnic churches would be missing the point -- it was the ethnic churches. This is evident in the constitution of its councils, which included bishops from across the Christian world.

[FuXnDajenariht]

and what about the ones who didn't want to answer to the councils? what do you think happened to them?

[Christopher M]

Attendance wasn't mandatory.

[ZIM]

This is why the equivocation/confounding of 'Roman Catholicism' and 'Christianity' is central. The 'Christianity' which became associated with the Roman Empire wasn't 'Roman Catholicism,' it was the collection of all the ethnic churches to which you refer here. This is indeed the origin of the term 'catholic,' meaning 'universal.' So to say that the religion of the Roman Empire silenced the ethnic churches would be missing the point -- it was the ethnic churches. This is evident in the constitution of its councils, which included bishops from across the Christian world.
I can agree with you here.
My understanding is the progression [if you want to refer to it as one] is like so:
At first, everyone was just Christian, undifferentiated.
Then, as doctrinal differences emerged, the councils were formed and the term "Catholic" emerged to denote that doctrine considered universal [or official]. Those who did not adhere to that remained Christians, but weren't "Catholic". Some survive now, most don't.
"Roman Catholic" is merely one branch of that, and one could refer to the Orthodox as being "Greek Catholic" if one wished, or the RC as being "Western Orthodox", what have you. It's all still one body.

Ah...one extra bit: Xebby seems bent on saying that the Church stamped out the non-adherers to Catholic doctrine. Not quite so.
If you read the Epistles & NT, you can't help noticing the places named. Most of them were located in what is now the Middle East: Syria, Lebanon, Turkey, etc.
These churches still exist, however. The Assyrian church, for instance, still exists in Iraq and is still subject to a great deal of social pressure [euphemism alert], despite that they're the original inhabitants of Iraq*, not the majority Arab population....


*well, sorta. Ancient history. The Babylonians got defeated by the Assyrians, who originally were from the area of Jordan, I think...what a mess that place is...

[Christopher M]

"Roman Catholic" is merely one branch of that, and one could refer to the Orthodox as being "Greek Catholic" if one wished, or the RC as being "Western Orthodox", what have you. It's all still one body.

Well, notwithstanding the Great Schism.


Xebby seems bent on saying that the Church stamped out the non-adherers to Catholic doctrine. Not quite so.

Most of what's being referred to as the other ethnic churches would be counted under the 'Orthodox' label, and they'd be quite surprised to hear they'd been stamped out -- they're one of the world's major religions. They'd also be quite surprised to hear that the Romans were antagonistic towards them, since they see themselves as the development of the Roman tradition, and consider what we call Rome to be a Frankish offshoot. From their point of view, Rome didn't fall until the 15th century when it was taken by the Ottoman's...

And the churches outside this label were generally not stamped out, but simply 'kept on keeping on' as their own religions. Most westerners aren't familiar with them, so assume they don't exist. You give some examples of the [pseudo-]Nestorians in Iraq and India. A really good example would be Egypt, which has had no fewer than three patriarchs coexisting -- the Catholic, the Orthodox, and the Coptic.

[FuXnDajenariht]

Attendance wasn't mandatory.

lol you seriously believe they were this enlightened tolerant institution? and that even if you didn't agree with them you were invited to the christmas party for cookies and egg nog?

come on.... the list of heretics is longer than the US tax code.

[ZIM]

lol you seriously believe they were this enlightened tolerant institution? and that even if you didn't agree with them you were invited to the christmas party for cookies and egg nog?

come on.... the list of heretics is longer than the US tax code.They weren't heretics until *after* the council. ;)

[Christopher M]

lol you seriously believe they were this enlightened tolerant institution? and that even if you didn't agree with them you were invited to the christmas party for cookies and egg nog?

I'm restricting myself to objective facts rather than emotional assessments. Attendance really wasn't mandatory. If your conclusion from non-mandatory council attendance is that the organization is deluded and intolerant, that's your business. Although frankly, I don't see how that conclusion could possibly be derived from that premise.


come on.... the list of heretics is longer than the US tax code.

And if you're the kind of person who is outraged at the idea of people believing different things, then I understand that this idea would outrage you. I'm not, so it doesn't outrage me.

[FuXnDajenariht]

lol no it has to do with 100's of thousands, but most likely, millions of people being tortured and executed for not sharing those beliefs. you weren't blacklisted when you got labeled as a heretic, you were usually disemboweled or burned at the stake. it was the your either with us or your against us mentality. so you have one camp who would readily go along with the Roman church. then you have at the other extreme the suicide cults. since you were most likely going to be killed anyway. why not be a martyr for the cause while your at it.... its became an ideal.

anyway... i see where not gonna get anywhere so believe whatever you want. i can give sources all day long, but i must be in a time warp where these things didn't happen.

it hasn't a thing to do with emotions but facts like you said. i have respect for christianity in the same way that i have respect for every religion. just not the degenerate crap we mostly see today. it had alot to offer but was left in the wrong hands and got doomed from the start.

as in politics you have to read between the lines and discard the bs. and some have more bs than others. 2000 years worth even. anyone who is interested should watch that saints and sinners show on the history channel.

[Christopher M]

millions of people being tortured and executed for not sharing those beliefs. you weren't blacklisted when you got labeled as a heretic, you were usually disemboweled or burned at the stake.

In fact you weren't -- as we see from the existence of the three patriarchs in Egypt, for example. The Nestorians Zim mentioned. The entire Orthodox church. The people you claim were all killed two millenia ago actually constitute one of the world's major religions. You're living in a fantasy world.


i can give sources all day long

Can you? You haven't given any yet.

[FuXnDajenariht]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians#Christians_of_Christians

"Of all the persecution of Christians throughout history, the greatest in terms of deaths and change in society is Christian persecuting Christians, by their factions and innumerable divisions. After the assent of Constantine in the second Century, "Orthodox" Roman Christianity became the only acceptable form, and the Roman Empire turned its ferocity upon the heretics. More Christians died at the hands of the Christian Empire than had ever died under the reign of pagan Emperors like Diocletian. Of particular note were the Arians, who held, against the "Orthodox", that Jesus had been not "one in unity with the Father", but instead was divine but not on the same level with God, above humans but below Yahweh. They still believed, though, that Jesus had died for our sins. The Roman Church stopped at no ends to bring down the Arians. A brutal "civil war" broke out between the Arian heretics and the Trinitarian Catholics in order to determine "Orthodoxy" for the whole of the Empire. Original Christianity was diverse and varied, with various sects claiming various things about Jesus, God, and the universe. Some held that Jesus had merely been a man, a "son of God" in the manner of King David and other notable figures in the Hebrew Tanak. Some held that Jesus had never really existed on earth at all, but was merely the apparition of a man. Some thought that he had died for our sins, others that he had saved humanity through the Revelation of secret knowledge or "Gnosis" to his disciples, other that he had saved us by his incarnation as a man. Marcionites, Monatists, Docetists, Ebionites, Manicheans,Marionites, Antinomians, and many other Gnostic and non-Gnostic Christianities all flourished before the arrival of Constantine to the throne. Only the Manicheans survive, in a very distantly related form, today (see the Mandeans). It has been estimated that before the triumph of Orthodoxy, over 300 Gospels, epistles, apocalypses, and other material about Jesus were in wide circulation. Few outside the 27 books of the canonical Christian Testament and the writings discovered at Nag Hammadi survive today. Foremost in the modern day is Catholics vs Protestants, and the Crusades had shocking effects on the Orthodox. (See history of Protestants) Others include the invention of Mormons or Latter-Day saints, with the resultant that the Mormons make a trek and is now today congregated at UT, USA."

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11703a.htm

From the Catholic Dictionary:

"Persecution may be defined in general as the unlawful coercion of another's liberty or his unlawful punishment, for not every kind of punishment can be regarded as persecution. For our purpose it must be still further limited to the sphere of religion, and in that sense persecution means unlawful coercion or punishment for religion's sake.

The Church has suffered many kinds of persecution. The growth and the continued existence of Christianity have been hindered by cultured paganism and by savage heathenism. And in more recent times agnosticism has harassed the Church in the various states of America and Europe. But most deplorable of all persecutions have been those that Catholicism has suffered from other Christians. With regard to these it has to be considered that the Church herself has appealed to force, and that, not only in her own defence, but also, so it is objected, in unprovoked attack. Thus by means of the Inquisition (q. v.) or religious wars she was herself the aggressor in many instances during the Middle Ages and in the time of the Reformation. And even if the answer be urged that she was only defending her own existence, the retort seems fairly plausible that pagan and heathen powers were only acting in their own defence when they prohibited the spread of Christianity. The Church would therefore seem to be strangely inconsistent, for while she claims toleration and liberty for herself she has been and still remains intolerant of all other religions.

In answer to this objection, we may admit the fact and yet deny the conclusion. The Church claims to carry a message or rather a command from God and to be God's only messenger....."

[FuXnDajenariht]

do you need more sources?

where exactly did you get your information about the Catholic church hopping around in a field of flowers singing kum-baya with people they considered heretics?

[ZIM]

It seems to me that the sources you've used refer to a time period somewhat later than what was being discuseed [the Early Church period & its definitions of heresy].

That isn't to deny the validity of what you're referring to. Wars & death did occur, just as they have with many other faiths & creeds. [And in fact, one could infer that that is a peculiarity of monotheism, but that is a side issue]

For the moment:
One of the earlier questions was about early Christian unity & the definition of "Catholic".

Has this been answered adequately? If so, we can move on the changed topc without muddying waters unnecessarily.

[FuXnDajenariht]

honestly i dont quite understand whats being contended anymore. im just trying to defend the statement i made the first go around so it doesn't seem like im talking out of my ass. i was called on it so i answered.

lol no hard feelings tho :D i love debatin'. Chris knows i mean no disrespect. ;) hes very knowledgeable and i always listen up when he posts. we can argue points without it getting personal though. tis the nature of a public forum. :D

all im gonna add is that Catholicism got a major push of support from Emperor Constantine long before the 10th century.... and im done... swear... lol

[BibitClerus]

hey you guys...



go to sleep
:)

[FuXnDajenariht]

god**** Brazilian. :p

you started this.... :D

[Christopher M]

More Christians died at the hands of the Christian Empire than had ever died under the reign of pagan Emperors like Diocletian. Of particular note were the Arians

The 'civil war' between the Arians and Orthodox began in 350 when Constantius II (Flavius Julius Constantius) became Emperor of Rome. He was an Arian and proceeded to kill all the Orthodox bishops who wouldn't assent to it. This is evidence against your notion of a unified Rome and Orthodoxy subjugating the others, not for it.


Thus by means of the Inquisition (q. v.) or religious wars she was herself the aggressor in many instances during the Middle Ages and in the time of the Reformation.

The refers in total to Roman Catholicism as a distinct church (post 1045), not the 'catholic' (unified ethnic churches) Christianity we've been discussing.


do you need more sources?

If there's any that support your position, I'd like to see them.


where exactly did you get your information about the Catholic church hopping around in a field of flowers singing kum-baya with people they considered heretics?

I've never said any such thing.


Catholicism got a major push of support from Emperor Constantine

Quite right -- the Edict of Milan.

[fa_jing]

If you mean the ethnic churchs and/or the schismatic traditions, then yes -- all lineages accepted this. The ethnic churchs and schismatic traditions all agree to the New Testament canon. If you mean the related Hellenic philosophical traditions, then it's a moot point since they were never Christian to begin with. So in either case your idea about "Peter's lineage" forcing canon on the others is wrong.

Basically you are saying that those who did not agree to the New Testament canon were not really Christians? Looks like a wierd circular argument from over here.

[fa_jing]

And I can't figure out what you're trying to say at all in that second post.

Now you're being deliberately obtuse. He was saying that the predecessor to what you call the Roman Catholic Church was running things at least in Europe, from early on.

[Christopher M]

Basically you are saying that those who did not agree to the New Testament canon were not really Christians? Looks like a wierd circular argument from over here.

The difference between logical coherency and circularity is purely in the causative relations. There's no circularity here, because I never indicated that not assenting to the New Testament canon was sufficient to identify non-Christianity.


He was saying that the predecessor to what you call the Roman Catholic Church was running things at least in Europe, from early on.

That predecessor is the 'catholic' (as in universal) churches, including all of the ethnic churches. So to say that this predecessor used it's power to subjugate the ethnic churches is to miss the point -- it WAS the ethnic churches. I have said this already.

And to suggest a coherent union of Empire and Church which subjugated heretical theological trends would also be false -- as we see from the previous discussion where I observed that Roman secular favor fell on the side of the Arians, not the orthodox.

[FuXnDajenariht]

ok i've played along, but how about you give me some sources this time. :)

i dont expect you to believe what i say just because i say it, so you can't expect me to do the same.

[Christopher M]

how about you give me some sources this time.

For what??

[FuXnDajenariht]

whaaaaaaaat?!?


what do you mean for what?

[Christopher M]

I mean: what claim(s) that I have made would you like references for?

[FuXnDajenariht]

uuum

well your refuting everything i say so you have to get this from somewhere, no?

[BibitClerus]

this thread lacks metal

go to hell
wont you been told
i sold my soul
go straight to hell

:D i did sleep... from 5pm to 10pm... now its almost 1am and i feel like a piece of shyt

[fa_jing]

The difference between logical coherency and circularity is purely in the causative relations. There's no circularity here, because I never indicated that not assenting to the New Testament canon was sufficient to identify non-Christianity.

OK. I thought that you were implying a causative relation, not an observation.



That predecessor is the 'catholic' (as in universal) churches, including all of the ethnic churches. So to say that this predecessor used it's power to subjugate the ethnic churches is to miss the point -- it WAS the ethnic churches. I have said this already.

And to suggest a coherent union of Empire and Church which subjugated heretical theological trends would also be false -- as we see from the previous discussion where I observed that Roman secular favor fell on the side of the Arians, not the orthodox.
OK, so you disagree with him....but you did see what he was getting at. Interesting debate, BTW.

[ZIM]

this thread lacks metal

go to hell
wont you been told
i sold my soul
go straight to hell

Farewell happy Fields
Where Joy for ever dwells:
Hail horrors,
hail Infernal world,
and you -profoundest Hell-
Receive your new Possessor:
One who brings
A mind not to be changed
by Place or Time.
The mind is its own place,
and in itself
Can make a Heaven of Hell,
a Hell of Heaven.

:D

[BibitClerus]

Now i have you with me, under my power
Our love grows stronger now with every hour
Look into my eyes, you will see who i am
My name is Lucifer, please take my hand

:D

[FuXnDajenariht]

this summarized everything ive been saying so its easier to understand.

http://www.meta-religion.com/Esoterism/Gnosticism/gnosticism2.htm

"Summary
Gnosticism is a philosophical and religious movement which started in pre-Christian times. The term is derived from the Greek word gnosis which means "knowledge". It is pronounced with a silent "G" (NO-sis). Gnostics claimed to have secret knowledge about God, humanity and the rest of the universe of which the general population was unaware. It became one of the three main belief systems within 1st century Christianity, and was noted for its: novel beliefs about Gods, the Bible and the world which differed from those of other Christian groups tolerance of different religious beliefs within and outside of Gnosticism lack of discrimination against women. The movement and its literature were essentially wiped out by the end of the 5th century CE by heresy hunters from mainline Christianity. Its beliefs are currently experiencing a rebirth throughout the world. The counter-cult movement and some other Christian ministries disseminate a great deal of misinformation about the movement (10,11,12)

History
Gnosticism consisted of many syncretistic belief systems which combined elements taken from Asian, Babylonian, Egyptian, Greek and Syrian pagan religions, from astrology, and from Judaism and Christianity. They constituted one of the three main branches of early Christianity: the other two being:

the remnants of the Jewish Christian sect which was created by Jesus' disciples, and
the churches started by St. Paul, that were eventually to grow and develop into "mainline" Christianity by the end of the third century.

By the second century CE, many very different Christian-Gnostic sects had formed within the Roman Empire at the eastern end of the Mediterranean. Some Gnostics worked within Jewish Christian and mainline Christian groups, and greatly influenced their beliefs from within. Others formed separate communities. Still others were solitary practitioners.

As mainline Christianity grew in strength and organization, Gnostic sects came under increasing pressure and persecution. They almost disappeared by the 6th century. The only group to have survived into modern times is the Mandaean sect of Iraq and Iran. This group has about 15,000 members (one source says 1,500), and can trace their history continuously back to the original Gnostic movement.

Many new emerging religions in the West have adopted ancient Gnostic beliefs and practices.

..........

..........

.........."

[Christopher M]

If you want to research these kinds of academic things online, the best sites are the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (http://plato.stanford.edu/contents.html) and the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (http://www.iep.utm.edu/). The Catholic Encyclopedia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/) is also extremely good, but written with an obvious bias. And Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page) and Kheper (http://www.kheper.net/) also usually have good information. Other than these and official academic resources like e-journals, you really don't know what you're getting online.

The main error in the passage you quote is the representation of Gnosticism as a coherent administrative body, or church -- which it was not. It's a name, mostly bestowed by historians, on a philosophical trend. This is a distinction I tried to make clearly when the topic arose. The excellent and in every way preferable IEP article on Gnosticism (http://www.iep.utm.edu/g/gnostic.htm) doesn't make this error.

If you're interested in this topic, I recommend Gnosis and Hermeticism from Antiquity to Modern Times by Van Den Broek and Hanegraff (eds.) as the ideal introduction. To my point here, I will quote from Van Den Broek's article Gnosticism and Hermeticism in Antiquity:

"A notorious, but unsatisfactory, attempt to formulate a generally accepted definition of Gnosticism was made at the 1966 Messina Conference on the Origins of Gnosticism... [which] made the term Gnosis so vague that it loses all concrete substance. The Messina colloquium reserved the term Gnosticism for the Christian-Gnostic systems of the second and third centuries. We should not forget, however, that this term Gnosticism, with a pejorative connotation, was coined in France as late as the eighteenth century. In antiquity, both Gnostics and their opponents only used the term gnosis... It was in agreement with this usage that Clement of Alexandria could exalt his super Christian as the 'true Gnostic,' in opposition to the 'false Gnostic.' ...With regard to the precise character of Gnosis and Gnosticism, A.D. Nock noted [..] 'I am left in a terminological fog.' Sixty years later [..] we are still groping in the same fog... we now see even more clearly the borderline between Gnostic and non-Gnostic texts and ideas is [even] less easy to draw than was thought... [therefore] I shall use the term Gnosticism to indicate the ideas or coherent systems that are characterized by..."