Just so we're clear...

[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
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 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
I feel less then tempted to trying

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??? 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."

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...

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.