Protestantism and catholicism

[metis]

The canon was being referred to in the 2nd century by certain church fathers and heretics such as Marcion, and so we don't really need the 4th centruy CC to tell us what books were regarded as authoritative back then.

Marcion's Bible is simply not the same Bible as you have as it contained fewer books and even some items in the gospels that his didn't cover.

We covered this before, and I corrected you before in somewhat more detail, so did you forget or just try to make it like you know something?

 

[metis]

That is partly true, but the dangers of utilizing pagan symbolism are immense. As you are well aware Christmas and Easter "celebrations" have largely reverted back to their pagan origins. Eggs and rabbits are the stuff of paganism, as is nearly everything associated with Christmas. Christ is not even deduced to have been born at Chrismas time, according to the latest analysis. So it really is a case of adopting a pagan festival and substituting Jesus for the pagan god. The dangers of confusion are very great.

So what? Christianity borrow from Judaism, and Judaism borrowed from the Sumerians and the Egyptians. What's important is what these symbols came to mean within the Christian context. All you are trying to do is to play the "guilt by association" game, which makes no sense in this context, and there simply is no such thing as a "pure religion" that somehow developed everything on it's own with no influence from others.

 

[Krayu]

I agree, all religious came from older religious, there is no such a thing like pure religion.
Maybe church of the flying monster spaghetti, buy it's not religion for me, it's like religion of games like poe or some others or believe in some orbs.

 

[outlawState]

So what? Christianity borrow from Judaism, and Judaism borrowed from the Sumerians and the Egyptians. What's important is what these symbols came to mean within the Christian context. All you are trying to do is to play the "guilt by association" game, which makes no sense in this context, and there simply is no such thing as a "pure religion" that somehow developed everything on it's own with no influence from others.

Still, I cannot see the apostles being happy with Easter and Christmas as they now are. Is not there an OT passage concerning the frivolity of decorated trees? They would have described such things as frivolous and not essential for religion, but I take your point that they are the stuff of Roms 14 so each to their own. One must also distinguish customs from religion as they are not the same thing. Yet, there are many pagans customs that are harmful and they should be abolished not adopted.

 

[outlawState]

Marcion's Bible is simply not the same Bible as you have as it contained fewer books and even some items in the gospels that his didn't cover.

We covered this before, and I corrected you before in somewhat more detail, so did you forget or just try to make it like you know something?

In 250 A.D., Origen likely produced a complete list of all 27 New Testament books–more than a hundred years before Athanasius. The canon was settled by then. We really don't need Roman Catholics to tell us what the canon should be.

 

[metis]

One must also distinguish customs from religion as they are not the same thing.

All religions have customs, including Judaism and Christianity, so customs are not intrinsically evil.

Yet, there are many pagans customs that are harmful and they should be abolished not adopted.

Such as ..., and then please include how and why those particular ones are "harmful"? And just to be clear, there is no such thing as a "pure religion" since all of them tend to borrow from others.

 

[metis]

In 250 A.D., Origen likely produced a complete list of all 27 New Testament books–more than a hundred years before Athanasius. The canon was settled by then. We really don't need Roman Catholics to tell us what the canon should be.

Origen was a Catholic, and whether you like it or not, and the canon of the Bible you use was selected by the Church after almost a half a century of debate.

But when I looked up Origen and his accomplishments this morning, I see nothing about his canon, nor have I ever read that he had one as such, so could provide a link? I do know that he stressed using some of the books we now have in the canon but not that he actually chose a canon as such, let alone that it's the same canon now in common use. Matter of fact, I'd be terribly surprised if it was the same since there were so many other books to choose from. So please supply that link as I've not run across this before.

Also, Origen was not only VERY Catholic, he questioned whether there was salvation outside the church, writing that the Church is "the scarlet thread that binds".

 

[outlawState]

All religions have customs, including Judaism and Christianity, so customs are not intrinsically evil.

Such as ..., and then please include how and why those particular ones are "harmful"? And just to be clear, there is no such thing as a "pure religion" since all of them tend to borrow from others.

There is pure religion. Jas 1:27 "Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world."

Harmful pagan customs include the cult of the madonna, which is closely related to witchcraft. Praying to Mary is not much dissimilar to praying to a witch. See especially the cult of the black madonna, which originated from Isis worship in Egypt. In fact Isis and the deified virgin Mary (theokotos) are pretty synonymous. In Haiti, some Roman Catholics combine their faith with aspects of Vodou. This practice is denounced as diabolical by virtually all Haitian Protestants. Thus the Virgin Mary is confused with Erzuli Dantor a witch, and people go to Saut d’Eau and Ville Bonheur (Happiness Village) to pay homage to the gods or God! (syncretism)

From Wiki

Spirits
Vodouisants believe in a Supreme God called Bondye, from the French bon "good" + Dieu "God".[29] When it came in contact with Roman Catholicism, the Supreme Creator was associated with the Christian God, and the loa associated with the saints.

Loa
Since Bondye (God) is considered unreachable, Vodouisants aim their prayers to lesser entities, the spirits known as loa, or mistè. The most notable loa include Papa Legba (guardian of the crossroads), Erzulie Freda (the spirit of love), Simbi (the spirit of rain and magicians), Kouzin Zaka (the spirit of agriculture), and The Marasa, divine twins considered to be the first children of Bondye.[30]

These loa can be divided into 21 nations, which include the Petro, Rada, Congo, and Nago.[31]

Each of the loa is associated with a particular Roman Catholic saint. For example, Legba is associated with St. Anthony the Hermit, and Damballa is associated with St. Patrick.[32]

The loa also fall into family groups who share a surname, such as Ogou, Ezili, Azaka or Ghede. For instance, "Ezili" is a family, Ezili Danto and Ezili Freda are two individual spirits in that family. Each family is associated with a specific aspect, for instance the Ogou family are soldiers, the Ezili govern the feminine spheres of life, the Azaka govern agriculture, the Ghede govern the sphere of death and fertility.
​

In Africa also idols became confused with biblical personages.

If you study the writings of the 19th century poets you will find unhealthy references to "gods." Syncretism is never the Christian way. One does not even needs a plurality of gods. In France the Christian god became supplanted by the cult of the supreme being or reason. Humanism is not really much less than disguised ancient paganism but has infected much of "Christian Occident." In fact syncretism is why Christian is in so much decline.

 

[outlawState]

Origen was a Catholic, and whether you like it or not, and the canon of the Bible you use was selected by the Church after almost a half a century of debate.

Origen was never associated with the primacy of Rome, which was a much later development in theology. And especially important is this. "At the time when Origen was alive, orthodox views on the Trinity had not yet been formulated and Subordinationism was not yet considered heretical. In fact, virtually all orthodox theologians prior to the Arian controversy in the latter half of the fourth century were Subordinationists to some extent. Origen's Subordinationism may have developed out of his efforts to defend the unity of God against the Gnostics." (Wiki)

He would not be accounted an orthodox Roman Catholic nor an adherent of Chalcedon. Some of his opinions have been accounted heretical, such as the pre-existence of souls.

I don't really care who he is. I am simply saying that he was not a Roman such that we are indebted to "Rome" for the canon. He was an Alexandrian / Caesarean.

Origen was a Catholic, and whether you like
But when I looked up Origen and his accomplishments this morning, I see nothing about his canon, nor have I ever read that he had one as such, so could provide a link? I do know that he stressed using some of the books we now have in the canon but not that he actually chose a canon as such, let alone that it's the same canon now in common use. Matter of fact, I'd be terribly surprised if it was the same since there were so many other books to choose from. So please supply that link as I've not run across this before.

The Development of the Canon of the New Testament - Origen

Also, Origen was not only VERY Catholic, he questioned whether there was salvation outside the church, writing that the Church is "the scarlet thread that binds".

But in those days the "church" was not that narrow minded bigotted creature that Rome is today and has been for the last 1500 years since Leo I. Back then the church was a completely different conception. Origen was catholic with a small 'c'. You are Catholic with a capital '(R)C'.

 

[metis]

There is pure religion. Jas 1:27 "Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world."

Since we can trace the origins of Christianity back into early Judaism and then ever further back to both ancient Sumer and Egypt, no. Several names for God in the Hebrew texts were derived from Sumerian names for some of their deities, with one of them being "El" ("Eloheim").

Harmful pagan customs include the cult of the madonna, which is closely related to witchcraft. Praying to Mary is not much dissimilar to praying to a witch.

Praying through Mary or any of the other saints has literally nothing to do with witchcraft since Mary and the saints are not the end of the prayer. This concept, right or wrong, existed within Jewish culture even prior to Jesus, and we also know that the early Christians did believe in what because called "the communion of saints", namely that there is no wall between the living and dead saints. Much like we can pray for each other when still alive, they believed, and still believe, that the earthly and heavenly saints can pray for each other.

 

[metis]

Origen was never associated with the primacy of Rome, which was a much later development in theology

Absolutely false as Origen recognized the Church as being "one body", and it had long been recognized by his time that the Bishop of Rome had a special place in helping to organize the Church and help with resolving disputes. Why would he call the Church "the scarlet thread that binds" if it were not generally organized?

The Development of the Canon of the New Testament - Origen

And thank you for pointing out your dishonesty on this because many of the books involved were not part of the 27 canonized later, plus some that became part of the 27 he didn't accept in full. So, you lied, and the above is simply just another attempt to c.y.a. because Origen simply did not choose the 27 that were canonized later as you insisted he did. Why do you keep on lying over and over again while claiming you're Christian?

But in those days the "church" was not that narrow minded bigotted creature that Rome is today and has been for the last 1500 years since Leo I. Back then the church was a completely different conception. Origen was catholic with a small 'c'.

Again, your use of stereotypes and bigotry and dishonesty demeans your own argument.

You are Catholic with a capital '(R)C'.

Again, just another pathetic lie as I've made it abundantly clear that I'm not Catholic. Have you no shame whatsoever?

 

[outlawState]

Absolutely false as Origen recognized the Church as being "one body", and it had long been recognized by his time that the Bishop of Rome had a special place in helping to organize the Church and help with resolving disputes. Why would he call the Church "the scarlet thread that binds" if it were not generally organized?

The Pentarchy was subverted by Rome post Chalcedon such that thereafter that there was no longer any reciprocal "inter pares" to the prior doctrine of primus inter pares. Rome was allowed to become fully dominant. Only the political conquest of Rome itself put a brake on its pretensions and ambitions. Once freed from its shackles the arrogance of Rome grew and grew till it was exterminating heretics with the sword in the 11th century.

Before that the history of early Christianity is a history of the ever growing enchroachmentof Rome. Thus in the beginning of the 2nd century, Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, speaks of the Church of Rome as "presiding in the region of the Romans." In the end of that century, Pope Victor I threatened to excommunicate the Eastern bishops who continued to celebrate Easter on 14 Nisan, not on the following Sunday. Nonetheless the doctrine of primus inter pares held sway up until Chalcedon even if there was an increasing disparity between how Rome saw itself and how others saw Rome. But I agree Rome had a special place in Origen's time. But special does not mean the right to dictate every single doctrine, like it does today.

So to assume that in Origen's time (3rd century) the Christian world always looked to Rome, as the Catholic church does today, would be to misjudge the entire political scene. It was nothing like how it is today, except perhaps that after Constantine, Constantinople became second after Rome. The others faded.

And thank you for pointing out your dishonesty on this because many of the books involved were not part of the 27 canonized later, plus some that became part of the 27 he didn't accept in full. So, you lied, and the above is simply just another attempt to c.y.a. because Origen simply did not choose the 27 that were canonized later as you insisted he did. Why do you keep on lying over and over again while claiming you're Christian?

In Homiliae on Josuam 7.1: Origen wrote "But when our Lord Jesus Christ comes, whose arrival that prior son of Nun designated, he sends priests, his apostles, bearing “trumpets hammered thin,” the magnificent and heavenly instruction of proclamation. Matthew first sounded the priestly trumpet in his Gospel; Mark also; Luke and John each played their own priestly trumpets. Even Peter cries out with trumpets in two of his epistles; also James and Jude. In addition, John also sounds the trumpet through his epistles [and Revelation], and Luke, as he describes the Acts of the Apostles. And now that last one comes, the one who said, “I think God displays us apostles last,” and in fourteen of his epistles, thundering with trumpets, he casts down the walls of Jericho and all the devices of idolatry and dogmas of philosophers, all the way to the foundation"

Thus he appears to be quoting an almost identical canon as Athanasius in 250BC.

Again, your use of stereotypes and bigotry and dishonesty demeans your own argument.

Again, just another pathetic lie as I've made it abundantly clear that I'm not Catholic. Have you no shame whatsoever?

Well even if you're not RC yourself, you take the RC position, which one would not do unless one had an affinity with RC. So no, I don't accept any shame. In any case, you are no protestant, that is for sure.

 

[outlawState]

Since we can trace the origins of Christianity back into early Judaism and then ever further back to both ancient Sumer and Egypt, no. Several names for God in the Hebrew texts were derived from Sumerian names for some of their deities, with one of them being "El" ("Eloheim").

You seem to be confounding the purity of religion with the knowledge of God and its extent. After all Abraham was deemed to have a pure religion. There can be pure religion with little knowledge of God, and likewise there can be great superficial knowledge of God with little pure religion. I'll agree that there was little knowledge of God in early times, or what knowledge there was, was relegated to a very few. The expanding knowledge of God has been one of a continuum throughout many ages of man. The purity of religion waxes and wanes.

Praying through Mary or any of the other saints has literally nothing to do with witchcraft since Mary and the saints are not the end of the prayer. This concept, right or wrong, existed within Jewish culture even prior to Jesus, and we also know that the early Christians did believe in what because called "the communion of saints", namely that there is no wall between the living and dead saints. Much like we can pray for each other when still alive, they believed, and still believe, that the earthly and heavenly saints can pray for each other.

That is indeed a theory I have heard often, but in practice there is a possibility of real confusion between invoking or summoning the souls of the dead (& demons) , which is the basis of necromancy, and invoking the dead in prayer. If one can invoke the dead in prayer, why cannot one summon them?

I prefer to see it that the dead are forbidden territory, and besides which, there is no biblical authority for any prayers to or through the dead.

 

[Jainarayan]

* * * Staff Post * * *​

Please remember rules 1 and 3 when posting, including but certainly not limited to:

Rule 1, No ad hominems, name-calling, or personal attacks against other members or staff.
Rule 3, No trolling or bullying, or deliberate attempts to "get a rise" or provoke an argument.

 

[metis]

Well even if you're not RC yourself, you take the RC position, which one would not do unless one had an affinity with RC.

I'm only interested in the truth on this as I have no irons in this fire besides that.

In any case, you are no protestant, that is for sure.

Fortunately I left the Protestant church I grew up in because, after studying the early Church not even using any Catholic sources, I came to realize that the basic Protestant position vis-a-vis early Christianity is bogus. Sola scriptura was never believed in by the early church, nor was the Church just a collection of local churches but instead an organized movement ("one body", as Paul called it), although the Bishop of Rome was more the informal head of the Church and didn't have the clout that he does today. Much of the rallying around the Roman Church gradually happened in the 2nd through 4th centuries largely due to "heresies" that were threatening to the Church for multiple reasons, including many basic teachings about Jesus.

The Eastern Church worked in conjunction with the Western Church, but disputes arose over a series of factors. Even so, they remained united as "one body" until the Great Schism many centuries later. Even though there was some theology involved, the separation was mostly political.

Even Luther recognized the need for the Church to be "one body", so his attempt at reform was not originally intended to be a separation. However, everything went "political" in a hurry, quickly reaching the point of no return. He broke his solemn vows to God, married a former nun who broke her vows o God, and then all hell broke loose in the Wars of Religion that rocked Europe for many decades. He eventually realized that he was instrumental in destroying the "one body", and went into depression over it. Of course, I was never told such things when I was in my Lutheran church but came to realize this after reading a biography on him and numerous articles, none of the Catholic btw. Matter of fact, I intentionally avoided Catholic sources since I didn't trust them as I was brought up by both the Lutheran church and even my parents to be anti-Catholic, and it took me quite a while to get past that.

However, with that being said, I will say that Luther was instrumental in pushing reform, which not only led to the Protestant Reformation but also the Catholic Counter-Reformation, both of which ended his main concern and some others, especially the selling of indulgences.

 

[outlawState]

Much of the rallying around the Roman Church gradually happened in the 2nd through 4th centuries largely due to "heresies" that were threatening to the Church for multiple reasons, including many basic teachings about Jesus.

I think you're misinterpreting the position of Rome somewhat. None of the important early synods and councils occured in Rome. They all occurred in the east. The essential doctrine up to Chalcedon was primes inter pares, which confers honourary seniority only, but within that there were many disagreements and different positions taken. There was no "looking to Rome" as the modern Catholics do. It was only after Chalcedon that Rome emerged supreme due to the politics of Leo I, vis-a-vis Christological doctrine, and only after Byzantium conceded supremacy to Rome in 6th century that Rome politically took off.

According to Everett Ferguson, "The great majority of Christians had no clear views about the nature of the Trinity and they did not understand what was at stake in the issues that surrounded it."

The real change that took place in the church concerned the issue and doctrine of the sub-ordination of "Jesus Christ," to the Father, which subsisted during the first three centuries of the church. When it became repudiated by the Council of Nicea, and withal the notion of God begetting God was introduced, thereafter the church changed character and became much more fascist, divided into sects and denominational lines.

Yet there were many Christological issues, especially concerning the doctrine of the Theokotos repudiated by the Nestorians. Their excommunication also greatly altered the character of the church. By the 4th century the church as the single "body of Christ" has ceased to exist. It was clearly split into many irreconcilable denominations, which was exploited by Rome to assert the political supremacy.

The Eastern Church worked in conjunction with the Western Church, but disputes arose over a series of factors. Even so, they remained united as "one body" until the Great Schism many centuries later. Even though there was some theology involved, the separation was mostly political.

Even Luther recognized the need for the Church to be "one body", so his attempt at reform was not originally intended to be a separation. However, everything went "political" in a hurry, quickly reaching the point of no return. He broke his solemn vows to God, married a former nun who broke her vows o God, and then all hell broke loose in the Wars of Religion that rocked Europe for many decades. He eventually realized that he was instrumental in destroying the "one body", and went into depression over it. Of course, I was never told such things when I was in my Lutheran church but came to realize this after reading a biography on him and numerous articles, none of the Catholic btw. Matter of fact, I intentionally avoided Catholic sources since I didn't trust them as I was brought up by both the Lutheran church and even my parents to be anti-Catholic, and it took me quite a while to get past that.

However, with that being said, I will say that Luther was instrumental in pushing reform, which not only led to the Protestant Reformation but also the Catholic Counter-Reformation, both of which ended his main concern and some others, especially the selling of indulgences.

A vow is not binding when it has been procured by legalistic delusion. Luther was not the only protestant in the field. There were many. He is overemphasized by Catholics, because he is important to them; but were it not for him, others would have come forward. His especial place was in Germany. Yet protestantism existed in many other European countries, Switzerland, France, Czechoslovakia, England, Holland, Poland.

It is not required for the church to be a politically unified body. That is a dogma of Rome and not biblical. In any case it is Rome that has exommunicated and anathematized more than any other church - over 100 anathema's in Council of Trent. Rome itself is responsible for the politically diverse body of Christ par excellence, so it can't accuse others.

 

[metis]

This from a non-Catholic source:

Christianity began as a Jewish sect in the Levant of the middle east in the mid-1st century. Other than Second Temple Judaism, the primary religious influences of early Christianity are Zoroastrianism and Gnosticism.[note 2][16][17][136] John Bowker states that Christian ideas such as "angels, the end of the world, a final judgment, the resurrection and heaven and hell received form and substance from ... Zoroastrian beliefs".[137] Its earliest development took place under the leadership of the remaining Twelve Apostles, particularly Saint Peter, and Paul the Apostle, followed by the early bishops, whom Christians consider the successors of the Apostles.

According to the Christian scriptures, Christians were from the beginning subject topersecution by some Jewish and Roman religious authorities, who disagreed with the apostles' teachings (See Split of early Christianity and Judaism). This involved punishments, including death, for Christians such as Stephen[Acts 7:59] andJames, son of Zebedee.[Acts 12:2] Larger-scale persecutions followed at the hands of the authorities of the Roman Empire, first in the year 64, when Emperor Nero blamed them for the Great Fire of Rome. According to Church tradition, it was under Nero's persecution that early Church leaders Peter and Paul of Tarsus were each martyred in Rome.

Further widespread persecutions of the Church occurred under nine subsequent Roman emperors, most intensely under Decius and Diocletian. From the year 150, Christian teachers began to produce theological and apologetic works aimed at defending the faith. These authors are known as the Church Fathers, and study of them is called Patristics. Notable early Fathers include Ignatius of Antioch,Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria and Origen. However, Armenia is considered the first nation to accept Christianity in AD 301.[106][138][139]

King Trdat IV made Christianity the state religion in Armenia between 301 and 314, it was not an entirely new religion in Armenia. It penetrated into the country from at least the third century, but may have been present even earlier.[140] -- Christianity - Wikipedia

Even though the above is obviously thumbnail, the importance here deals with the issue of apostolic succession, which cannot be applied to Protestantism beyond a couple of the Scandinavian Lutheran synods, that the Church indeed was viewed as a unified whole based on these appointments, and that even though the Church was scattered over a wide area, the bishops did their best to work together. Indeed, their writings, which often reflected comments on other patriarchs, was not done in some sort up helter-skelter vacuum.

When various heresies popped up, which undoubtedly was inevitable, the Church did not succumb to that but fought against it because the opposing canon of these others were largely quite different and also had differing depictions of Jesus and others. According to the Biblical scholar William Barclay, there were over 1000 letters/books that were in contention, which necessitated an official selection of the canon by the apostolic Church.

Also, because the patriarchs of the Church worked together, councils could and were held in various locations and, as a matter of fact, most were held in places other than Rome.

Gotta go.

 

[metis]

[continued after dinner-- was quite good, btw]

One can maybe appreciate my shock after doing the research and finding out what I had been taught to believe was simply not true, and I had thoughts about going into the ministry but called it off because of being told by my pastor that I could not accept evolutionary theory and still be a Christian. It wasn't until I talked to a priest a bit later that I found out that the two were not incompatible even though that confused me even more at first.

So, what's bogus in Protestant theology falls into especially three areas: 1.sola scriptura, 2.the Church was not "one body", and 3.that salvation was by faith and faith alone. I've explained the other two, so now with the latter. If one remembers correctly, Luther wanted to throw out a couple of the books in the NT because they didn't fit into his paradigm, but eventually he chose not to. Over and over again in the NT it says that believing in Jesus was just that-- "in". For two examples, Jesus' Sermon On the Mount and his Parable of the Sheep & Goats mandate doing what he taught and not just accepting them as just being politically-correct words of wisdom. For one to say "I am saved because I believe about Jesus so I don't have to do anything" is contrary to the gospels and epistles. IOW, faith in Jesus is also doing what Jesus taught.

As a non-Christian, I can very much appreciate Jesus' words because they are very moral, very humanitarian, very compassionate, and very fair for all. When I run across Christians who don't act like that, I have to wonder what and whom they're following? How is someone acting like a rabid pit bull doing what Jesus taught?

Even Gandhi noticed this inconsistency of those who believed in "once saved, always saved" as if what they did didn't really matter-- thus his statement "I love your Christ but not your Christians". That, of course, was hyperbole because he actually did love Christians who lived out the gospel by extending Jesus' love to others. Even those who didn't he had quite a bit of tolerance for, although he highly resented their "my way or the highway" approach.

Anyhow, everyone is going to get a break here as I'm not going to be on much for several days as we're getting ready to move to our place in da Great White North for several months.

 

[outlawState]

Even though the above is obviously thumbnail, the importance here deals with the issue of apostolic succession, which cannot be applied to Protestantism beyond a couple of the Scandinavian Lutheran synods, that the Church indeed was viewed as a unified whole based on these appointments, and that even though the Church was scattered over a wide area, the bishops did their best to work together. Indeed, their writings, which often reflected comments on other patriarchs, was not done in some sort up helter-skelter vacuum.

As to apostolic succession, it is an ephemeral and peripheral theory dreamt up by Rome to establish its authority. As I have said before, in any case, Protestantism was originally comprised of ex-Catholics who rejected Catholicism on account of its sinful practices.

Jhn 3:8 The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.

When various heresies popped up, which undoubtedly was inevitable, the Church did not succumb to that but fought against it because the opposing canon of these others were largely quite different and also had differing depictions of Jesus and others. According to the Biblical scholar William Barclay, there were over 1000 letters/books that were in contention, which necessitated an official selection of the canon by the apostolic Church.

Also, because the patriarchs of the Church worked together, councils could and were held in various locations and, as a matter of fact, most were held in places other than Rome.
Gotta go.

The process of canonization has had the unfortunate effect of removing many edifying Christian works from that period from befoe the public. It would have been useful not to have "canonized" the letters in such a rigorous manner. One could conceive of the Jewish approach to the NT - the primary sources, and then many secondary sources.

In any case, what use is Canonization if the church rejects what has been canonized, as it clearly does?

 

[outlawState]

[continued after dinner-- was quite good, btw]

One can maybe appreciate my shock after doing the research and finding out what I had been taught to believe was simply not true, and I had thoughts about going into the ministry but called it off because of being told by my pastor that I could not accept evolutionary theory and still be a Christian. It wasn't until I talked to a priest a bit later that I found out that the two were not incompatible even though that confused me even more at first.

I do not care for Lutheranism. It is not true protestantism. It is semi-protestantism, a halfway house. In fact I do not really care for Luther at all. He was not what I would describe as a truly intelligent protestant like Michael Servetus who was his intellectual superior in so many ways - although he was definitely a welcome thorn in Rome's side. Luther was never truly free of Roman Catholicism and inherited many of its faults, including a certain arrogance that one would be astounded at, if exuded today.

Nietzsche's father was a Lutheran pastor. Nietzsche was an antichrist. So Nazism obtained its principles from the son of a Lutheran. It's not a good advertisement for Lutheranism. The Church of Sweden is an Evangelical Lutheran national church in Sweden but is largely apostate. It's not a good advertisement for Lutheranism. In fact "Lutheranism" is more about the name "Luther" than about a clear set of principles IMO.

So, what's bogus in Protestant theology falls into especially three areas: 1.sola scriptura, 2.the Church was not "one body", and 3.that salvation was by faith and faith alone. I've explained the other two, so now with the latter. If one remembers correctly, Luther wanted to throw out a couple of the books in the NT because they didn't fit into his paradigm, but eventually he chose not to. Over and over again in the NT it says that believing in Jesus was just that-- "in". For two examples, Jesus' Sermon On the Mount and his Parable of the Sheep & Goats mandate doing what he taught and not just accepting them as just being politically-correct words of wisdom. For one to say "I am saved because I believe about Jesus so I don't have to do anything" is contrary to the gospels and epistles. IOW, faith in Jesus is also doing what Jesus taught.

Jesus never said that the church would be politically united. It is a dogma of Rome that such should be so, but in spiritual terms it is meaningless. In any case there is widespread political disunity within Catholicism. As for Sola scriptura, as any lawyer knows, the law is only as good as its interpreter. All scripture must be interpreted by the Holy Spirit to give it validity. I think that assumption is built into the words, but if not it must be implied anyway. Salvation is by "faith alone" but not in the sense of "faith without works" but in the sense of "without faith it is impossible to please God." Hebrews 11:6.

As I hinted at before, Luther has a lot of "issues." No-one with any sense holds him up as on a par with the apostles. His distate for the letter of James beggars belief. No-one is called to "believe in Luther." Luther is a witness to how backward theology really was in those days of unreformed Catholicism and indulgences used for buying one's way into heaven without repentence.

As a non-Christian, I can very much appreciate Jesus' words because they are very moral, very humanitarian, very compassionate, and very fair for all. When I run across Christians who don't act like that, I have to wonder what and whom they're following? How is someone acting like a rabid pit bull doing what Jesus taught?

Don't forget Jesus threw the money changers out of the temple. He deliberately refrained from judgement, where it was not his mission to judge. Yet as to judgement one cannot evade associating the destruction of Jerusalem AD70 and the wholesale slaughter of the Jews at that time with the wrath of God (i.e. the wrath of Jesus). The consequences of apostasy are dire. cf. Nietzsche, the apostate Lutheran who went mad.

Even Gandhi noticed this inconsistency of those who believed in "once saved, always saved" as if what they did didn't really matter-- thus his statement "I love your Christ but not your Christians". That, of course, was hyperbole because he actually did love Christians who lived out the gospel by extending Jesus' love to others. Even those who didn't he had quite a bit of tolerance for, although he highly resented their "my way or the highway" approach.

Gandhi was a pious hypocrite as he was very sexually immoral. "Once saved, always saved" is a fable where one cannot know whose names are written in the book of life. It should be re-phrased "if you will be saved, you won't lose your salvation."

But I can agreed that the Dutch/Afrikaner reformerd churches to whom Gandhi alluded to were associated with hypocrisy. I learned that elsewhere, but having said that, I do not think that racially segregated churches are of themselves such an issue, which is what Gandhi may have been alluding to. As many as 87% of Christian churches in the United States are completely made up of only White or African-American parishioners. One has to respect how people chose to live their lives. Even the apostle Paul conceded that much.

Yet segregation occurs on many other grounds too. Rich versus poor, for instance. The rich prefer the high churches, the poor the low churches. That sort of thing has always presented issues. No one is going to go to a church that they feel uncomfortable in.