Catholicism Was It The Original Church?

[Grandpa Harley]

AM,

 

(Kratos @ Mar 26 2008, 06:52 PM)

When men organize and establish an organization to be a second mediator, it is no longer the church.

 

Agreed, but then how can the movement deal with the volume of population? You answer that, and you'll be the true Messiah. (You can't answer that)

 

That is the point, I think. Why do people who believe in an omnipotent God think that He needs men to "deal" with the voulume of population? When we get over trying to go through others to know God is when true learning begins.

 

John

 

Why does someone who believes in an omnipotent god think he made one gender to be to subejct to another and certain people monsters for being attracted to the 'wrong' gender? Or would care? Why is that John? Hmmm? Why do you think that?

[Grandpa Harley]

 

 

Am,

 

When I see the Bible, talk about it, interpret it in the way I feel it was meant; I do that in thought. In action, I stick to a more rationalized and normal view; even in Christ's words. Literal interpretation, along with human action on that interpretation can be confusing, denominational, refuted, debated, and even cause death. I say Peter was the first Pope, he was the rock; from what I see and feel that meant; yet I understand that even most here, along with I 'note' the reading of the Bible has to be thought through

 

 

Question: WTF was the Easter challenge gibberish about?

[Grandpa Harley]

Without the Roman church you'd have no bible... so it is the mother of deceit... and Peter, as Heretic Zero points out, only got to Rome after he was dead...

[Grandpa Harley]

Question: WTF was the Easter challenge gibberish about?

[Neon Genesis]

Am,

 

When I see the Bible, talk about it, interpret it in the way I feel it was meant; I do that in thought. In action, I stick to a more rationalized and normal view; even in Christ's words. Literal interpretation, along with human action on that interpretation can be confusing, denominational, refuted, debated, and even cause death. I say Peter was the first Pope, he was the rock; from what I see and feel that meant; yet I understand that even most here, along with I 'note' the reading of the Bible has to be thought through

If you don't believe in any sort of literal interpretation of the bible, and we've already established that all the stories about the martyrs of the apostles is just made-up Catholic legend, then how do you know a literal Peter really existed when there is no evidence outside of biased and fictional religious writings that Peter ever existed in history at all? If you can accept that it's irrational to believe in a literal interpretation of the bible, then why believe in a literal Peter when there is no evidence such a man ever existed? Oh wait, I get it. By "rationalized" interpretation, you mean anything you agree with in the bible is "literal", but anything that's inconvenient for you is simply "metaphorical", right? Isn't it funny how nearly 90% of the time, whenever Christians say something isn't "what the scriptures really means", it' usually something inconvenient for them to accept?

[Antlerman]

AM,

 

(Kratos @ Mar 26 2008, 06:52 PM)

When men organize and establish an organization to be a second mediator, it is no longer the church.

 

Agreed, but then how can the movement deal with the volume of population? You answer that, and you'll be the true Messiah. (You can't answer that)

 

That is the point, I think. Why do people who believe in an omnipotent God think that He needs men to "deal" with the voulume of population? When we get over trying to go through others to know God is when true learning begins.

 

John

Let's come back to what I said in my previous response:

 

But what happens to

anything

when it becomes popular? People join up, the core message starts to morph and evolve as the personalities and diveristies of different people's adopt it. Then... then comes the machine! Now you have to find a way to govern, sustain, and market this thing. Then you have people who control, and influence, etc. And the original reform movement becomes a system itself! Now... itself eventually becomes the target of reformists, like Jesus, who break away from it and say, "You white-washed sepulchers!" This cycle is unbreakable. This is why I believe that to codify doctrines in a book - Kratos, is to shackle the spirit of what created the breakaway reform to begin with.

Can you explain to me how any movement can take on large numbers of followers and NOT have some sort of organizational leadership? Do you believe that can happen without beliefs becoming splintered and divided into differing schools of thought? I know it's nice to be an idealist about all things God, but that's the reality of things, despite the noblest of intentions of the believers. No two people will see everything the same, even though they may be entirely sincere in their faith. Just look at all the letters of Paul trying to bring everyone under his leadership? Why do you think that was? It's the nature of movements. Paul was all about control of the flocks.

 

Here's a thought I'd like to discuss and see what you think. If the ideal, as you seem to suggest, is that if people kept their focus on God and his Word, that millions of followers everywhere from Israel to Egypt, to Australia, to England, to America, and to all the thousands of smaller regions and cultures within all of those - all with unique situations and backgrounds and traditions, would all have a unified belief and direction of faith in the application of practical living that manifested itself as a single faith; then why did they have someone codify the writing of Paul into Canonized scripture, and the writing of the various other Gospels as scripture?

 

What am I talking about? This. What that was, was an attempt to control HOW people believed. The opposite of what you seem to be suggesting. That act of canonization of the books of the NT was in fact all about control. It's the very bureaucratic thing you criticize, yet ironically turn to in an attempt to defend your faith! It was the establishment of church doctrines as part of the control system! So right there, you have man becoming that second mediator between man and God, the very thing you criticize. It' the height of irony, and the conundrum of having a "spiritual faith", within any organized belief. That's what I'm talking about.

 

So there you have it. The progression I talked about in my previous posts. A spiritual reform movement against the backdrop of an established religious system who's structures and rules for governance failed to be dynamic and responsive to the changes of society and people's emotion/social needs within it; gaining popularity and spreading to diverse regions picking up the flavor of those areas and adapting to it, thus changing it's face to suit that need; then personalities who witness this natural metamorphosis happening who then exert control over them to bring them back under a central authority (i.e. the Apostle Paul), thus embarking this new reform movement on the path of becoming a system itself just like the one it sought to break away from for those same reasons; finally this established new religious system is bought out by an even larger bureaucracy, the Roman Empire and you have the codification of new rules and regulations in the establishment of "Sanctioned Scripture" and "Approved Doctrine", such as the books of the NT; the doctrine of the Trinity; the Doctrine of Original Sin; etc, etc, etc. All things you hold to as so-called "revealed" truth today.

 

Don't kid yourself, you are part of that system. You are a child of Holy Mother Church, separated from her loving arms, but still attached to her through your navel.

[Neon Genesis]

Here's a thought I'd like to discuss and see what you think. If the ideal, as you seem to suggest, is that if people kept their focus on God and his Word, that millions of followers everywhere from Israel to Egypt, to Australia, to England, to America, and to all the thousands of smaller regions and cultures within all of those - all with unique situations and backgrounds and traditions, would all have a unified belief and direction of faith in the application of practical living that manifested itself as a single faith; then why did they have someone codify the writing of Paul into Canonized scripture, and the writing of the various other Gospels as scripture?

Good luck getting an answer out of him, AM. I've been trying to ask him this question repeatedly in my posts whenever he talks about his "correct" way of interpreting scripture and I still never got a straight answer from him. Albeit, it's less elegant then how you put it, but I've essentially been asking why can't Christians be united in their beliefs if the bible is true. So far the closest thing I've gotten to an answer from him were some random ramblings about God magically revealing himself to us at some undetermined point in the future as if that's somehow supposed to have anything to do with my question.

[Antlerman]

Here's a thought I'd like to discuss and see what you think. If the ideal, as you seem to suggest, is that if people kept their focus on God and his Word, that millions of followers everywhere from Israel to Egypt, to Australia, to England, to America, and to all the thousands of smaller regions and cultures within all of those - all with unique situations and backgrounds and traditions, would all have a unified belief and direction of faith in the application of practical living that manifested itself as a single faith; then why did they have someone codify the writing of Paul into Canonized scripture, and the writing of the various other Gospels as scripture?

Good luck getting an answer out of him, AM. I've been trying to ask him this question repeatedly in my posts whenever he talks about his "correct" way of interpreting scripture and I still never got a straight answer from him. Albeit, it's less elegant then how you put it, but I've essentially been asking why can't Christians be united in their beliefs if the bible is true. So far the closest thing I've gotten to an answer from him were some random ramblings about God magically revealing himself to us at some undetermined point in the future as if that's somehow supposed to have anything to do with my question.

I think I know what my debate topic is going to be with Kratos for the Arena. (This is his chance to avoid that. )

 

Edit: Here's the Title for that Debate:

 

Spiritual Bureaucracy

The Oxymoron of Christianity

 

I'm putting my thoughts together now....

[mwc]

I heard that one sect, Essenes was the ones that originated the Jesus myth. Is that true?

No.

 

mwc

[chefranden]

The Catholic Church is what happens when what God started, man takes over and perverts. She is called Mystery Babylon, the Mother of Harlots in the Bible and all of the Protestant bureaucracies are her daughers and grand-daughters to carry the analogy to today. Christianity was designed to be individual with no other Mediator between God and man, but Jesus. When men organize and establish an organization to be a second mediator, it is no longer the church. It is what man has built to take the place of what God intended to do.

 

So no, the RCC was not the first church. Jesus meeting around a campfire with His disciples was. The RCC is the first counterfeit for the church though there has been thousands of others since following in the same pattern.

 

Damn that man! Ya'd think that God would have made allowances for that man. Maybe something like oh I don't know -- perhaps a spirit that guides and drives that dumb fucker into all knowledge of holiness and unity. That would have been a good idea don't ya think? That's what I would have done if I was God.

[chefranden]

Was it the original church?

 

No - but it is the ancestor of all modern churches.

 

All forms of protestantism broke away from the Catholic Church.

 

But the Catholic Church itself was just the form of early christianity that won. The gnostics have as much claim as the catholics for being the oldest form of christianity. I guess the oldest form of christianity is Paul's version of it (whatever the hell that was!)

 

Not quite. It is not the ancestor of the Coptic church for example.

[chefranden]

When I see the Bible, talk about it, interpret it in the way I feel it was meant; I do that in thought. In action, I stick to a more rationalized and normal view; even in Christ's words. Literal interpretation, along with human action on that interpretation can be confusing, denominational, refuted, debated, and even cause death. I say Peter was the first Pope, he was the rock; from what I see and feel that meant; yet I understand that even most here, along with I 'note' the reading of the Bible has to be thought through

 

 

So what is the point of you posting here? If you are just going to make up reality out of whole cloth shouldn't you concentrate on New Age forums, or some site that doesn't bother with reality? Are we supposed to take the voices you hear while taking a dump seriously? Or are we just supposed to trade nonsense lines? The Hunting of the Snark is to be read when entertaining children, but it hardly makes good conversation.

 

On the other hand perhaps you think you are using "skillful means"? If you are it's not working. "Skillful means" requires shock not stupidity. And no it is not a shock when a Christian writes something stupid.

[Evolution_beyond]

Was it the original church?

 

No - but it is the ancestor of all modern churches.

 

All forms of protestantism broke away from the Catholic Church.

 

But the Catholic Church itself was just the form of early christianity that won. The gnostics have as much claim as the catholics for being the oldest form of christianity. I guess the oldest form of christianity is Paul's version of it (whatever the hell that was!)

 

Not quite. It is not the ancestor of the Coptic church for example.

 

True. And the Indian church (I forget what it's called) - that developed quite independently of Catholicism (they claim they were founded by St Thomas)

[chefranden]

24And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds. 25Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another—and all the more as you see the Day approaching.

 

That is the point, I think. Why do people who believe in an omnipotent God think that He needs men to "deal" with the voulume of population? When we get over trying to go through others to know God is when true learning begins.

 

John

 

Then what is your reason for posting? To us you are an other. Why should we listen to you about God, Jesus, or even yesterday's breakfast? Are you here just to bitch about those churches you are not in? Perhaps you'd make a bigger impact on a Christian forum. I, and I think many of my fellows here, find Christian bashing by Christians quite amusing. At the very least it dis-recommends your god. (c.f. John 17)

 

Do you reject the writings of Paul? His mission was to go around organizing churches you know.

[Kratos]

AM,

 

It would seem that we can agree on such humanist subjects as bureaucracies in general, but there are two fundamental differences in our world view that may continue to keep us apart. These are matters of faith and not based on empiracally provable facts, and thus, the impass. These are (1) there is a God who is the power behind all that happens in the lives of men, and (2) God inspired holy men of old to write the scriptures and to gather them together into the canon.

 

I believe that God did this (#2) so that we would have a common foundation from which we would all be taught by the Holy Spirit and that this process would be used to help us all to grow up spiritually. This process includes errors made and corrected and remade and recorrected again. It seems that many people think that it is vital that we all believe the same way on every point and use the fact that this is not so as proof that God is not involved or that the scriptures are flawed. This belief comes from a humanistic view of the Church and His Kingdom. This is not some unified code of truth or an organization that all must agree with and accept its tenets in order to belong. It is an living organism and not an organization. It is a spiritual family and not a bureaurocracy. What many term as the church is an organization and a bureaurocracy. But this is not the spiritual body that the Bible speaks of. The Church is all of the people on earth or in heaven who acknowledge Jesus as their Lord and their only mediator is the Lord Himself.

 

Just like an earthly father teaches all of his children differently depending upon their individual personalities and maturity, God does the same with all of us. If this were not true, then we would all believe the same way throughout our Christian walk. However, the observable truth is that we all see things differently from each other in some ways and see things differently at different times in our lives. Christianity is supposed to remain dynamic and ever changing within the limits of Biblical interpretation. It is man's interference that insists upon solidifying and making static Biblical interpretation. This is the purpose behind what is usually called the church today. It is thousands of denominations each claiming to have the true interpretation and attempting to bring as many followers as possible under the control of their Biblical interpretation.

 

Many on here mock me for "Kratosanity" or some other clever manifestation of the same idea. Most on here are far more fundie than I am because they see a problem with me having my own interpretations of the scriptures. In fact, I have even been accused of trying to be a moderator between God and others because of these personal beliefs. However, where they miss it is that they do not accept that I give every believer the same liberty that I claim for myself. To work out their own salvation with fear and trembling. Each person's walk with God and Biblical understanding is distinctly theirs. God, as a good Father, will bring us all eventually to the same understanding of what is the truth, but in the mean time we need to relax and enjoy the process. It is walking with God from error to truth that builds our personal relationships and makes us His disciples and not the disciples of other men or organizations.

 

It could loosely be compared to the sciences seeking truth within the boundaries of natural law. At the turn of the century, different men disagreed on the principles that could make flight possible. They tried making "flying machines" that immitated birds flapping their wings or balloons using gases lighter than air or the principle of lift. But all agreed that gravity was a truth that must be accepted as foundational as other truth was sought within this foundation. Similarly, we can disagree over the nature of the Godhead whether it is Oneness or a Trinity, but we must agree that God is and a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him according to the scriptures. We can disagree about the existence of an eternal Hell or the meaning of the Lake of Fire, but we must agree that our actions have consequences and God is the judge of the whole earth. General guidelines with hundreds of interpretations keeps us from wandering too far off the path of truth on the one hand while allowing for the dynamic process of each learning at the feet of Jesus at their own pace and according to what their culture and personality can assimilate in a way that it is easily understood by them individually. A God who could design a world with so much diversity does not need a "one size fits all" method of bringing all of His children to spiritual maturity.

 

John

[Grandpa Harley]

"A God who could design a world with so much diversity does not need a "one size fits all" method of bringing all of His children to spiritual maturity."

 

Yet he has a one size fits all view of domestic order and sexuality...

[The-Captain]

 

Alrighty, I've always liked the sound of universalism. But if the "truths" of the bible are a step towards spiritual maturity, Id say the whole thing is overrated.

[chefranden]

It seems that many people think that it is vital that we all believe the same way on every point and use the fact that this is not so as proof that God is not involved or that the scriptures are flawed. This belief comes from a humanistic view of the Church and His Kingdom.

John

 

Well thats odd. It seems like it was important to God that y'all at least look like you agreed with one another enough to make it seem that you had some power of god: ... 20"My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: 23I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let... So here we have God praying to himself for "complete unity". Aside from the fact that it makes God look silly when he can't even answer his own prayer in the affirmative, it puts lie to this idea of yours. I'm sure though that you will be able to slap some apologist's wiggle on "complete unity".

 

Man always blows whatever God intends. How does that happen? I think that bothers you a good bit and that is what prompts this not very new "blame it on the man" bullshit theology. You don't want to admit that there is no "wonder working power in the blood". So blame it on the man that the Omnimaxgod can't get'r done. It must be tough being an Omnimaxgod these days.

[MonolithTMA]

However, where they miss it is that they do not accept that I give every believer the same liberty that I claim for myself.

 

 

Yes, I could see that when you called the Catholic church the whore of Babylon.

[Neon Genesis]

AM,

 

It would seem that we can agree on such humanist subjects as bureaucracies in general, but there are two fundamental differences in our world view that may continue to keep us apart. These are matters of faith and not based on empiracally provable facts, and thus, the impass. These are (1) there is a God who is the power behind all that happens in the lives of men, and (2) God inspired holy men of old to write the scriptures and to gather them together into the canon.

Gee, maybe it's because God didn't leave any evidence that he existed? But noooo, it can't possibly be God's fault, right?

 

I believe that God did this (#2) so that we would have a common foundation from which we would all be taught by the Holy Spirit and that this process would be used to help us all to grow up spiritually.

Believing in invisible sky daddies who grant wishes and flying zombie messiahs who can walk on water and turn water into wine with their magical powers in spite of a lack of evidence that these things are true is "grown up"? Sounds a lot more like a three year old who still believe in Santa Claus to me.

 

This process includes errors made and corrected and remade and recorrected again

Why didn't God get it right the first time? Isn't he supposed to be perfect?

 

But this is not the spiritual body that the Bible speaks of.

Translation: Everyone should come agree on what I say about gays and uppity women even though I just said there was supposed to be no second mediator for God!

 

 

Many on here mock me for "Kratosanity" or some other clever manifestation of the same idea. Most on here are far more fundie than I am because they see a problem with me having my own interpretations of the scriptures.

Translation: Everyone who disagrees with me is a fundamentalist even though I clearly don't understand what the word fundamentalist means, so please don't be a big meanie to me and listen to what I have to say about gays and uppity women!

 

God, as a good Father, will bring us all eventually to the same understanding of what is the truth, but in the mean time we need to relax and enjoy the process. It is walking with God from error to truth that builds our personal relationships and makes us His disciples and not the disciples of other men or organizations.

See, I told you he was going to say this, AM. I must be a prophet because I predicted the future about what Kratos was going to say! We should start a Church Of NGism where everyone has to obey me! Glory!

[Neon Genesis]

In fact, I have even been accused of trying to be a moderator between God and others because of these personal beliefs.

Translation: "It's not what I think but what God thinks, so you have to do whatever I think!" Sigh, can't you say anything original?

 

However, where they miss it is that they do not accept that I give every believer the same liberty that I claim for myself. To work out their own salvation with fear and trembling. Each person's walk with God and Biblical understanding is distinctly theirs. God, as a good Father, will bring us all eventually to the same understanding of what is the truth, but in the mean time we need to relax and enjoy the process.

Expect for gays and uppity women, right? Because everyone knows they don't count, right?

 

Similarly, we can disagree over the nature of the Godhead whether it is Oneness or a Trinity, but we must agree that God is and a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him according to the scriptures.

Translation: We must all agree about what I say about gays and uppity women!

 

We can disagree about the existence of an eternal Hell or the meaning of the Lake of Fire, but we must agree that our actions have consequences and God is the judge of the whole earth.

Expect we can't disagree about gays and uppity women because you obviously know what's best for us more than we do, right?

 

A God who could design a world with so much diversity does not need a "one size fits all" method of bringing all of His children to spiritual maturity.

 

John

Expect for gays and uppity women right, because God's command about gays and uppity women are always a "one size fits all" method, right?

[Grandpa Harley]

However, where they miss it is that they do not accept that I give every believer the same liberty that I claim for myself.

 

 

Yes, I could see that when you called the Catholic church the whore of Babylon.

 

I'd agree... that's a good hint...

[Onyx]

Anyway, this is a thought but so many churches claim to be the True Church- the worst offenders are Catholic Church. Want to read my thought on what makes the True Christians true Christians?

 

Here goes:

 

True Christians are the ones who lived at the very beginning of their religion's life, they may have had the original and unaltered version of Christianity (It must have been full of lies then though) but whatever it was, it died with them. No true and original Christians then live today. So Catholic Church while it can claim to be an umbrella church, is not the Original Church along with thousand of others with claim as tenous.

 

Today's Christianity is just a Chinese Whisper of what it originally was. If Hell indeed was in the original version of Christianity (Which I rather doubt) then today's Christians, all of them, would go to Hell because their interpretation is not the accurate and original version of Christianity. Catholics and Baptists alike would then go to Hell (if there was originally one)

 

What then is the point of Christianity if it is so dependent on the true and original theology but it is lost forever because of extreme altering of The Bible and Christian History by the winners? Isn't it better to laugh and stop squabbling over whether Jesus was actually full man or full God? Who cares?

 

I read the deleted books of The New Testament and they were some of the Gnostic books. One of them is the Secret Mark Gospel, which involved a seemingly Gay Jesus with a disciple (groupie?) Jesus teaching him the mysteries of the Kingdom. This was hid from the masses rather early on, they were clandestinely read by the high ups and it were coyly mentioned in letters.

 

I wonder then, if Bible was completely unaltered, then, homophobia and other despicable prejudices won't be as bad but it would have been a worse mess contradiction-wise (As if that's an easy feat!) Maybe then, we would've abandoned it as cultures earlier.

 

I think Early Christianity was a drunken time, rock n' roll stuff were done but after Early Christianity, it sobered up and became the staid Christianity we know and love (?) Catholic Church stamped the 'embarassing' versions of Christianity out (Dark Ages too) Luther stamped them out further and etc. Then we saw Christianity begin to lighten up again during 20th Century despite the minority of Christians in the White House and morality groups.

 

Well, I hope Christianity should lighten up a lot MORE but then we've got a long way to go yet what with Catholic Church, Baptists in America and fundamentalist groups...

[Onyx]

<same post>