The Lord's Day
- Thread starter Thomas
- Start date
Do you know of a parallel group that has preserved the New Testament?
moralorel
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 603
- Reaction score
- 543
- Points
- 88
Head to your library and study William Tyndale. He was burned at the stake for translating the Bible to English and making it available for the public. He actually helped preserve the Bible. Many of today's translations are inspired by him. I would suggest reading:
"God's Bestseller: William Tyndale, Thomas More, and the Writing of the English Bible-A story of Martyrdom and Betrayal" from Brian Moynahan.
"William Tyndale: A Biography" from David Daniell
"Why William Tyndale Lived and Died" from John Piper
John Wycliffe translated the Bible to English as well. I believe he was the first one to do so. He also had the audacity to say that he felt that the Catholic church should follow the Bible instead of its own teachings (crazy!). He had to flee Pope Gregory XI and go into hiding. He died before he was caught. Pope Martin V had John Wycliffe's corpse put on trial and then burned at the stake. Feel free to read:
"The Cambridge History of Medieval Political Thought 350 to 1450" from JH Burns.
"John Wycliffe's Reformation Reputation" from Margaret Aston
Or you could look these people up online.
moralorel
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 603
- Reaction score
- 543
- Points
- 88
Pope Gregory IX started the Inquisition. It wasn't just Spain. But yes, originally it was only Catholics. Originally. Eventually it poured into France, the Netherlands, Peru, Mexico, Germany, Italy, and Portugal. Then they came for Protestant, Jews, and Muslims.
Many Catholics try to claim that this was just a government issue and not a Catholic one. But it was started by the Catholic church and not one Pope tried to stop it. From memory, I believe it was Pope Sextus who ordered inquisitors to tame their punishments. But that was from memory. Not sure if that was the correct Pope. But the rest didn't try to stop it. You know who did stop the inquisitions? Napoleon.
moralorel
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 603
- Reaction score
- 543
- Points
- 88
I feel like you're speaking a different language. So let me summarize for you.
On a different thread I simply had posted what many Catholics, Catholics who have much more authority than you or I, have said about "The Lords's Day". I just put them out there and said to take it up with them. So our argument has gone something like this...
"The Catholic Church sanctified Sunday by her own authority, not by scripture" -Catholic newspapers-
"Wrong" -Thomas-
"The Catholic Church sanctified Sunday by her own authority, not by scripture" -Vatican newspaper-
"Wrong" -Thomas-
"The Catholic Church sanctified Sunday by her own authority, not by scripture" -Catholic Church websites-
"Wrong" -Thomas-
"The Catholic Church sanctified Sunday by her own authority, not by scripture" -Catholic Encyclopedias-
"Wrong" -Thomas-
"The Catholic Church sanctified Sunday by her own authority, not by scripture" -Various Catholic Books-
"Wrong" -Thomas-
"The Catholic Church sanctified Sunday by her own authority, not by scripture" -Various Catholic Priests-
"Wrong" -Thomas-
"The Catholic Church sanctified Sunday by her own authority, not by scripture" -Catholic Professors-
"Wrong" -Thomas-
"The Catholic Church sanctified Sunday by her own authority, not by scripture" -Catholic Chancellors-
"Wrong" -Thomas-
"The Catholic Church sanctified Sunday by her own authority, not by scripture" -Catholic Cardinals-
"Wrong" -Thomas-
"The Catholic Church sanctified Sunday by her own authority, not by scripture" -Catholic Church Canon-
"Wrong" -Thomas-
"The Catholic Church sanctified Sunday by her own authority, not by scripture" -Pope-
"Wrong" -Thomas-
"So if you don't believe these Catholics, then what should I consult?" -Me-
"The Catechism of the Catholic Church. If you don't like what it says, too bad"
"The Catholic Church sanctified Sunday by her own authority, not by scripture" -The Catechism of the Catholic Church-
Golly gee, I guess I'm going to have to assume that the Catholic church sanctified Sunday by her own authority.
"It's in scripture, the Bible says so" -Thomas-
"I think you have just been giving me lazy arguments. Saying "wrong" and "the Bible says so" are lazy arguments. -Me-
I know this doesn't cover everything, but it's pretty much our whole back and forth argument. If you don't like it, take it up with your Catholic church. Your advice, remember?
moralorel
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 603
- Reaction score
- 543
- Points
- 88
I definitely think you got me all wrong. My point is very simple. Just because a group does some good things doesn't mean that they are 1. good and 2. no longer guilty of doing evil actions. This isn't even a religious theme. That's just my point. I really don't like digging out my old books and notes and having to bring up negative actions of the Catholic church or any church for that matter. You are obviously a pleasant person, from what I see on here, so I really hope you aren't thinking I'm on a witch hunt of your church. I made my original point and that is what I'm trying to stick to.
You want a reference saying that only the Catholic church has preserved the New Testament during the first 1500 years of Christianity? Where would I find such a reference? It's obvious to me, unless there is a parallel group. So I'm not deflecting. You seem, to disagree with my statement, so I'm asking you for information
moralorel
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 603
- Reaction score
- 543
- Points
- 88
You made a statement. You offer no proof. You want me to help you prove your claim?
My head hurts.
The thing is I could probably write a book about how great the Catholic church is and write about all of the wonderful things it has done. I could also write another book about all of the atrocities caused by the Catholic church. Both would be true. I could probably give you all sorts of references about the work the Catholic church has done to preserve the Bible. But it's your point. You own it.
Nice deflection, lol
Do you know of any other group that has preserved the New Testament for the first 1500 years of Christianity? C'mon: I'm here to learn ...
moralorel
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 603
- Reaction score
- 543
- Points
- 88
It's not a deflection. I'm invoking burden of proof. You make a claim, prove it. It's not my burden to bear. If I am going to prove YOUR claim and my claims, then I might as well argue with the wall.
If you claimed that unicorns exist, it isn't my job to prove you wrong. If I refused to provide proof that they didn't exist, that wouldn't mean your empty claim was correct.
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
The point is pretty well proven by history. In the West at least there was no other Christian Church, so by default Catholism is it up until Henry VIII and Martin Luther. An argument might be made for the Coptic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church, but those Churches never made significant inroads in the West. All others were put down militarily, so these 3 are the only that go back at least as far as Nicea.
Personally I think it is a miracle Christianity even survived. It didn't survive in Israel, and any remainder of what began there was pushed aside and marginalized. It was only because of Paul's evangelism that Christianity made it past Bar Kochba and the Diaspora - Miracle number 1.
At Nicea, a Pagan Roman Emperor who sympathized with the cause because of his own Mother, but who still had an Empire to run, and who was facing difficulties of "management," did what he could to bring rivalling factions together to sort the matter out. There were some baby steps made and a lot of disagreements continued...it was like herding cats. However, one point stands out, Constantine was anti-Semitic, this is documented. And while Constantine did not directly "tell" the Church what to do, the Church already having its own anti-Semitic undertone and only too eager to please their host, advanced a number of "canons" (small "c") distancing Christianity from its Jewish roots. The end result was 3 surviving factions - Catholic, Orthodox and Coptic Churches - Miracle number 2.
It is also a miracle the Church survived the Crusades - number 3.
I think we all get hung up on the words, as if the words are sacred unto themselves. The words are the menu, not the meal. The Church is a two thousand year example of what happens when we get hung up on the words and forget to apply them in action, in deeds, in works.
Personally I think it is a miracle Christianity even survived. It didn't survive in Israel, and any remainder of what began there was pushed aside and marginalized. It was only because of Paul's evangelism that Christianity made it past Bar Kochba and the Diaspora - Miracle number 1.
At Nicea, a Pagan Roman Emperor who sympathized with the cause because of his own Mother, but who still had an Empire to run, and who was facing difficulties of "management," did what he could to bring rivalling factions together to sort the matter out. There were some baby steps made and a lot of disagreements continued...it was like herding cats. However, one point stands out, Constantine was anti-Semitic, this is documented. And while Constantine did not directly "tell" the Church what to do, the Church already having its own anti-Semitic undertone and only too eager to please their host, advanced a number of "canons" (small "c") distancing Christianity from its Jewish roots. The end result was 3 surviving factions - Catholic, Orthodox and Coptic Churches - Miracle number 2.
It is also a miracle the Church survived the Crusades - number 3.
I think we all get hung up on the words, as if the words are sacred unto themselves. The words are the menu, not the meal. The Church is a two thousand year example of what happens when we get hung up on the words and forget to apply them in action, in deeds, in works.
All credit to you on that score.I don't think we are all that far apart...nice to see you coming around to the impact of politics...
The Christology?
There's the institution of the Eucharist in 1 Corinthians 11:23-26, Philippians 2:6-11 and Colossians 1:15-18, 1 Timothy 3:16.
Well quite, on the moral teaching we have no disagreement.
I think that went way beyond Jewish expectation, and indeed Paul's own understanding of messiah, until his conversion.
And as said, the Christology in the verses cited would invite the accusation of blasphemy, as was the case in the Gospel accounts of His self-declarations.
+++
I may be missing the point here ... what do see as essentially Christian, rather than just a prolongation of Judaism, or rather, what's the issue between the Judaism and Christianity?
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
Paul is a bit enigmatic in this regard, a bit of a wild card (unlike the other Apostles, who experienced Jesus directly). Anything he could have possibly known of Jesus the man was second hand, hearsay even. Of course, the natural response is to point to the vision on the road to Damascus...but anyone who has experienced any kind of supernatural epiphany understands that's not how it works. It isn't like Paul had instantaneous intimate knowledge of what took place during Jesus' ministry other than perhaps popular reports. Paul wasn't there to witness the Beatitudes, for example, like the other Apostles were.
So playing along with what you say here, Paul likely had the prevailing understanding that the coming Messiah was to be a warrior king, at least initially. Hard to say what exactly the "slap upside the head" on the road did, but I can see where he may have had an adjustment to that understanding.
Paul's talent was the gift of gab, maybe he was secretly Irish? He also had a lawyer's understanding of the Jewish texts. Combined with Paul's cosmopolitan comprehension and ease of multi-cultural interaction, I think these all came together and made Paul the perfect vehicle to move the message out into the masses.
Should CCT be discussed at io?
Darn tooting!
Just like here in the US CRT critical race teaching is critical! History is history and whitewashing it, ignoring the ncomfortable past is worthy of learning and exposing as hiding and apologetics get us nowhere...same discussion for hundreds if not thousands of years.
The church which opened my eyes and got me to the point of accepting Jesus as a worthy teacher....Unity...definitely has a checkered past. Last century we had a black female preacher candidate, going thru classes for ordination whose kids were not allowed in the church pool...segregation and public prejudice were alive and well in the US, in the South, in the Unity church. We were not ahead of the curve, we were behind it.
Sunday morning is still the most segregated time of the week in the US. Birds of a feather flock together...funny that churches call themselves flocks.
What I am saying is I believe the people who should be most open, and most critical of our racial past is US. The people who should be most open and most critical of Unity should be its members... same with Christianity, same with Catholicism.
Getting tripped up trying to defend lies or our personal mythology does more to deligitimize our stance than admitting our past misdeeds.
Darn tooting!
Just like here in the US CRT critical race teaching is critical! History is history and whitewashing it, ignoring the ncomfortable past is worthy of learning and exposing as hiding and apologetics get us nowhere...same discussion for hundreds if not thousands of years.
The church which opened my eyes and got me to the point of accepting Jesus as a worthy teacher....Unity...definitely has a checkered past. Last century we had a black female preacher candidate, going thru classes for ordination whose kids were not allowed in the church pool...segregation and public prejudice were alive and well in the US, in the South, in the Unity church. We were not ahead of the curve, we were behind it.
Sunday morning is still the most segregated time of the week in the US. Birds of a feather flock together...funny that churches call themselves flocks.
What I am saying is I believe the people who should be most open, and most critical of our racial past is US. The people who should be most open and most critical of Unity should be its members... same with Christianity, same with Catholicism.
Getting tripped up trying to defend lies or our personal mythology does more to deligitimize our stance than admitting our past misdeeds.
I have explained the reasoning at length, with references, and you've taken none of it on board ...
You disagree. OK, that's your prerogative.
No, that's not the Catechism of the Ctholic Church. That's from the Rev. S. Keenan's dubious document (a diatribe against Protestants). In fact it seems to me all your quoted materials come from dubious sources – the citations are all over the internet, of course, but I find no references on JSTOR or other scholarly resources.
I can't even find any mentions, support or refutations of Keenan, which makes me wonder why the book is still in print, and who references it.
I've cited The (actual) Catechism of the Catholic Church, which says nothing of the sort.
You really shouldn't rely to heavily on stuff you can find on the internet.
To me you're just playing a game to avoid admitting the obvious, lol. Nothing to do with unicorns or burden of proof.
It is obvious beyond all reasonable doubt, without me needing to prove the lack of evidence to the contrary. That would be your job -- to show there was a parallel group beside the Catholic church that also preserved the New Testament down through the 1500 years -- I mean the gospels, letters, acts and revelation that define major Christian scripture.
Are there copies kept by groups such as Copts that parallel the NT, in a way that might have become global Christianity if the Catholic church had never existed? Allowing they may lack some part of the 'standard' material or include additional material?
@Thomas
@juantoo3
Last edited: