|
|
Post by teresahrc on Apr 30, 2009 22:01:09 GMT -5
Ok, so the original argument was that watchman says that St. Augustine preached a "false gospel" because he told people to be baptized. This is not a true statement and therefore your whole premiss is been off for days now. I agree that a believer ''MUST'' be baptized. The false gospel of Augustine is that they had to be baptized into the Catholic church rather than any other church. My bad. I forgot. According to your previous definition of the gospel (what people have to do to be saved) Then the answer is pretty obvious. Anyone who sincerely believes the faith of the Catholic Church (yes in 500-1500 AD also) then they believe the gospel and are therefore true Christians. This is the "Apostles Creed" which is "the Faith" of the Catholic Church. Simply put, if you don't believe this, then you aren't really Catholic: 1. I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth. 2. I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord. 3. He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary. 4. He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried. 5. He descended into hell. On the third day he rose again. 6. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of God the Father Almighty. 7. He will come again to judge the living and the dead. 8. I believe in the Holy Spirit, 9. the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints, 10. the forgiveness of sins, 11. the resurrection of the body, 12. and the life everlasting. Amen. If someone sincerely believes all these things they are true Christians. Are there people "outside" of the Catholic Church that believe it too? Of course. Are there people "inside" the Catholic Church that don't believe it. Probably quite a few. Going back to St. Augustine, here is a quote from him: "...how many sheep there are without, how many wolves within!" (from Homilies on the Gospel According to St. John) So, obviously he didn't believe that one must be baptized into the visible Catholic Church in order to be a true Christian. I'm sure he believed one must be baptized into "the Faith of the Catholic Church" that I posted above, which is confessed at every baptism. teresa |
|
|
|
Post by watchman on Apr 30, 2009 23:06:05 GMT -5
 Well said |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 1, 2009 8:51:24 GMT -5
I disagree, I believe there has always been a remnant of true Christians that survived outside of Catholicism. What do you base your belief in/on? There's never been any evidence (tradition/academic or otherwise) that non-heretical groups outside of Catholicism existed "before" The Reformation. Well, if not Catholics, then there would've been "no" true Christians because Catholics were the first Christians and have been around for about 2,000 years. This would also make non-Catholic Christians "not" true Christians for basing their bible version on The Catholic produced Bible. All of Christianity would then be false if Catholicism was "not" true Christianity. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 1, 2009 9:07:49 GMT -5
This is not a true statement and therefore your whole premiss is been off for days now. I agree that a believer ''MUST'' be baptized. The false gospel of Augustine is that they had to be baptized into the Catholic church rather than any other church. My bad. I forgot. According to your previous definition of the gospel (what people have to do to be saved) Then the answer is pretty obvious. Anyone who sincerely believes the faith of the Catholic Church (yes in 500-1500 AD also) then they believe the gospel and are therefore true Christians. This is the "Apostles Creed" which is "the Faith" of the Catholic Church. Simply put, if you don't believe this, then you aren't really Catholic: 1. I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth. 2. I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord. 3. He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary. 4. He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried. 5. He descended into hell. On the third day he rose again. 6. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of God the Father Almighty. 7. He will come again to judge the living and the dead. 8. I believe in the Holy Spirit, 9. the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints, 10. the forgiveness of sins, 11. the resurrection of the body, 12. and the life everlasting. Amen. If someone sincerely believes all these things they are true Christians. Are there people "outside" of the Catholic Church that believe it too? Of course. Are there people "inside" the Catholic Church that don't believe it. Probably quite a few. Going back to St. Augustine, here is a quote from him: "...how many sheep there are without, how many wolves within!" (from Homilies on the Gospel According to St. John) So, obviously he didn't believe that one must be baptized into the visible Catholic Church in order to be a true Christian. I'm sure he believed one must be baptized into "the Faith of the Catholic Church" that I posted above, which is confessed at every baptism. teresa This reminds me, I was debating with an anti-Catholic and he said that The Catholic Church is no where in The Bible. Then, he called it the 'whore of babylon' stating that The Anti-Christ would come from within the true Christian Church and he called The Pope The Anti-Christ. Then I asked him, "Well then aren't you just saying that The Catholic Church "is" in The Bible and it "is" The True Church?" He never got back to me on that one.  [PS, I do believe that The Anti-Christ "can" come from the Catholic Church...what better vehichle to fool people with (especially the overwhelming majority of Christians)?] |
|
|
|
Post by watchman on May 1, 2009 13:15:48 GMT -5
Well, if not Catholics, then there would've been "no" true Christians because Catholics were the first Christians and have been around for about 2,000 years. This would also make non-Catholic Christians "not" true Christians for basing their bible version on The Catholic produced Bible. All of Christianity would then be false if Catholicism was "not" true Christianity. I disagree with this as well. I do not believe the Apostles or the original church was Roman Catholic. Catholicism did not start until the 4th century (As we know it today) |
|
|
|
Post by Ramon on May 1, 2009 13:28:26 GMT -5
Catholicism started in the 4th century? Watchman, you have no historical proof for that.
|
|
|
|
Post by watchman on May 1, 2009 13:58:21 GMT -5
Catholicism started in the 4th century? Watchman, you have no historical proof for that. You tell me who was the first pope, and I do not mean Peter, I mean the first one you have historical proof for? |
|
|
|
Post by watchman on May 1, 2009 14:36:58 GMT -5
St. Siricius [Dec. 384 - Non. 399] is credited with being the first Bishop of Rome to appropriate the title 'pope' in its current Catholic connotation -- albeit, not on an exclusive basis. www.popes-and-papacy.com/popes_and_the_papacy/2008/07/the-first-pope.htmlSome truths are hard to swallow when you have been told differently all your life (just ask emily about her pretrib delusion) |
|
|
|
Post by emily445455 on May 1, 2009 14:54:37 GMT -5
Why bring me into this? And I didn't have to swallow it...thanks...
|
|
|
|
Post by watchman on May 1, 2009 14:57:46 GMT -5
Why bring me into this? And I didn't have to swallow it...thanks... Sorry Just trying to make a point that once anyone has been indoctrinated, it is hard for them to hear the truth. It is much easier to learn, than to unlearn. |
|
|
|
Post by Ramon on May 2, 2009 11:22:09 GMT -5
You tell me who was the first pope, and I do not mean Peter, I mean the first one you have historical proof for? You want historical proof? Ancient Historians [such as Eusebius and others], the Early Christians [1st-10 Centuries], and many Modern-Day Historians and Scholars all agree that Saint Peter was in Rome. No one one in the Early Church questions this [it was held as a fact]. Modern-Scholarship has prove Saint Peter was there. The archaeological researches of the Protestant historian Hans Lietzmann, supplemented by the library study of the Protestant exegete Oscar Cullmann, have made it extremely difficult to deny that Peter's death happened in Rome under the emperor Nero. You can research it if you want. This is supported by many other Renowed Historians/Scholars as well as Ancient Historians and the Early Church [1st-10 Centuries] accepted this fact, and no one question it. Tthe actual tomb of the first Roman Bishop had been identified conclusively, that his remains were apparently present, and that in the vicinity of his tomb were inscriptions identifying the place as Saint Peter’s burial site, meaning early Christians knew that the prince of the apostles was there. The story of how all this was determined, with scientific accuracy, has been discussed in John Evangelist Walsh’s book, The Bones of St. Peter. Ancient Historians as well as Modern Scholars/Historians (including Protestant Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Volume 2) agree that Saint Peter founded the Church of Rome and was martyr there. To deny that Saint Peter was ever in Rome or not he did not founded the Church of Rome is to let prejudice override reasons. Yes, Watchman, some truths are hard to swallow. Also your little article do not say Saint Peter did not found the Church of Rome. It ONLY said that St. Siricius was credited to be be the first Bishop of Rome who enjoyed the title "Pope". No argue that Saint Peter was not addressed as "Pope" by the Early Christians of Rome. Watchman, your statement that Catholicism started in the 4th Century can not be supported by any Historical facts. You can say all you want that only in the 4th century was the Bishop of Rome called "Pope", but this doesn't prove that Catholicism started in the 4th Century. The Church of Rome was founded by Saint Peter. It is the only Apostolic See in the West. In IC.XC, Ramon |
|
|
|
Post by watchman on May 2, 2009 14:54:42 GMT -5
I do not deny that Peter may have went to Rome at some point in His life, but he did not found the Church in Rome. Paul wrote to the Church in Rome before Peter ever got involved at all.
There is no historical evidence at all that Peter was ever the bishop in Rome much less the pope.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 3, 2009 13:05:24 GMT -5
Well, if not Catholics, then there would've been "no" true Christians because Catholics were the first Christians and have been around for about 2,000 years. This would also make non-Catholic Christians "not" true Christians for basing their bible version on The Catholic produced Bible. All of Christianity would then be false if Catholicism was "not" true Christianity. I disagree with this as well. I do not believe the Apostles or the original church was Roman Catholic. Catholicism did not start until the 4th century (As we know it today) Well, then Christianity no longer exists according to you. No Christian Church today exists as it did back then. As far as the original Church "not" being Roman Catholic, are you saying that there were no universal Christians in Rome? And, when you say "original" Church, what date are you going back to? I have some quotes I'd like to show you going back 1,900 years contradicting what you believe. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 3, 2009 14:29:42 GMT -5
Catholicism started in the 4th century? Watchman, you have no historical proof for that. You tell me who was the first pope, and I do not mean Peter, I mean the first one you have historical proof for? But history lists Peter as the first Pope. How can you ask for historical proof, yet reject the same source of proof (history) as proof? www.britannia.com/history/resource/popes.html(Non-Catholic Secular Website) |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 3, 2009 14:32:52 GMT -5
St. Siricius [Dec. 384 - Non. 399] is credited with being the first Bishop of Rome to appropriate the title 'pope' in its current Catholic connotation -- albeit, not on an exclusive basis. www.popes-and-papacy.com/popes_and_the_papacy/2008/07/the-first-pope.htmlSome truths are hard to swallow when you have been told differently all your life (just ask emily about her pretrib delusion) Well, some "truths" are not true. See, you chose a non-nuetral source as your proof instead of a secular unbiased source. For every biased source you post, I could post a biased source discrediting it, so you can't prove anything like that. You need to produce unbiaced secular/non-religious evidence for you to prove your particular point. Do you have any unbiased/nuetral websites or references that can establish what you assert? |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 3, 2009 14:33:39 GMT -5
Why bring me into this? And I didn't have to swallow it...thanks... Yep...that certainly was uncalled for. Not cool.  |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 3, 2009 14:34:35 GMT -5
Why bring me into this? And I didn't have to swallow it...thanks... Sorry Just trying to make a point that once anyone has been indoctrinated, it is hard for them to hear the truth. It is much easier to learn, than to unlearn. You've made that point very well already W.  |
|
|
|
Post by watchman on May 3, 2009 15:55:08 GMT -5
St. Siricius [Dec. 384 - Non. 399] is credited with being the first Bishop of Rome to appropriate the title 'pope' in its current Catholic connotation -- albeit, not on an exclusive basis. www.popes-and-papacy.com/popes_and_the_papacy/2008/07/the-first-pope.htmlSome truths are hard to swallow when you have been told differently all your life (just ask emily about her pretrib delusion) Well, some "truths" are not true. See, you chose a non-nuetral source as your proof instead of a secular unbiased source. For every biased source you post, I could post a biased source discrediting it, so you can't prove anything like that. You need to produce unbiaced secular/non-religious evidence for you to prove your particular point. Do you have any unbiased/nuetral websites or references that can establish what you assert? All truths are true |
|
|
|
Post by emily445455 on May 3, 2009 16:17:43 GMT -5
Yep...that certainly was uncalled for. Not cool. How so? |
|
|
|
Post by watchman on May 3, 2009 20:48:08 GMT -5
Yep...that certainly was uncalled for. Not cool. How so? I think cepha was trying to take up for you em |
|
Well said
