tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post603886299739074778..comments2023-10-05T08:25:13.232-04:00Comments on Biblical Evidence for Catholicism: Disproof of the "Proof " of "Sola Scriptura" in 2 Timothy 3:16-17, Based on the Phrases, "Man of God," "Profitable for Teaching"Dave Armstronghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comBlogger36125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-20799721181868292252012-01-18T14:28:08.837-05:002012-01-18T14:28:08.837-05:00Paul's theology is deeply tied to his astrolog...<i>Paul's theology is deeply tied to his astrology.</i><br /><br />That does it. I'm closing the thread now. It has long since left the topic anyway.<br /><br />My blog is not the platform for a self-described atheist with a theosophical bent (CD-Host). I can handle some degree of nonsense in an opponent but this is too much . . .Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-48628204570530829222012-01-18T14:14:16.486-05:002012-01-18T14:14:16.486-05:00PS: For full disclosure, I've been looking at ...<b> PS: For full disclosure, I've been looking at both Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy as that "faith with strong roots in history". </b><br /><br />Oh I thought you were were just debating. If you are interested in a serious conversation on the topic of history, I actually did a post aimed at people who want to think about the history of the church: <a href="http://church-discipline.blogspot.com/2012/01/sects-to-reformation.html" rel="nofollow">Sects to the Reformation</a>.<br /><br />The answer I gave you in the previous posts ... is the dilemma you are going to face. But in reality there is no going back. Its not the 1st century, there is no Roman empire, all the sects evolved and most of the sects died off. <br /><br />When you read the bible. Paul's theology is deeply tied to his astrology. You cannot believe in the heaven he does, you simply know too much about space (see for example <a href="http://church-discipline.blogspot.com/2009/07/venus-translation-vs-transculturation.html" rel="nofollow">Venus translation vs. transculturation</a>). At the same time Paul can take for granted a middle Platonism, a philosophical background and sets of connections which most modern westerners don't have. On those sections Paul's arguments need to be simplified. You are trapped in thinking about space and "heaven" in a way Paul never could. So you inevitably must apply a modern metaphorical layer to Paul to make him "relevant", and that layer is something Paul himself could never understand. It is a distortion caused by distance in culture and time. <br /><br />Even if we drastically reduce the distance, 500 years and and not 2000 you face the same problem. This site the focus is on the reformation, and Protestant theology like sola scriptura. But if you were to get into a time machine and talk to reformers in the 12th through early 16th century they might not even know what sola scriptura meant. When the Yorks (Henry VIII's family on his mother's side) talked about reformation what they meant was firing the Bishop of York, not some grand plan to remake Christianity. <br /><br />You could never, knowing what you know, have the conversation with them about reform. You see their acts as the early stages of the fall of a unified Christendom. They see their acts as just day to day politics. You can understand their ignorance but you cannot share in it. <br /><br />So when you talk about the "historic faith" there is no one historic faith and moreover none of the historic faiths are available to you. To use Heideger's language you are a dasein, a being in time. You are incapable of thinking about the historic texts and beliefs the way the historic people were. The only thing you can do is construct as part of a society a modern religion for you to relate to. <br /><br />I did both a debate response a Baptist sermon and a postmodern response. I'm not sure where you want to go from here, let me know.CD-Hosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00304535091189153224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-84540492987250859292012-01-18T13:42:06.377-05:002012-01-18T13:42:06.377-05:00(part 2)
_____
Now let me rephrase that answer in...(part 2)<br />_____<br /><br />Now let me rephrase that answer into Baptist, the way ECK would answer. There was a faithful remnant church that existed alongside the Catholic church that went into hiding but preserved the gospel. That there is no historic church, and there never was meant to be. The one church Jesus was even possibly directly connected to, the Jerusalem church, he made sure was utterly and totally destroyed so that the church would never become an idol. <br /><br />The belief that emerged historically that the church was not just a vehicle for the gospel was what caused the mainstream church, the Catholic church, to fall into total apostasy. Read the book of Hebrews and grasp the message. In asking for a historical church, you are basically asking what kind of goat's blood does the best job in sanctifying, Hebrews 9:8-14.<br /><br />You should not follow any church. You need to believe the gospel. A church primarily exists to spread the gospel. For active believers it is a vehicle for believers to support one another in their gospel walk. Nothing in the church is holy. <br /><br />The true historic Christianity was rejection of Jewish rites whether the high temple rites sacrifice of the Sadducees or the embedded rituals of the Pharisees. You don't have to reject Jewish rites, that's not the iconoclasm sin which draws you. But God hates all iconoclasm and every attempt by man to construct his own religion. <br /><br />Judaism is more historical than any Christianity, Paganism more historical than Judaism and Animism more historical than Paganism. If you want history worship thunder and ignore the God of Abraham. The God of Abraham is known through revelation not history. <br /><br />_____<br /><br />Man I love Baptist preaching. I can hear my pastor thundering that sort of answer. <br /><br />Finally as for Protestants and sola scriptura. Not all Protestants hold to that. Methodists hold to prima scriptura which is the same position the RCC officially endorses (<a href="http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html" rel="nofollow">dei verbum</a>). One can be Protestant and reject sola scriptura.CD-Hosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00304535091189153224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-59214755786958567652012-01-18T13:41:58.980-05:002012-01-18T13:41:58.980-05:00And are you arguing that this dark period in Catho...<b> And are you arguing that this dark period in Catholic history disproves its claims on infallibility? </b><br /><br />I'm saying it directly. The idea that a 13th century version of Pol Pot represents an infallible guide to faith and morals, makes a mockery of morality. <br /><br /><b> If so, where do you suggest Christians go when they have a desire to follow a faith with strong roots in history (i.e., not Protestantism, bogged down by sola scriptura as it is)?</b><br /><br />Great question. The first thing I'd ask is "when"? The answer depends greatly if you are talking 1st, 2nd or 3rd century. The second thing I'd ask is what aspects of the primitive faith do you want to capture? <br /><br />I don't think the answer is nearly as simple as I suspect you do based on the form of the question. For example if I want to capture the group rule and apocalyptic feel of the Essenic Sophia Cult, which is likely what John the Baptist came from, I'm not going to find that in Catholicism at all, but I can still find it in Branch Davidians. If I want to capture syncretic speculative theology, similar to what Jews to embrace primitive Logos proto-Christianity, Bultmannesque Liberal Protestants are perfect.<br /><br />On the other hand if I think that's going back too far, before the pieces came together, and want to go for the 3rd century where the emphasis is on morals, community, liturgy... absolutely Western or Eastern rite Catholicism is a great choice. <br /><br />If we are talking America... I think the Reformation has had the problem of tearing different aspects of the church away. In the 4th century that sort of apocalyptic fire that created the Branch Davidians is what created the Palestinian Monasteries. That's where Saint Jerome, and arguably the entire convent movement came out. Instead the same passion happened within the Adventist community and had no impact on monasticism which was its natural home. <br /><br />In other words I'd agree with I agree with Hilaire Belloc (and C.S. Lewis) that broad Christianity has the pieces of primitive church but not the totality. <br /><br /><br />(end part 1)CD-Hosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00304535091189153224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-7111899075606504362012-01-18T12:42:56.195-05:002012-01-18T12:42:56.195-05:00See many links about the Inquisition here:
Inquis...See many links about the Inquisition here:<br /><br /><i>Inquisition, Crusades, and "Catholic Scandals"</i><br /><br />http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/11/inquisition-crusades-catholic-scandals.htmlDave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-30937933076315424552012-01-18T12:27:00.740-05:002012-01-18T12:27:00.740-05:00Why do you say that "centuries of massive sta...<b> Why do you say that "centuries of massive state terror" were *necessary* to keep 'Catholics' in line? </b><br /><br /><br />I didn't quite say that, what I said was "In the same way, centuries of massive state terror being needed to <i>maintain Catholicism</i>". Catholicism as it existed from Constantine (to get back to ECK) and up until the last few hundred years was a state church.<br /><br />While there was some church violence prior to the Albigensian Crusade, there wasn't what I'd call "massive state terror" prior to that directed at Christians. The church had been focused on pushing back Islam in the south, the vikings in the north and Mongels in the east. Internal conflict was handled by negotiation and broad tolerance. For example the death of Arianism in the West was peaceful and gradual. <br /><br />Once the external pressure disappeared there were people who became very concerned with corruption and financial resource allocation. These began to merge with fringe sects in particular in the rise of the Cathari. Innocent III fundamentally shifts the church to dealing with this problem via terror and this became the norm for dealing with rebellions. The Hus rebellion being another example where you see this resolved primarily through terror. The same thing is attempted during the Reformation as well. <br /><br /><b> The falling numbers of devout adherents in the twentieth century is attributable to factors other than the change in the legal and social milieu in which Western Catholics reside, </b><br /><br />Well that's more recent. I think the factors are primarily social. So what factors do you see the fall in West? (I'd personally separate Europe and America where I think there are different problems entirely). <br /><br />BTW Latin America is also an interesting case since <br /><br /><b> Catholicism is reportedly doing well in some parts of Africa without inquisitions and heretic-burnings being practiced on the continent. </b><br /><br />Look Catholocism won the first time around without inquisitions and heretic burnings. The only "heretical" sect that thrived into the middle ages was Collyridianism which became Islam. Most of the others died and those that survived were rather fringe. The anti-pagan violence we've been talking about didn't include much anti-Gnostic or anti-Marcionite violence because that battle was over by the time Catholicism could use state terror. <br /><br />In terms of Africa, I'd agree up from about 12.5% to around 17%. Roman Catholocism seems to be beating groups like Copts and Ethiopian Orthodox and Episcopalians in providing a niche for Africans interested in a high church experience. We'll have to see how it plays out. <br /><br />But I'm not claiming Catholicism can't do well without state coercion. What I am claiming is that Christianity is naturally diverse and without state coercion there isn't a (small-c) catholic faith in a nation.CD-Hosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00304535091189153224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-60268250256383300862012-01-18T10:54:06.011-05:002012-01-18T10:54:06.011-05:00PS: For full disclosure, I've been looking at ...PS: For full disclosure, I've been looking at both Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy as that "faith with strong roots in history".Roberto Junghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14759919144261564404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-71447247287936379922012-01-18T10:52:40.952-05:002012-01-18T10:52:40.952-05:00CD-Host:
"I would re-qualify that and then p...CD-Host:<br /><br />"I would re-qualify that and then partially disagree. I [think] that [bad] behavior of adherents to a particular religion that arises from their religion should be treated as counter evidence regarding their beliefs. Protestant reformers believed that a robust orthodoxy was possible without tradition. The fact that they had to almost immediately begin persecutions to maintain uniformity discredited that belief. There is no reason today to believe that sola scriptura will result in a robust orthodoxy." <br /><br />"In the same way, centuries of massive state terror being needed to maintain Catholicism (from the early 13th to the mid 18th century) do fully discredit the Catholic state / church theology. It doesn't prove anything about justification, but it does prove the church can err badly on a matter of faith and morals."<br /><br />Why do you say that "centuries of massive state terror" were *necessary* to keep 'Catholics' in line? The falling numbers of devout adherents in the twentieth century is attributable to factors other than the change in the legal and social milieu in which Western Catholics reside, I expect. Catholicism is reportedly doing well in some parts of Africa without inquisitions and heretic-burnings being practiced on the continent.<br /><br />And are you arguing that this dark period in Catholic history disproves its claims on infallibility? If so, where do you suggest Christians go when they have a desire to follow a faith with strong roots in history (i.e., not Protestantism, bogged down by sola scriptura as it is)?Roberto Junghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14759919144261564404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-16304833260678232832012-01-17T15:06:29.101-05:002012-01-17T15:06:29.101-05:00I thin that bed
Wow, talk about typos. That sh...<b> I thin that bed </b><br /><br />Wow, talk about typos. That should of course be, "I think that bad"CD-Hosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00304535091189153224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-84017648243787084642012-01-17T15:05:26.680-05:002012-01-17T15:05:26.680-05:00My argument was *not* "Look at how bloody-min...<b> My argument was *not* "Look at how bloody-minded Protestants were back then--Catholics were such angels by comparison!" but *rather* "Any bad behaviour of adherents to a particular religion does not automatically and thoroughly discredit their beliefs." </b><br /><br />I would re-qualify that and then partially disagree. I thin that bed behavior of adherents to a particular religion <i> that arises from their religion</i> should be treated as counter evidence regarding their beliefs. Protestant reformers believed that a robust orthodoxy was possible without tradition. The fact that they had to almost immediately begin persecutions to maintain uniformity discredited that belief. There is no reason today to believe that sola scriptura will result in a robust orthodoxy. <br /><br />In the same way, centuries of massive state terror being needed to maintain Catholicism (from the early 13th to the mid 18th century) do fully discredit the Catholic state / church theology. It doesn't prove anything about justification, but it does prove the church can err badly on a matter of faith and morals.CD-Hosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00304535091189153224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-22769874186801351742012-01-17T12:09:45.966-05:002012-01-17T12:09:45.966-05:00See my web page:
Protestantism: Historic Persecut...See my web page:<br /><br /><i>Protestantism: Historic Persecution and Intolerance</i><br /><br />http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/11/protestantism-index-page.htmlDave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-23131232432107256952012-01-17T11:36:45.744-05:002012-01-17T11:36:45.744-05:00CD-Host:
"The figure who most publicly advoc...CD-Host:<br /><br />"The figure who most publicly advocated for drowning anabaptists was Ferdinand I (Roman Catholic). I wouldn't be too proud here. While Protestant persecution of anabaptists is a shameful and disgusting lapse, in terms of sheer magnitude it pales in comparison to what Catholics were doing to them. And the meta-denomination that eliminated persecution and created toleration for re-baptizers was Protestantism."<br /><br />My argument was *not* "Look at how bloody-minded Protestants were back then--Catholics were such angels by comparison!" but *rather* "Any bad behaviour of adherents to a particular religion does not automatically and thoroughly discredit their beliefs."Roberto Junghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14759919144261564404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-89915125214302700002012-01-17T10:08:17.249-05:002012-01-17T10:08:17.249-05:00Roberto --
Since early Protestants, advocated ex...Roberto --<br /><br /><b> Since early Protestants, advocated execution by drowning for Anabaptists who denied infant baptism, should sola scriptura and sola fide then be immediately discarded as a result? </b><br /><br />The figure who most publicly advocated for drowning anabaptists was Ferdinand I (Roman Catholic). I wouldn't be too proud here. While Protestant persecution of anabaptists is a shameful and disgusting lapse, in terms of sheer magnitude it pales in comparison to what Catholics were doing to them. And the meta-denomination that eliminated persecution and created toleration for re-baptizers was Protestantism.CD-Hosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00304535091189153224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-87053949372798259032012-01-17T09:46:28.261-05:002012-01-17T09:46:28.261-05:00(part 2)
in fact listen to what saint Ambrose di...(part 2) <br /><b> in fact listen to what saint Ambrose did with Theodosius :During the greater part of his reign Theodosius was in intimate relation with St. Ambrose. The story of the emperor's worst crime, the massacre of at least 7000 citizens of Thessalonica in revenge for a tumult (April, 390); of St. Ambrose's refusal to allow him to enter the Church; of his acceptance of eight months of penance, is one of the memorable incidents of Church history.</b><br /><br />That city had Christians and pagans. That was Ambrose objecting to a massacre in a purely civil sense, an uprising objecting to a sports hero being charged with rape. This had nothing to do with Ambrose objecting to pagan persecution. <br /><br />Incidentally though, it was after his restoration following the massacre that Theodosius I issued the "Theodosian decrees". Ambrose not only failed to discourage he both encouraged and demanded Theodosius I commit more acts of religious persecution. Example: <a href="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/340918.htm" rel="nofollow">Ambrose Epistle 18</a>.<br /><br /><b> So again , my question is this , what does this has got to do with what ECK said </b><br /><br />ECK made some remarks that lacked nuanced. You all issued a denial which went well beyond the truth. I responded with a more nuanced assessment of the events. <br /><br /><b> I also find it interesting that prior to Constantine.... it became the duty of every good Roman Catholic Christian to Kill in the name of Christ. And that Pagans & heretic's should be put to death as enemies of Christ? </b><br /><br />I disagreed with his date. But the destruction of paganism via. violence and state terror was the policy of the church. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_persecution_of_paganism_after_Theodosius_I_until_the_fall_of_the_Roman_Empire" rel="nofollow">Christian persecution of paganism after Theodosius I until the fall of the Roman Empire</a>, does a good job of covering the end of paganism and how it was achieved. <br /><br /><b> I want to see the peaceful ECK when Islam will atack his country or family , i want to see how peaceful and lovable he is going to be?Is self defence nowadays a crime?</b><br /><br />What does self defense have to do with a dominant group engaging in a policy of state terror?CD-Hosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00304535091189153224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-82389976034285490692012-01-17T09:46:19.382-05:002012-01-17T09:46:19.382-05:00Maroun --
CD-Host said :MacMullen, Christianizin...Maroun --<br /><br /><b> CD-Host said :MacMullen, Christianizing The Roman Empire A.D.100-400. Talks about later in his rein where there was state authorized theft from pagan temples. <br />So? if once as the bible says that pagan gods are not gods but demons,what`s wrong with destroying these temples?Or do you think that we should worship these false gods? </b><br /><br />You were arguing before, with ECK that Constantine and later emperors wasn't utilizing state terror against pagans. If you want to argue that state terror was used, but is justified that's a different argument.<br /><br />And my counter to your point of ethics is "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". If it was OK for Constantine it is OK for the Chinese Communists, it is OK for Oliver Cromwell. <br /><br /><b> CD -- Then you said : Where there was the sort of broad persecution ECK was talking about was under Theodosius I. This continued with his son and from 393-435, institutional paganism was completely destroyed. <br /><br />Maybe you should read this about Theodosius. However Sozomen says that the emperor "made severe punishment by his laws but did not carry them out, for he did not wish to punish, but only to frighten his subjects, that they might think as he did about Divine things, And he praised those who were converted of their own accord" </b><br /><br />Mass executions of Manicheans.<br />war against Eugenius and Arbogastes<br />Serapeum of Alexandria destroyed -- with considerable loss of life<br />Destruction of temples at Gaza<br />Seizure of the temples of Alexandra and conversion to Christian<br /><br />etc...<br /><br />He's not an Innocent III but he's far worse than say the Chinese Communists are today.<br /><br /><b> And again , Theodosius was an emperor and not a pope</b><br /><br />So what? Christianity was a state religion. Your state Department of Transportation doesn't carry out issuing tickets and making arrests to enforce traffic laws, that doesn't make the laws any less their policy. <br /><br /> (end part 1)CD-Hosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00304535091189153224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-6422889711959193072012-01-17T01:47:04.601-05:002012-01-17T01:47:04.601-05:00Eck said : For Maroun, much of this information ca...Eck said : For Maroun, much of this information can be found in the Catholic encyclopedia.<br />Which information are you talking about please?where?be more specific plz.Show us some quotes plz.Show us some informations from the Catholic encyclopedia about what u mean...Thanks<br /><br />CD-Host said :MacMullen, Christianizing The Roman Empire A.D.100-400. Talks about later in his rein where there was state authorized theft from pagan temples. <br />So? if once as the bible says that pagan gods are not gods but demons,what`s wrong with destroying these temples?Or do you think that we should worship these false gods?<br />Then you said : Where there was the sort of broad persecution ECK was talking about was under Theodosius I. This continued with his son and from 393-435, institutional paganism was completely destroyed. <br /><br />Maybe you should read this about Theodosius . However Sozomen says that the emperor "made severe punishment by his laws but did not carry them out, for he did not wish to punish, but only to frighten his subjects, that they might think as he did about Divine things, And he praised those who were converted of their own accord"<br />And again , Theodosius was an emperor and not a pope , in fact listen to what saint Ambrose did with Theodosius :During the greater part of his reign Theodosius was in intimate relation with St. Ambrose. The story of the emperor's worst crime, the massacre of at least 7000 citizens of Thessalonica in revenge for a tumult (April, 390); of St. Ambrose's refusal to allow him to enter the Church; of his acceptance of eight months of penance, is one of the memorable incidents of Church history.<br />So again , my question is this , what does this has got to do with what ECK said :I also find it interesting that prior to Constantine and his compiled writings, Christians followed Jesus' teachings of non-Violence and Love thy neighbor- to the point of death! However, after constantine it became the duty of every good Roman Catholic Christian to Kill in the name of Christ. And that Pagans & heretic's should be put to death as enemies of Christ?<br />I want to see the peaceful ECK when Islam will atack his country or family , i want to see how peaceful and lovable he is going to be?Is self defence nowadays a crime?Marounhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17891800446559973689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-88927929255304509212012-01-17T00:35:42.440-05:002012-01-17T00:35:42.440-05:00Also...
cms454:
"Wow...amazingly blasphemou...Also...<br /><br />cms454:<br /><br />"Wow...amazingly blasphemous.Congrats...in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. That is enough proof for me of sola scriptura. Nothing man has added to the Word (Jesus Christ by the way) improves or edify's scripture."<br /><br />If anything, it's the above paragraph that commits blasphemy. Jesus and the Bible are not equivalent. To put a book up on the same level as an individual you believe to be God incarnate is frankly and laughably preposterous.<br /><br />Someone, please, call a Calvinist! A true case of brazen idolatry-advocacy has surfaced on this blog, and the intervention of at least one iconoclast is most definitely in order!Roberto Junghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14759919144261564404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-10798861365465358252012-01-17T00:26:05.061-05:002012-01-17T00:26:05.061-05:00ECK:
"Its interesting that you rely on the b...ECK:<br /><br />"Its interesting that you rely on the bible to corroborate the teachings of the Roman Catholic church,"<br /><br />What New Testament canon do you accept? If the same as Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants, on what basis? If not, when was your canon determined, of what books is it composed, and who gathered them into one volume?<br /><br />"since the the bible was compiled at the behest of Constantine and who's advisers were in charge of choosing which writings should be included or excluded."<br /><br />Do you have a scholarly source for this?<br /><br />"I also find it interesting that prior to Constantine and his compiled writings, Christians followed Jesus' teachings of non-Violence and Love thy neighbor- to the point of death!"<br /><br />To the best of my knowledge, they also believed in baptismal regeneration and the real presence in communion. Do you hold these doctrines?<br /><br />"However, after constantine it became the duty of every good Roman Catholic Christian to Kill in the name of Christ. And that Pagans & heretic's should be put to death as enemies of Christ?"<br /><br />If this is true, what does it really prove, apart from the well-known reality that power corrupts those who wield it?<br /><br />Since early Protestants, advocated execution by drowning for Anabaptists who denied infant baptism, should sola scriptura and sola fide then be immediately discarded as a result?Roberto Junghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14759919144261564404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-54845214081967954152012-01-16T16:50:41.550-05:002012-01-16T16:50:41.550-05:00For Dave A, historically ignorant? perhaps i am b...For Dave A, historically ignorant? perhaps i am but the catholic encyclopedia seems to cover the information quite completely. of course there is some bias when the material is covered. but i assumed there would be.ECKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09487442923501289583noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-90346924443393247142012-01-16T16:46:58.799-05:002012-01-16T16:46:58.799-05:00also for Maroun, if you look up the coucil of nic...also for Maroun, if you look up the coucil of nicaea and arianism you will see that That constantine is a prominent figure in forming the beliefs of the early church and which writings will be allowed and which will be burned etc. i find it even more interesting that writings from Peter and some of the other apostles were not included in the bible. not sure why?ECKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09487442923501289583noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-77151280562844779922012-01-16T16:31:30.326-05:002012-01-16T16:31:30.326-05:00For Maroun, much of this information can be found...For Maroun, much of this information can be found in the Catholic encyclopedia.ECKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09487442923501289583noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-54058876132469284792012-01-16T14:19:54.416-05:002012-01-16T14:19:54.416-05:00after Constantine the Christians began persecuting...<b> after Constantine the Christians began persecuting and killing all the non Christians? says who ? </b><br /><br />ECK's comments about the bible are wrong but... his stuff about persecution... not so much. In terms of who says:<br /><br />Peter Brown, <i>Rise of Christendom</i> details some of the restrictions under Constantine. Some specific bans and some temple closings. Primary though he was focused on restricting magic and divination cults and not paganism more broadly. <br /><br /> MacMullen, <i>Christianizing The Roman Empire A.D.100-400</i>. Talks about later in his rein where there was state authorized theft from pagan temples. <br /><br />This turns into the more aggressive persecution under Constantius II. There was some advocacy of the death penalty for paganism, see for example "<i>On The Error of Profane Religions</i>" by Julius Firmicus Maternus. These were unsuccessful. <br /><br />Where there was the sort of broad persecution ECK was talking about was under Theodosius I. This continued with his son and from 393-435, institutional paganism was completely destroyed. <br /><br />So ECK is 70 years early, but not entirely wrong. And of course this is the really the time when the New Testament is solidifying (modulo 3 books that get resolved with the post Trent Vulgates). I'm not sure what books he is advocating for, but there are still plenty of Christian sects by that date, and even more Christian literature in use by Christian influenced sects.CD-Hosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00304535091189153224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-52534861596241659952012-01-16T11:50:51.576-05:002012-01-16T11:50:51.576-05:00Eck,wow,your knowledge in history and especially C...Eck,wow,your knowledge in history and especially Church history is amazing(rofl) . What does Constantine has got to do with the bible to begin with?and according to you after Constantine the Christians began persecuting and killing all the non Christians?says who ? Muhammad? lolMarounhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17891800446559973689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-35673078076736329752012-01-16T11:32:09.861-05:002012-01-16T11:32:09.861-05:00Too historically ignorant to waste any time replyi...Too historically ignorant to waste any time replying to . . .Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-42403338328634638562012-01-16T09:39:17.096-05:002012-01-16T09:39:17.096-05:00Its interesting that you rely on the bible to corr...Its interesting that you rely on the bible to corroborate the teachings of the Roman Catholic church, since the the bible was compiled at the behest of Constantine and who's advisers were in charge of choosing which writings should be included or excluded. I also find it interesting that prior to Constantine and his compiled writings, Christians followed Jesus' teachings of non-Violence and Love thy neighbor- to the point of death! However, after constantine it became the duty of every good Roman Catholic Christian to Kill in the name of Christ. And that Pagans & heretic's should be put to death as enemies of Christ?ECKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09487442923501289583noreply@blogger.com