First - you would have to establish - external to Church teaching - that Jesus
a) existed
b) was resurected
c) established a church at all.
A few scriptures in your favorite tome do not work as evidence of any of these things.
That ‘people’ founded a religion based on his teachings AFTER HE DIED is not evidence that Jesus Founded it.
And protestants claim catholicism ‘ecclesiology is largely non-sensical and does not hold water.’ - therefore the claim is baseless beyond the statement of YOUR belief.
All religious ‘ecclesiology is largely non-sensical and does not hold water.’ in light of factual evidence and internal inconsistencies.
Lets start with the whats already been discussued - the value of ‘the sacrifice’, why it was required to begin with numerous other theological endeavors - since they all boil down to “faith”, they are irrational on its face. There is no objective evidence for any of it.
So what? that doesn’t prove anything other than this particular sect being reasonably consistent unto itself - and if you recall - the catholic church was backed by a state empire who had no qualms putting to death those that dared to disagree with it - and even today thru ‘ex-communication’ of those that question the faith.
This isn’t a good thing - nor is it evidence that its ‘holy’ or ‘moral’.
Even if we accept that the early apostles all existed, lived, and died as martyrs for their beliefs, that doesn’t actually tell us what those beliefs were. It’s entirely possible that they were fervent followers of Christ’s teachings, but that their personal experience of those teachings didn’t include him coming back in the flesh - perhaps they believed that his ministry ended with the sacrifice -actual, permanent sacrifice- of his crucifixion and death.
I’m aware that you don’t believe that’s the case, but I don’t think there’s sufficient evidence to prove that’s not the case - the commentary and statements that people made decades later about the apostles aren’t really a reliable source, given the situation under discussion.
See, those last bits there are what I’m talking about: it already strikes me as kind of irrelevant, if you start by granting that one of them didn’t get martyred (which, as far as I can tell, torpedoes your point that someone had to die for a lie); but then you say the rest of them died as martyrs, and all you can say about the last one is that he was possibly clubbed to death? And all you can say about the next-to-last one is that there are conflicting traditions?
(I just checked Wiki, and it indeed agrees with you that there are conflicting traditions about that next-to-last one: one says he was executed in Samaria, and another that he was executed in Persia, and another that he was executed in Iberia. And then it casually tosses in one more item: “Tradition also claims he died peacefully at Edessa.” So that’s — not super helpful for your case?)
And, again: if someone who’s knowingly lying about Jesus gets hauled before an official and threatened with execution but offered a get-out-of-jail-free chance by saying it was all false, take a week to think it over — well, that’s one thing. But if someone was out there preaching and all of a sudden a mob or a guy with a knife or whatever decided to make him stop breathing? What does that prove?
If they claimd that Jesus was King (which is what the Messiah was) that could lead to the death penalty, and is plausible. Jews got a pass from emperor-worship, but if they were converting Gentiles that would also. Or do you think their faith was so weak that they’d walk away even if Jesus hadn’t been resurrected?
[This site](http:// CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Home) has well-cited entries for all of the disciples, and seemingly ever other major facet of Catholic theology and tradition.
Why is “church teaching” or church history automatically thrown out as unreliable?
Why is recorded Scripture automatically thrown out as not providing any evidence?
It is if Jesus explicitly left the Church in their hands, “you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church”
Have you studied Protestant ecclesiology? It’s not consistent with Scripture or tradition, or even with itself. That’s why they have to throw out tradition and reason and radically re-interpret and throw out some scripture (the seven deuterocanonical books of the OT) to make it work. Seriously, read Martin Luther. He called reason “the great whore”.
In the most simplest terms, Christ’s sacrifice fulfilled, accomplished, and completed the OT sacrifices. You have to be very familiar with the OT to understand all of the implications, which I unfortunately am not. That’s more of a job for full time theologians.
The early Church wrestled with these questions re: the nature of Jesus and settled them through Church councils. The declarations of the councils relied on the teachings of the earliest church fathers, many of whom studied directly under the apostles (such as Polycarp who studied under John and I believe Ignatius who studied under Peter).
When that is your sole source of evidence - its not much really. Even moreso when the books/teachings are specifically picked to back up what that church/religion wants you to believe.
IOW - They built the myth and use circular reasoning to prove it is so -
“this holy book (that we picked) says we are the pickers of the holy book - believe or go to hell”
I have books upon books of Middle Earth history - I even have film evidence - does that make Gandalf a real person?
Got any evidence to back up that this is an actual quote of Jesus?
It’s also quite convenient that the church that wants to prove it goes back to Peter has a convenient little scripture right there.
But it is not evidence that Jesus said it - nor is it evidence that Jesus actually existed.
Its evidence that someone - well after the fact - wrote down what he wanted others to believe was said - to sell them the ‘Gospel’ and to ‘follow peter’.
And Constantine at the Council of Nicea threw out a bunch of other books (Gospel of Thomas, etc) in order to tighten up and codify what he wanted out of his religion - It started out non-sensical - it didn’t get any better when Martin Luther changed it again.
THere are a number of Jews that disagree that Jesus fulfilled any of these things - and since they would be in the best position to know what their holy book claims the messiah will be and do, I don’t really think the Christian’s (Protestant or Catholic) view matters.
Again - Clearly you have accepted the Catholic dogma - you have yet to show me one shred of evidence that would convince me why I should. Repeating, ad nauseum, the claims of the Catholic church as proof of the Catholic church isn’t going to cut it. You need to show me evidence that is EXTERNAL to the church’s teachings in order to valdiate them.
Take mathmatics for example - I can show you a book of theory - and then I can take you into the real world and show you externally how it works - physics, etc. Real objective evidence that ‘Math is real’. When you can do that for your chosen religion - then we can talk - but then, it would no longer be ‘faith’ based, would it?
Nope.
Constantine called the Council of Nicaea, but took no part in the proceedings. (Six years later, he did commision the publication of 50 copies of scripture to be kept at Constantinople, but we are not sure which books were included in those copies, or even whether it included or excluded both Jewish and Christian works.)
More importantly, the Council of Nicaea made no decisions regarding what was included or excluded from Scripture. Various canons (lists) were proposed by various people from around 150 (Irenaeus in combat with Marcion) and 170 (the Muratorian canon) through the end of the fourth century, but works such as the Gospel of Thomas, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel or Protoevangelium of James, and a few other books championed in the 20th century as being “hidden” by the church never appeared in any list of Scripture (or were listed as either heretical or as nice, but not worthy to be read during the liturgy). A few books (e.g., The Shepherd of Hermas) did make it onto a few proposed canons, but were argued out in separate discussions–none of which occurred at Nicaea.
The first claim about Nicaea did not occur until the ninth century in the Synodicus vetus, a work purporting to be a history of the church, (getting many, if not most, of its facts wrong). This “history” claimed that the canon was set by placing scrolls on an altar and letting God sort them out. Voltaire used the story in one of his critiques of the church, changing the re-ordering of the scrolls to having the scrolls thrown on the altar and keeping those that did not roll off, and setting the scene as Nicaea. (Whether he believed the story demonstrated his views of the church as nonsense or whether he selected the story, knowing it false, simply to mock the church, I do not know.) Later writers picked up Voltaire’s comments, ignoring the nonsense and sarcasm, making Nicaea the location of the selection of the canon. It was never true.
The canon was set in open debate over more than two centuries and Nicaea had nothing to do with it.
You don’t think that writings from people like Polycarp, Ignatius of Antioch, or Irenaeus are relevant?
That’s not how it works.
Middle Earth was explicitly created as a fictional world (by a devout Catholic nonetheless). You’re conflating genres. I have a book on Abraham Lincoln. Does that make him a fictional character?
Do you have any evidence that it’s not? Has it ever even been seriously disputed, other than by you?
Protestants use the same NT. They have that verse too. So do JW and Mormons.
Firstly, the Council of Nicea did not address the canon of Scripture,
Secondly, Constantine did not have any authority in the declarations issued by the Council.
Thirdly, it was not “his religion”. He wasn’t even baptized until 12 years after Nicea (though he did already identify with the Christian faith).
“It started out non-sensical”. Please elaborate.
There are also a number of Jews who believe that Jesus did fulfill these things. You assume that they would be in the best position to know the Messiah. On what basis do you make this assumption? Did the Jews know who God’s prophets were in the OT? The OT records that the vast majority of the time, when God sent them a prophet, they at best ignored them, and at worst murdered them. Why should their treatment of the Messiah be any different?
Nt when thier only source is the same writings/stories and they don’t quote other sources.
Restating the same belief does not give the belief any additional weight - remember, they are the same ones pushing “faith” (which is “hope in things unseen”).
so - there is no punishment for disbelieving?
You only say that now because middle earth is/was created in recent memory - give it 2000 years, lets see what happens when people find fragments of Tolkien work.
Now, put yourself back 2000 years ago and think about the overall knowledge and superstition level of the average folks, and that there was no real basis of shared knowledge like we have today - its really easy to see how this myth got its start and propegated.
That’s not how it works - reality is - I don’t doubt that there was a man (Jesus) that said alot of good things - caused a bit of a ruckus and got himself killed for it. I don’t doubt that he may have said “Peter, you’ll be the lead after I’m gone” - I have zero reason to believe any of this is GOD ordained as there is much simpler explanations for it.
and they find ways to still ‘prove’ that they are the one true church - quoting scripture and saying “see - says right there its us” is not evidence.
You think Constantine would have allowed the various sects to continue? part of the goal (regardless of his interactions) was to codify the scripture and decide what was worthy and what was not.
Trinity, GOD, etc - its all non-sense - belief in things “unseen” - its irrational.
Point is that there were many “messiahs” at the time- that Jews were actively looking/watching for one at the time - Other than there being a church formed around this ‘Jesus of Nazreth’ that managed to last - there is zero evidence that he was this messiah - and if you read the jewish side of it - lots of reasons to ignore him.
Their sources are the Apostles themselves, not writings, but actual verbal discourse and tutelage from the Apostles.
Oh please. This argument is absurd. We have access to written works much older than the Gospels (including the OT and the majority of the NT), and much more than just fragments, and we are not confused about the intended genre of the writings. Are you seriously asserting that the New Testament was intended to be read as fiction, or that future literary scholars will be so dense as to interpret Tolkien’s fiction to be intended as actual history?
This is nothing but chronological arrogance. We have documented evidence for how this ‘myth’ got its start and propogated. There is quite literally a paper trail. There is the New Testament, the writings of the 2nd generation of Christians, documents from Church councils, it’s all available.
As I said earlier, most Protestants don’t do this. They don’t claim that there is “one true Church”, or if they do it’s because they have radically redefined the word “Church” to mean something different from what the Catholic Church has always meant.
Where are you getting this from? It’s just not historically accurate.
“It’s all nonsense” is your opinion. Belief in things unseen is not in and of itself irrational. There is a long philosophical tradition that argues for the reasonableness and rationality of faith. If you don’t buy the arguments, that’s your prerogative. But to just dismiss the very concept of faith as inherently “irrational” betrays a shallow worldview, I think.
EscAlaMike, what is your opinion about the faith people have in other gods, or even the faith people have that follow religious sects other than your own?
Catholic which means universal is claimed by several Orthodox Churches and yes even some Protestants like Lutherans and Anglicans.
You are confusing the claims of the Roman Catholic church to be the “one true universal church” with catholicity.
One cite.
I would argue that Anglicans actually adhere to catholicity slightly better than the Roman Catholics do. The Roman Catholic church does not have an open communion as an example, and one must be baptized in the Roman Catholic church which is a hard denominational boundary that seems counter to your claim. Anglicans open the Eucharist to all Christians which seems far more “universal” to me.
I fully get that is the propaganda you hear and probably believe, but really it is that they do not accept the Pope’s claim of global ecclesiastical jurisdiction.
But many churches have “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church” without it being schismatic or heretical which seems to be typically reserved for the papists.
I think faith is a natural part of being human. When a human exercises faith in a higher power, they are doing something very human and ultimately good.
Some degree of truth can be found in many different religions, and even in non-religion. I embrace whatever is true, wherever it may be found. However, I believe (and the Catholic Church teaches) that the fullness of truth can only be found in the Catholic Church. In other words, if you’re not Catholic, it’s not that you’re bad or evil, necessarily, but you are really missing out.
I can’t link to it right now (you are no doubt familiar by now with my daytime technical difficulties), but look up the section called “Nostra Aetate” from the documents of the 2nd Vatican Council. This is official teaching regarding the Church’s relationship to other religions. Maybe this link will work…
There were a number of sects that existed then that continue today.
Constantine’s issue was that the followers of Arius and the opponents of Arius were having riots in the streets and threatening the civil peace of the empire. He demanded that the bishops convene to settle that dispute; establishing a sect-free church was not part of his desire. (When he finally got around to being baptized, the baptism was performed by a bishop on the “losing” side of the Nicene Council.) As to permitting “sects”, consider Canon 6 of the Nicene Decree*. Arianism was not the only issue addressed, but scripture was not addressed. The Arian issue was addressed in the Synodal Letter.
As to codifying scripture, I am not sure why you continue to allude to that when he never spoke of scripture and the council did nothing to codify or recognize any scripture.
After Arius, the big issue to be resolved, (addressed in most of the canons), was whether and how to reconcile people who had abandoned the church in the face of the Roman persecution that had ended twelve years previous.
I am familiar with the difference between big ‘C’ Catholic and little ‘c’ catholic and the Protestant “catholicity” arguments.
This debate is very much an inter-Christian debate, and relies on presuppositions regarding the nature of Jesus and Scripture that Catholics and Protestants share, but that non-Christians do not. With that disclaimer and apology to non-Christians, here goes.
The problem with the Protestant arguments is that they don’t fit with the model of the Church that Jesus gave us. Jesus gave his Apostles explicit instructions and explicit promises that don’t extend to non-Apostles (ex: Jesus building his Church on Peter the rock, Jesus telling his Apostles “whoever hears you hears me”, Jesus giving his Apostles the power of ‘binding and loosing’ and the power to forgive sins, etc.). That’s why Catholics, Orthodox, and some Anglicans recognize the critical importance of Apostolic Succession. If your church is not Apostolic in its origin, then there is no authority, promises, or guarantees from Christ attached to it. This has been the universal view of the entire Church from the very beginning until the Protestant Reformation.
The Catholic Church does not have open communion because Paul’s writings make it clear that he did not believe in open communion (1 Corinthians 11:27).
Since Anglicans and Catholics have fundamental disagreements on what communion actually is, that is also a major problem. The Eucharist is many things. One of these things is a sign of unity, hence the word “communion”. If you receive the Eucharist in the Catholic Church, you are declaring that you believe all that the Catholic Church believes and teaches, and that you are in a state of grace (worthy to receive Christ’s body and blood). If you are not Catholic, then you obviously don’t believe all that the Catholic Church believes and teaches (and if you do, why aren’t you Catholic?), and the Church also has no assurance whether you can be in a state of grace, since you do not have access to all of the Sacraments. Since Paul is clear that to partake in Christ’s body and blood is actually harmful if you do it in an unworthy manner, the Catholic Church has no choice but to “guard the table” in order to protect the souls of non-Catholics from harm.
Also, you claim that “one must be baptized in the Roman Catholic Church”. This is not true. The Catholic Church accepts and recognizes all Trinitarian baptisms as valid, no matter which denomination it took place in.