Human Ears Evolved from Ancient Fish Gills

[travis2]

The writings don't coherently agree with what is written in the rest of the New Testament. This analysis was carried out by the church a long time ago and found that the works were 'lacking in inspired' revelation. I'm going to say something here which might anger you... but only if you take criticisms of Roman Catholic leaders as a personal attack on your faith... which like I've said before, despite your noted disagreement, should not be intertwined....

The Catholic Church as ins uted by the 1st elected Pope (Pope Gregory I in 605 A.D.) claimed the legacy of the early church for itself. That is why declaring that a contemporary of JESUS, in this case Peter, was the founder of the ins ution was crucial to their cause of having existed from the beginning and laying a stake on a piece of history that did not belong the Roman Catholic Ins ution as it is founded today. To make the claim that the inception of the church belongs to them is what angers many protestants.... why? Because we are the church... and life and forgiveness are granted to us by our Heavenly Father not by any earthly representative. The church exists and perseveres because of GOD's grace... not because we as humans somehow 'managed' to preserve it...

The early church which compiled the Gospels, Paul's Letters, John's Letters, and Peter's Letters did so, you are correct, with the guidance and discernment of the HOLY SPIRIT. And those books complete the Bible we now use...

As for the other books, we did not take the Apocrypha out of the Bible. The Apocrypha was added to the Canon in 1546 by the Council of Trent as specific response to the Reformation. Explain how Divine infallibility would have had several Papal successors not include the Apocrypha to then suddenly decide that they were wrong and that the books should be included?? If the Jews did not, and still do not, consider the Apocryphal writings to be a part of the Hebrew Canon why else would the RCC decide to add these writings to the Bible... and 1500 years after the Revelation of JESUS???

And I am not misunderstanding the 'infallibility' concept. The RCC claims their doctrines are "free of error" because they were given by GOD. Could all the earlier popes be given an incomplete doctrine and then suddendly say... "you know... these other books were also intended to be part of the Canon." Don't even bother to look up justifying support for the Apocrypha... Fact of the matter is that they are irrelevant to the Revelation of JESUS Christ.

Don't get me wrong... the existence of these books, in and of itself, is not necessarily wrong. Though they are uninspired, they do contain much truth derived from the true Word of God, just as might a commentary or a devotional book. The apocryphal books may make for good reading, provided that they (like everything else) are examined and judged in the light of the true scriptures. But they do not belong in the canon of the scriptures, and it is clear from the testimony of history that the Jews never considered them scripture, and neither did the true church of God. The fact that the writings of the Apostles, are devoid of quotations from apocryphal books, is proof enough that they are irrelevant to the New Covenant in Christ.

However, Rome has invested a good deal of theological capital in maintaining that these books are inspired scripture. Claiming them as such allows Rome to bolster its profession to be the "mother of the Bible", because it "fixed the canon". Further, there are several major pillars of Roman Catholic Tradition which rest upon an apocryphal foundation, and which would be completely baseless if the apocryphal books were rendered unusable from a doctrinal standpoint.

Uhhhhhh...wrong.

First, Pope Gregory did not "ins ute" the Catholic Church.

The Canon was first officially listed on paper at the Council of Rome, 382. It was affirmed at the Councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397).

The Council of Trent merely reaffirmed the Canon as it has always been in response to the removal of those books by Luther and his bunch.

And no, you do not understand the concept of infallibility. As is the usual case, you attempt to over-apply it to areas in which it does not apply.

Also, dogma and doctrine are two different things. "Doctrine" is "teaching". Dogma is "...a truth appertaining to faith or morals, revealed by God, transmitted from the Apostles in the Scriptures or by tradition, and proposed by the Church for the acceptance of the faithful. It might be described briefly as a revealed truth defined by the Church -- but private revelations do not cons ute dogmas, and some theologians confine the word defined to doctrines solemnly defined by the pope or by a general council, while a revealed truth becomes a dogma even when proposed by the Church through her ordinary magisterium or teaching office. A dogma therefore implies a twofold relation: to Divine revelation and to the authoritative teaching of the Church." (from the Catholic Encyclopedia). One could consider "dogma" to be the highest form of "doctrine". Only that which is "dogma" is unchanging.

[travis2]

where in the bible does it describe baptism as sprinling water on the head ?

We don't sprinkle. We either pour or immerse.

[implacable44]

We don't sprinkle. We either pour or immerse.

catholics ?

[travis2]

catholics ?

Yes. If you heard we "sprinkle", you heard wrong. Pouring or immersion.

[smeagol]

The writings don't coherently agree with what is written in the rest of the New Testament. This analysis was carried out by the church a long time ago and found that the works were 'lacking in inspired' revelation.

Where don’t they coincide? Simply because the Books in the Bible are silent when it comes to Peter’s whereabouts does not mean they contradict Ignatius’ Epistles, where there is a clear reference to Peter having been in Rome.

Again, “lacking in inspired revelation” does not mean they are wrong or inaccurate. I put much more stock on a letter written by men who knew the Apostles (Clement knew Peter, Ignatius knew John) than what 15th through 21st Century Protestant writers have to say on this subject.

For the 100th time: The fact that the Bible is silent with regards to an event does not mean that that event never happened.

The Catholic Church as ins uted by the 1st elected Pope (Pope Gregory I in 605 A.D.) claimed the legacy of the early church for itself.

Hector, I like debating with you but please, you need to check your sources. Whoever told you (or whoever wrote) the above statement is way off.

That is why declaring that a contemporary of JESUS, in this case Peter, was the founder of the ins ution was crucial to their cause of having existed from the beginning and laying a stake on a piece of history that did not belong the Roman Catholic Ins ution as it is founded today. To make the claim that the inception of the church belongs to them is what angers many protestants

In other words, what the author of this essay is saying is that the Church of the first six centuries (until 605 AD, when the Catholic Church was ins uted (I can’t help laughing at this statement )) was similar in its rites and doctrine to today’s Protestant Church? This is mind boggling to me. The testaments of all these early Christians point out that the early Church practiced all rites and possessed all those beliefs Protestants are against (I have quoted many times in this thread early Christian writings that attest to Peter being in Rome, infant baptism, the Sacraments, the Real Presence, auricular confession, Marian Beliefs, etc)

we are the church... and life and forgiveness are granted to us by our Heavenly Father not by any earthly representative. The church exists and perseveres because of GOD's grace... not because we as humans somehow 'managed' to preserve it...

So now Catholics believe that life and forgiveness is granted by an Earthly representative? And they also believe that the Church survived 2000 years because of humans? This kind of blatant disregard of what true Catholic beliefs really are, does not help your argument and undermines your credibility.

As for the other books, we did not take the Apocrypha out of the Bible. The Apocrypha was added to the Canon in 1546 by the Council of Trent as specific response to the Reformation.

No!!!!! Please do your research before posting.

What is known as Old Testament Apocrypha (we Catholics prefer to call it Deutocanonical) was part of the greek version of the Old Testament used by the Jews in Alexandria. Writers such as Justin in the II Century and Origen in the III, already acknowledge that Catholics were using an extended version of the OT than which was different than the one used by the majority of the Jews. Origen even goes as far as defending Tobias, Judith and fragments of Daniel. Thereafter, writers such as Tertullian and Cyprian, also in the III Century quote verses of most of the Deutocanonical books.

In the IV Century, there was some doubt among Christian writers about the divne inspiration of these books, but the Councils and Synods of the later part of the Century Rome (382), Hyppo (393) and Carthage (393, 397), where the Canon was finaly decided, include these books.

See how far off is you above statement that these books were added in 1546 in Trent as a response to the Reformation.

Explain how Divine infallibility would have had several Papal successors not include the Apocrypha to then suddenly decide that they were wrong and that the books should be included?? If the Jews did not, and still do not, consider the Apocryphal writings to be a part of the Hebrew Canon why else would the RCC decide to add these writings to the Bible... and 1500 years after the Revelation of JESUS???

Again, do some research on this subject because what you are stating is a gross misrepresentation of the truth. And by the way, the Apocrypha was part of the Jewish Bible (at least a version that some Jews used). It was slowly dropped for the OT by Jews in the first Centuries of the current era.

Actually, it was the Protestants such as Luther who decided to amputate these books that had been part of the Bible since the Canon was agreed in 380 – 390 AD. Luther, one of the Champions of the Reformation, also corrupted Scripture by adding the word “alone” after faith in Rom 3:28. In Lutheran Bibles, I believe the phrase reads “man is justified by faith alone . . .”. Talk about someone altering scripture to push a personal agenda.

And I am not misunderstanding the 'infallibility' concept. The RCC claims their doctrines are "free of error" because they were given by GOD. Could all the earlier popes be given an incomplete doctrine and then suddendly say... "you know... these other books were also intended to be part of the Canon." Don't even bother to look up justifying support for the Apocrypha... Fact of the matter is that they are irrelevant to the Revelation of JESUS Christ.

Your statements are based on flawed premises. You are perpetuating the error that the OT Apocrypha was added in 1546. It wasn’t. One more thing, The Greek Orthodox Bible also includes these books. This Church broke from the Catholic Church in the IX Century, again disproving your XVI century date.

The apocryphal books may make for good reading, provided that they (like everything else) are examined and judged in the light of the true scriptures. But they do not belong in the canon of the scriptures, and it is clear from the testimony of history that the Jews never considered them scripture, and neither did the true church of God.

No. I prove this point earlier.

The fact that the writings of the Apostles, are devoid of quotations from apocryphal books, is proof enough that they are irrelevant to the New Covenant in Christ. .

Although there are no direct quotes in the NT of the OT Apocrypha (Deutocanonical Books), there are close affinities of thought, and in some cases also of language, between I Peter 1: 6-7, and Wisdom 3: 5-6; Hebrews 1:3, and Wisdom 6: 26-27; 1 Corinthians 10: 9-10, and Judith 8: 24-25; 1 Corinthians 6: 13 and Ecclesiasticus, 36: 20.

[Phenomanul]

Uhhhhhh...wrong.

First, Pope Gregory did not "ins ute" the Catholic Church. .

Right.... sorry. I meant to say "The Roman Catholic Church as interpreted by Gregory the I (in AD 605 -- the year of his death) staked a claim on all Christendom... and it's history...

This of course is nevertheless insulting to other Christians who have been 'unchurched' of their own history.

The Canon was first officially listed on paper at the Council of Rome, 382. It was affirmed at the Councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397).

The Council of Trent merely reaffirmed the Canon as it has always been in response to the removal of those books by Luther and his bunch.

And no, you do not understand the concept of infallibility. As is the usual case, you attempt to over-apply it to areas in which it does not apply.

Also, dogma and doctrine are two different things. "Doctrine" is "teaching". Dogma is "...a truth appertaining to faith or morals, revealed by God, transmitted from the Apostles in the Scriptures or by tradition, and proposed by the Church for the acceptance of the faithful. It might be described briefly as a revealed truth defined by the Church -- but private revelations do not cons ute dogmas, and some theologians confine the word defined to doctrines solemnly defined by the pope or by a general council, while a revealed truth becomes a dogma even when proposed by the Church through her ordinary magisterium or teaching office. A dogma therefore implies a twofold relation: to Divine revelation and to the authoritative teaching of the Church." (from the Catholic Encyclopedia). One could consider "dogma" to be the highest form of "doctrine". Only that which is "dogma" is unchanging.

Misinterpreting Biblical truths is a 'smoking barrel' sign that 'papal interpretation of GOD's revelation' is not infallible. The claim is that their Doctrine, or in this case Dogma, is "error-free". I don't buy it.

Read the following passage written oddly enough by Tim Dunkin....!!!

And the Apocrypha was not an 'official' part of the Canon during the first few centuries... History tells us that the Council of Rome (presided over by Damasus) was only a local council which did not have e enical authority, and this fact is obvious from the complete lack of regard to findings shown by the churches in the rest of Europe and in the East.

One of Damasus' chief supporters in the drive to accept the Apocrypha was Augustine, the definitive theologian of the Western Catholic religion for centuries after his time. It was Augustine's presence and support for the Apocrypha at the Councils of Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage (397 AD) which guaranteed the acceptance of the expanded canon at these gatherings. Once again, though, these councils did not have e enical force, and their findings were little regarded outside of Rome and North Africa until after the Western Empire had fallen, and the Roman Catholic religion began to formally assert itself as the dual religious and temporal authority in Europe.

However, it should be understood that even with these councils, a large share of the Latin church did not accept the Apocrypha as scripture, just as many of their brethren in the East rejected those books... After the time of these councils, many in the West continued to give no evidence that they viewed the apocryphal books as Scripture. Among these are Sulpitius Severus (363-420 AD) and Vincent of Lerons (d. 450 AD), both from Gaul. The Greek Eastern churches in these later years continued their general witness against the Apocrypha, with this being the position of men such as Anastasius of Antioch (c. 500 AD) and Leontius of Byzantium (c. 580 AD). The Syriac writer, Jacob Aphrahat (337-445 AD), made sparing use of the Apocrypha, and does not indicate through his manner of use that he considered these books as anything more than secondary literature. Even as late as the 8th century, we see Eastern writers who reject the Apocrypha, one of whom was John of Damascus (664-777 AD).

From this overview of the early church and its use of the Apocrypha, one thing should be abundantly clear. The patristic writers were hardly uniform in the belief that the Apocrypha was scripture. In fact, the majority of them witnessed against that position and against the Apocrypha. The writers who spanned these early centuries of Christian history were hardly "catholic" ... universal... in their views on this matter. Even a cursory study of the patristic writers shows that these men were as theologically and doctrinally diverse as Christians are today. This diversity extended to their understanding of what cons uted the "edges" of the canonical scriptures. For the Roman Catholic religion to accept the opinions of some of these men, while ignoring the greater witness of those in the early churches who did not use or opposed the inclusion of the apocryphal books, is complete arbitrarity. The arguments from patristic use and reverence which are used by Roman Catholicism to justify their inclusion of the Apocrypha into the canon are based upon the convenient choice of which particular patristic writer and which particular council to appeal to for authority.

The acceptance of the apocryphal books fails the test of catholicity in geography, as well. Before the time that Europe fell under the dominion of Roman Catholicism and the Catholic Bible (Apocrypha included) became the sole approved version, the only places where the Apocrypha gained serious currency were in Egypt and North Africa, with patristics from Palestine later turning to it through the influence of Pamphilus and Eusebius. The general testimony from Greece, Asia Minor, Mesopotamia, Gaul, Syria, and even many in Italy was against the inclusion of these books.

Lastly, in spite of Catholic arguments based upon the authority of tradition, the acceptance of the Apocrypha as canonical scripture was an anti-traditional position within the early churches. The trend through these early centuries was a departure from the Hebrew canon of 22 books to the extended canon which eventually came to dominate after the rise of Roman Catholicism proper. With increasing distance from apostolic times, we see a gradually increasing view that the apocryphal works were inspired scripture, aided by the introduction of these books into the Greek Old Testament texts during the late 2nd-early 3rd centuries.... Thus, what is often couched as an argument from "church tradition" instead seems to defy true tradition in favour of an arbitrary choice of sources made for the purposes of buttressing dogmatic assertion.

The New Covenant in Christ is not really affected by the Apocrypha as much as Catholic traditions are... so I really don't care.... Those specific traditions addressed in those books have no bearing on my eternal salvation.... and even if I were to concede that a "purgatory" phase was required of me for 'purification' as a pre-cursor to entry to Heaven. It still wouldn't mean I had no salvation secured....

[Yonivore]

The thread that would not die!

[Phenomanul]

Enough of the Apocrypha... The books don't speak of Christ and have no bearing on the New Covenant.

Oh... and Smeagol don't crucify me on the Gregory I comment, I mean I was good at memorizing history... but ecclesiastical history was much harder for me to keep track of simply because as such it always has to be subjected to the scrutiny of other historical do ents... and around and around I went.

Notwithstanding, if you want to undermine my credibility that is your perogative. I'm learning much here and don't proclaim to type all this stuff out of memory. The one time I did; I screwed up....

I won't point out any of your errors in that exhuberant a manner, but be careful you don't fall into a trap of pointing to out the "splinter in my eye, while having a plank sticking out of yours."

[smeagol]

Enough of the Apocrypha... The books don't speak of Christ and have no bearing on the New Covenant.

Not all OT books speak of Jesus.

Notwithstanding, if you want to undermine my credibility that is your perogative. I'm learning much here and don't proclaim to type all this stuff out of memory. The one time I did; I screwed up....

It is not my intention to undermine your credibility just for the fun of it and I was not aware that it was a mistake. My issue when I discuss religion with Fundamentalists is that (i) they don’t understand what the true position of the Catholic Church is in many issues, and (ii) many times, when debating, they use so-called facts which are way off.

I feel to some degree this has happened in our debate.

I won't point out any of your errors in that exhuberant a manner, but be careful you don't fall into a trap of pointing to out the "splinter in my eye, while having a plank sticking out of yours."

Sometimes I get carried away

[Dos]

I don't think there is one true catholic church anymore.. there are great debates between the liberal jesuits and more conservative catholics... as to which direction the church should head.. either more liberal or more conservative... but thats what I know as a former catholic...

[smeagol]

This of course is nevertheless insulting to other Christians who have been 'unchurched' of their own history..

It is overwhelmingly clear that the early Church practiced the rites and Doctrines that the Catholic Church practices. The “'unchurched'” Christians that you refer to have their own history. It started in the XVI century. The history of Fundamentalism started even later: late XIX Century.

It still wouldn't mean I had no salvation secured....

Ahh . . . Sola fide.

[travis2]

Misinterpreting Biblical truths is a 'smoking barrel' sign that 'papal interpretation of GOD's revelation' is not infallible. The claim is that their Doctrine, or in this case Dogma, is "error-free". I don't buy it.

Excuse me? And you don't consider this a "bash"? C'mon...

Who is the official arbiter of these "truths" you claim the Church has misinterpreted? You? Sorry..."I don't buy it".

Not one Biblical truth has been misinterpreted by the Catholic Church. Not one.

And we certainly don't have to add words to or remove books from the Bible or make up fraudulent histories in order to make ourselves feel better.

[Phenomanul]

Excuse me? And you don't consider this a "bash"? C'mon...

No... I just don't believe Christ left His Revelation to the fate of one ins ution... and to top it off ... to one that has committed many 'political' and 'socially reprihensible' errors across its history (Vatican sanctioned murders.... numerous child abuse scandals and subsequent cover ups....) But, hey I realize that we are human.... I'm not one to judge them as people. It's just that they feel like they can do whatever they wish and still have the audacity to claim doctrinal perfection.... C'mon that is an insult. Not to me. To Christ himself.

"Do not judge your brother", "GOD is our Judge".... yet the Catholic Church has held inquisitions to boast Judicial authority???? Does the word Pharisee ring a bell???

Who is the official arbiter of these "truths" you claim the Church has misinterpreted? You? Sorry..."I don't buy it".

NOPE... it is the work of the HOLY SPIRIT... for the umpteeenth time... these truths are revealed to all that genuinely seek it.

Not one Biblical truth has been misinterpreted by the Catholic Church. Not one.

Says of course... the Catholic Church.

And we certainly don't have to add words to or remove books from the Bible or make up fraudulent histories in order to make ourselves feel better.

Says of course... the Catholic Church.

How do you know it's not the other way around??? Yeah. You can accuse others of making up history, but if one turns it around to question the Roman Catholic Church. The RCC is 100% accurate. Always. No questions asked. Doubters be damed.... Please.... such an arrogant stance is not Christlike.

The Gospel is simple. Human interpretation has convoluted God's message of Grace and salvation to place himself as a mediator between GOD and men when JESUS clearly said, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No man cometh to the Father except by me." And then you all complain about not taking passages literally???

[Phenomanul]

It is overwhelmingly clear that the early Church practiced the rites and Doctrines that the Catholic Church practices. The “'unchurched'” Christians that you refer to have their own history. It started in the XVI century. The history of Fundamentalism started even later: late XIX Century.



Ahh . . . Sola fide.

Sola fide... yes. But don't imply my 'works' or those of others are non-existent... that is an error that you all fall into often... and is not a judgement call you or any person on earth is qualified to make. And frankly it is a tiring affair to have to point it out.

As for rituals... hey I was baptized as an infant (when I was 'catholic'), and again as a teen. I participated of the RCC's sacraments (again, when I was 'catholic').... and yet that is not what justifies me before GOD. Christ's blood has and always will.

[travis2]

No... I just don't believe Christ left His Revelation to the fate of one ins ution... and to top it off ... to one that has committed many 'political' and 'socially reprihensible' errors across its history (Vatican sanctioned murders.... numerous child abuse scandals and subsequent cover ups....) But, hey I realize that we are human.... I'm not one to judge them as people. It's just that they feel like they can do whatever they wish and still have the audacity to claim doctrinal perfection.... C'mon that is an insult. Not to me. To Christ himself.

"Do not judge your brother", "GOD is our Judge".... yet the Catholic Church has held inquisitions to boast Judicial authority???? Does the word Pharisee ring a bell???




NOPE... it is the work of the HOLY SPIRIT... for the umpteeenth time... these truths are revealed to all that genuinely seek it.



Says of course... the Catholic Church.




Says of course... the Catholic Church.

How do you know it's not the other way around??? Yeah. You can accuse others of making up history, but if one turns it around to question the Roman Catholic Church. The RCC is 100% accurate. Always. No questions asked. Doubters be damed.... Please.... such an arrogant stance is not Christlike.

The Gospel is simple. Human interpretation has convoluted God's message of Grace and salvation to place himself as a mediator between GOD and men when JESUS clearly said, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No man cometh to the Father except by me." And then you all complain about not taking passages literally???

First of all...read up on what the Inquisition actually was and what it did. Find out what the Church did, and what the secular governments did. And you continue to show ignorance about what infallibility means.

History...the Church history is recorded and supported by non-Catholic, secular historians. If you choose to disbelieve it, that's of course your affair. But I don't see the same academic rigor in support of anti-Catholic histories.

So...the Holy Spirit gave 20,000 different interpretations of the Bible?

And you may not like my spirited defense of the Church, and maybe I go overboard every so often...but when you state unsupported opinions as though they were proven fact, you bet your @$$ I'm going to be all over you about it. If that's arrogance...so be it. I'm arrogant. But you'd better look in the mirror before you use that term again.

I can't stand people twisting the plank in my eye while their own plank is cracking me upside the head.

[Oh, Gee!!]

This thread is worthless without pics.

[travis2]

BTW, hegamboa...I did ask you 4 serious questions a while back. Did you miss them?

[xrayzebra]

This thread is worthless without pics.

shhhhhsh, you are interfering with serious discussions.

[Oh, Gee!!]

shhhhhsh, you are interfering with serious discussions.

Oh, the irony

[Mr. Peabody]

Oh, the irony

Like a black fly in your chardonnay?

[Oh, Gee!!]

Like a black fly in your chardonnay?

It's like Raaaaayyyyy on your wedding day

[SA210]

It's like Raaaaayyyyy on your wedding day

An old man turned ninety-eight...
He was senile and still lied the next day.

Isn't it Ironic...

[Mr. Peabody]

It's like Raaaaayyyyy on your wedding day

Man, I hate when guys named Ray show up on my wedding day. Then I'm all like "Hey man, this is a no Rays wedding."

Of course that means I have to let one Ray in.

[smeagol]

Sola fide... yes. But don't imply my 'works' or those of others are non-existent...

I never implied that. I’m sure you do plenty of works because from what I read in your posts, you are a committed Christian.

What I more than implied is that you believe that you are saved by Faith alone, and as James says, Faith without Works is nothing. And having assurance of Salvation simply because you believe (Faith) but not following Christ’s example (Works) (in the extreme this could mean that you say you believe but you lead a terrible life) is something I have trouble believing Christ would approve.

that is an error that you all fall into often... and is not a judgement call you or any person on earth is qualified to make.

No, I don’t fall into that error because, as I pointed out above, I believe many people who follow the Sola Fide doctrine, because they believe in Christ, they follow his example and live exemplary lives.

My issue is related to the doctrine itself. You believe there’s a place for you in Heaven simply by accepting Jesus as your personal Savior. I believe that is incorrect because: (i) the Bible says Works are needed, (ii) the Early Fathers say works are needed, (iii) common sense says that Faith alone is not enough.

[smeagol]

BTW, hegamboa...I did ask you 4 serious questions a while back. Did you miss them?

I also asked you the question about Sola Scriptura