Good point, maybe they're not human.
The Way That Seems Right, But Leads to Death, Proverbs 14:12
- Thread starter Robert Pate
- Start date
Good point, maybe they're not human.
How about divine?
jsanford108
New member
Yet you believe the lies you spread about the Catholic Church.
Where do you find the information you present? It certainly isn't in the Bible.
You must have a source which gives you all this false information. Rather than spreading those lies, you could just read what their target actually believes and teaches. It would provide a much more accurate portrayal of Catholicism, versus the falsehoods that you and others like you commonly attribute to Catholicism.
Sent from my iPhone using TOL
There is nothing in the Bible about a Catholic church in Rome. John wrote to the seven churches in Asia, but there is no mention of a church in Rome, Revelation 1:4. There is nothing in the Bible about Peter going to Rome, nor is there any connection between the church in Jerusalem and a church in Rome. Paul did not write to a church in Rome, he wrote to the believers that were in Rome. The church in Rome appears to be a mystery church, Revelation 17:5.
jsanford108
New member
Okay, so Peter is not mentioned as "in Rome," in the Scriptures. I will give you that one. But there is nothing saying that he wasn't. There is also no passage detailing the founding of the United States. Dismissing something because it is simply "not in" the Bible is illogical.
Let us consider historical sources. After all the Bible is a historically accurate book, right? Hence, your claim that because it doesn't include Peter being in Rome, he must never have been there. So if another historical, and Christian, text declares that Peter was, then it should logically point to Peter being in Rome. Especially if when crossed with writings of other Christians of the time.
Tertullian, in "The Demurrer Against the Heretics" (A.D. 200), noted of Rome, “How happy is that church . . . where Peter endured a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned in a death like John’s (referring to John the Baptist, both he and Paul being beheaded)." You no doubt admit Paul died in Rome; so the implication from Tertullian is that Peter also must have been there. It was commonly accepted, from the very first, that both Peter and Paul were martyred at Rome, probably in the Neronian persecution in the 60s.
In the same book, Tertullian wrote that “this is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrnaeans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John; like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter.” This Clement, known as Clement of Rome, later would be the fourth pope. (Note that Tertullian didn’t say Peter consecrated Clement as pope, which would have been impossible since a pope doesn’t consecrate his own successor; he merely ordained Clement as priest.) Clement wrote his Letter to the Corinthians perhaps before the year 70, just a few years after Peter and Paul were killed; in it he made reference to Peter ending his life, where Paul ended his.
In his "Letter to the Romans" (A.D. 110), Ignatius of Antioch remarked that he could not command the Roman Christians the way Peter and Paul once did. Such a comment only makes sense if Peter had been a leader, if not the leader, of the church in Rome.
Irenaeus, in "Against Heresies" (A.D. 190), said that Matthew wrote his Gospel “while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church.” A few lines later he notes that Linus was named as Peter’s successor, that is, the second pope, and that next in line were Anacletus (also known as Cletus), and then Clement of Rome.
Clement of Alexandria wrote at the turn of the third century. [A fragment of his work "Sketches" is preserved in Eusebius of Caesarea’s "Ecclesiastical History", the first history of the Church.] Clement wrote, “When Peter preached the word publicly at Rome, and declared the gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had been for a long time his follower and who remembered his sayings, should write down what had been proclaimed.”
Lactantius, in a treatise called "The Death of the Persecutors," written around 318, noted that “When Nero was already reigning (Nero reigned from 54–68), Peter came to Rome, where, in virtue of the performance of certain miracles which he worked by that power of God which had been given to him, he converted many to righteousness and established a firm and steadfast temple to God.”
This seems to suggest that Peter did, despite "not being in the Bible," die in Rome.
But that isn't the point of your argument. Your whole claim boils down to issues with Church Authority; whether the papacy was founded by Christ. Most anti-Catholics take up the matter and go to considerable trouble to “prove” Peter could not have been in Rome. Why? Because they think they can get mileage out of it. Because if "Catholics are wrong about a historical point, they must be wrong about all points, like Church Authority." It just shows the mental gymnastics and illogical ideas that people come up with to disprove Catholicism and its doctrines.
Sent from my iPhone using TOL
There are to many "What if's" for me. It appears to me that the purpose of the Catholic church is to persecute Christians. According to "Foxe's Book of Martyr's" thousands were put to death because they refused to adhere to Catholic doctrine. Catholicism is the church of you must, you must, you must and if you don't you are anathema.
Did Simon Peter institute Easter observance on Sunday. If so by what authority?
(http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05228a.htm)
Further, Irenaeus states that St. Polycarp, who like the other Asiatics, kept Easter on the fourteenth day of the moon, whatever day of the week that might be, following therein the tradition which he claimed to have derived from St. John the Apostle, came to Rome c. 150 about this very question, but could not be persuaded by Pope Anicetus to relinquish his Quartodeciman observance."
(http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05228a.htm)
Easter is a pagan holiday. Christian are not called to observe any days, Galatians 4:10, 11.
jsanford108
New member
Celebrating the single most glorious event in the history of the world is "pagan?" It all begins to make sense now....
Sent from my iPhone using TOL
jsanford108
New member
Yet, the "thousands put to death" by Catholics is shadowed by multiple thousands killed by Protestants during the witch hunts. Why do those numbers never get mentioned? It is because it goes against the implication of persecution being performed by Catholicism.
Also, Foxe's Book has been heavily criticized for being extremely inaccurate. It exaggerates numbers to the point of blatant lying. Both Christian and secular historians give it no weight and classify it as essentially the ravings of an anti-Catholic.
If that is your source material, you need to be a little more critical of your sources. Especially one as faulty as Foxe's.
Sent from my iPhone using TOL
Foxe's Book of Martyrs is an accurate account of the persecutions against Christians by the Catholic church. It describes dates, names and places where the persecutions took place.
jsanford108
New member
May I ask why you changed subjects so instantly?
Your OP contained a falsehood about Catholics believing in "works salvation." I provided the truth about Catholic's doctrine of salvation. You instantly made a claim about Peter never being in Rome. I responded by providing extensive sources that confirmed Peter being in Rome.
In reply to my evidence, you change subjects to the Inquisition, as well as claims of the RCC persisting everyone who isn't catholic. This is a subject I believe, like the falsehood of "works salvation," we have discussed before. But if I need to, I can once again debunk this claim, utilizing history; after all, your claim is not one found in Scripture, but "historically".
Why is it that anytime I bring sufficient evidence to disprove your claims, you simply ignore them, or change the subject? You never accept what has been clearly demonstrated as fact, and always choose instead to continue posting falsehoods.
I ask this sincerely. What is your issue with Catholicism, that burns so intensely that you ignore truth in favor of falsehoods? Why do you flee from subjects in which you have been proven wrong (some of them on a nearly constant basis)?
Sent from my iPhone using TOL
jsanford108
New member
It is excessively inaccurate. Nearly everyone who is not extreme anti-Catholic gives it no weight, due to glaring exaggerations of numbers, false information, etc.
Even some anti-Catholics dismiss it for its falsehoods. Secular historians, known for being anti-Catholic, likewise say it is a book of falsehoods.
It is historically inaccurate, and dishonest on all levels, including intellectually.
Sent from my iPhone using TOL
jsanford108
New member
The Way That Seems Right, But Leads to Death, Proverbs 14:12
Protestant Criticism:
"It is widely accepted that Foxe's selection process excluded martyrs of any sort whose primary allegiance was to the Catholic church. The standards for what he considered to be a true martyr were heavily influenced by his own doctrinal position. This doesn't mean that the cases he did select to tell about are actually not real cases, but it does keep his work from being considered a broad treatment of the issue of martyrdom in Christianity."
"His doctrinal bias comes through quite consistently in smaller details in the individual telling of stories. It is in this that the historicity is most to be questioned: that the events happened is typically not in doubt but the generous amount of fiction added to the narrative and possibly leaving out relevant details that didn't fit the picture he wanted to paint leave the exact accuracy of the work as suspect."
The Wikipedia article, which notes in the summary section the sometimes polemical tone of Foxe's work, has an entire section devoted to his merits as a historian. Here is one excerpt:
"The author's credibility was challenged as soon as the book first appeared. Detractors accused Foxe of dealing falsely with the evidence, of misusing documents, and of telling partial truths. In every case that he could clarify, Foxe corrected errors in the second edition and third and fourth, final version (for him). In the early nineteenth century the charges were taken up again by a number of authors, most importantly Samuel Roffey Maitland. Subsequently Foxe was considered a poor historian, in mainstream reference works. The 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica accused Foxe of "wilful falsification of evidence"; two years later in the Catholic Encyclopedia, Francis Fortescue Urquhart wrote of the value of the documentary content and eyewitness reports, but claimed that Foxe 'sometimes dishonestly mutilates his documents and is quite untrustworthy in his treatment of evidence.'"
Sent from my iPhone using TOL
Protestant Criticism:
"It is widely accepted that Foxe's selection process excluded martyrs of any sort whose primary allegiance was to the Catholic church. The standards for what he considered to be a true martyr were heavily influenced by his own doctrinal position. This doesn't mean that the cases he did select to tell about are actually not real cases, but it does keep his work from being considered a broad treatment of the issue of martyrdom in Christianity."
"His doctrinal bias comes through quite consistently in smaller details in the individual telling of stories. It is in this that the historicity is most to be questioned: that the events happened is typically not in doubt but the generous amount of fiction added to the narrative and possibly leaving out relevant details that didn't fit the picture he wanted to paint leave the exact accuracy of the work as suspect."
The Wikipedia article, which notes in the summary section the sometimes polemical tone of Foxe's work, has an entire section devoted to his merits as a historian. Here is one excerpt:
"The author's credibility was challenged as soon as the book first appeared. Detractors accused Foxe of dealing falsely with the evidence, of misusing documents, and of telling partial truths. In every case that he could clarify, Foxe corrected errors in the second edition and third and fourth, final version (for him). In the early nineteenth century the charges were taken up again by a number of authors, most importantly Samuel Roffey Maitland. Subsequently Foxe was considered a poor historian, in mainstream reference works. The 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica accused Foxe of "wilful falsification of evidence"; two years later in the Catholic Encyclopedia, Francis Fortescue Urquhart wrote of the value of the documentary content and eyewitness reports, but claimed that Foxe 'sometimes dishonestly mutilates his documents and is quite untrustworthy in his treatment of evidence.'"
Sent from my iPhone using TOL
Last edited:
Is the Passover feast pagan.
"For indeed Christ, our Passover, was sacrificed for us. Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth." (1 Corinthians 5:7-8)
"Then Jesus said to them, 'Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life and I will raise him up at the last day. For My flesh is food indeed and My blood is drink indeed. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me and I in him. As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who feeds on Me will live because of Me. This is the bread which came down from heaven — not as your fathers ate the manna and are dead. He who eats this bread will live forever.”
(John 6:53-58)
It is only natural for Catholics to hate Fox's Book of Martyrs. but it is very hard to refute it especially with dates, names and places where the persecution took place.
The NT is spiritual.
The Bible was written by Christians for Christians. If you don't understand it, it may be that you are not a Christian.