Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

History of Christianity

  • 20-02-2010 5:59pm
    #1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 635 ✭✭✭


    Programme on BBC2 tonight at 7:15pm.

    Titled "History of Christianity"

    Might be of interest to ye.


    Let us know how ye find it i.e. accurate etc


«1

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,114 ✭✭✭Stephentlig


    I missed it, but the one with Gerry Adams will be on tomorrow evening so I'll be looking forward to that one.

    How was the program?

    Pax Christi

    Stephen <3


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 635 ✭✭✭grrrrrrrrrr


    I missed it, but the one with Gerry Adams will be on tomorrow evening so I'll be looking forward to that one.

    How was the program?

    Pax Christi

    Stephen <3


    Could be on the BBC player but i know they dont put everything up on that


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,114 ✭✭✭Stephentlig


    Could be on the BBC player but i know they dont put everything up on that

    You mean internet? I use one of those key things and its speed is so slow, I've to wait ages for youtube videos to load etc etc....what about BBC plus? I have sky will that work?


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    Programme on BBC2 tonight at 7:15pm.

    Titled "History of Christianity"

    Might be of interest to ye.


    Let us know how ye find it i.e. accurate etc

    Yeah, I heard the tag line earlier and it put me right off. "...with a bloody past and an uncertain history..."

    For one, the history of Christianity wasn't all bloody in fairness, and it actually started out with the Christian's blood being shed first, and that because they preached what they believed to be true. It would appear that people who are not Christian will invariably view Christianity with their very own rose tinted glasses, they only see the parts that fit nicely with their opinion of it. And as for the uncertain future, I would remind them that Jesus said: "I will build my church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.", meaning that Christianity (real everyday faith in God Christianity) has a future most certain. Will try and catch a repeat of the prog anyway to see what its like.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 635 ✭✭✭grrrrrrrrrr


    You mean internet? I use one of those key things and its speed is so slow, I've to wait ages for youtube videos to load etc etc....what about BBC plus? I have sky will that work?

    Just checked out the BBC watch back service for you,
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/playlive/bbc_two_england/


    BUT it doesnt work in Ireland!! Only in the UK!! Bit of a joke seeing as the Channel 4 player works in Ireland but that debate isnt ofr this thread as i will be told!! alright Fanny...

    It'll prob be repeated at some stage... its still on now



    EDIT: just checked it out some more and BBC say "Rights agreements mean that BBC iPlayer television programmes are only available to users to download or stream (Click to Play) in the UK. However, we are aware of demand for an international version."


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,114 ✭✭✭Stephentlig


    Yeah, I heard the tag line earlier and it put me right off. "...with a bloody past and an uncertain history..."

    For one, the history of Christianity wasn't all bloody in fairness, and it actually started out with the Christian's blood being shed first, and that because they preached what they believed to be true. It would appear that people who are not Christian will invariably view Christianity with their very own rose tinted glasses, they only see the parts that fit nicely with their opinion of it. And as for the uncertain future, I would remind them that Jesus said: "I will build my church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.", meaning that Christianity (real everyday faith in God Christianity) has a future most certain. Will try and catch a repeat of the prog anyway to see what its like.

    except for the last part of your post, I disagree with, God built his Church upon the rock that is Peter, and told peter that the gates of hell will not prevail against it, this is his one Holy, Catholic and apostolic Church, however I do not wish to sidetrack the thread.

    good post though, I find it strange that a secular programme would be nice to Christianity, so its no suprise that they are not and give us their own watered down interpretation of it.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,114 ✭✭✭Stephentlig


    Just checked out the BBC watch back service for you,
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/playlive/bbc_two_england/


    BUT it doesnt work in Ireland!! Only in the UK!! Bit of a joke seeing as the Channel 4 player works in Ireland but that debate isnt ofr this thread as i will be told!! alright Fanny...

    It'll prob be repeated at some stage... its still on now



    EDIT: just checked it out some more and BBC say "Rights agreements mean that BBC iPlayer television programmes are only available to users to download or stream (Click to Play) in the UK. However, we are aware of demand for an international version."

    well after seeing soul winners post I dont think I'm gonna stress meself too much over it lol :pac:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 635 ✭✭✭grrrrrrrrrr


    well after seeing soul winners post I dont think I'm gonna stress meself too much over it lol :pac:


    meh just watch The passion of the Christ!!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,114 ✭✭✭Stephentlig


    meh just watch The passion of the Christ!!

    Very good movie, I wish they'd make more Christian movies like that one, I'd say a good movie on the Acts of the apostles by mel gibson would be a cracker too.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 635 ✭✭✭grrrrrrrrrr


    Very good movie, I wish they'd make more Christian movies like that one, I'd say a good movie on the Acts of the apostles by mel gibson would be a cracker too.



    Guessing The Da vinci code is just a pile of sh!t to ye?? that whole blood line thing....


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,114 ✭✭✭Stephentlig


    Guessing The Da vinci code is just a pile of sh!t to ye?? that whole blood line thing....

    aye, loada nonsense, just a load of fiction, I watched it prior to my conversion to the Catholic Church when I was hungover and to be honest it made my hangover a harder one to bear. My cousin ( who is an atheist/agnostic ) loved it because it made the Catholic church look horrible and he believes all the secular nonsense.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,163 ✭✭✭hivizman


    Just for info, the "History of Christianity" programme on BBC2 earlier this evening was a repeat of the Diarmaid MacCulloch programme originally on BBC4 last year. I think that this evening's episode was the last of the series. It's now out on DVD. See my post on a recent thread for links.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    except for the last part of your post, I disagree with, God built his Church upon the rock that is Peter, and told peter that the gates of hell will not prevail against it, this is his one Holy, Catholic and apostolic Church

    Well if we are going to take a literal reading of that verse as saying Peter is the rock and not his statement of faith which preceded Jesus' commendation (a statement which was revealed to Peter by the God to Peter in the first place), then we must also conclude that Peter is Satan. Why? Because Jesus calls him Satan just a couple of verse later. So if Peter is the rock and not his statement of faith then Peter is also Satan because of his other statement which came later which was a man serving statement that did not come from God.

    Here's are the verses in question:

    "Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it" Mathew 16:17-18

    What rock was Jesus referring to? Peter? How so? It wasn't Peter at all, common sense tells you that, it was Peter's statement of faith which was the rock, the truth of which was revealed to him by the Father in Heaven. So it wasn't even Peter's statement to begin with, it was revealed to him. In anycase, just for argument's sake let us assume that the rock is Peter himself and not his statement.

    A few verses later this happens:

    "From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life. Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. "Never, Lord!" he said. "This shall never happen to you!" Jesus turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men." Mathew 16:21-23

    Now which is it? Is Peter the rock? If so then he is also Satan. Jesus did not just equate Peter to Satan, He actually called Peter Satan. Because he literally became Satan possessed at that very moment because he would have had Jesus avoid the cross. No, the rock commendation can only stand if the Satan rebuke stands too. I think the Scripture is very clear on this and only tradition makes people think otherwise, traditions which Jesus says make void the Word of God.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,114 ✭✭✭Stephentlig


    Well if we are going to take a literal reading of that verse as saying Peter is the rock and not his statement of faith which preceded Jesus' commendation (a statement which was revealed to Peter by the God to Peter in the first place), then we must also conclude that Peter is Satan. Why? Because Jesus calls him Satan just a couple of verse later. So if Peter is the rock and not his statement of faith then Peter is also Satan because of his other statement which came later which was a man serving statement that did not come from God.

    Here's are the verses in question:

    "Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it" Mathew 16:17-18

    What rock was Jesus referring to? Peter? How so? It wasn't Peter at all, common sense tells you that, it was Peter's statement of faith which was the rock, the truth of which was revealed to him by the Father in Heaven. So it wasn't even Peter's statement to begin with, it was revealed to him. In anycase, just for argument's sake let us assume that the rock is Peter himself and not his statement.

    A few verses later this happens:

    "From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life. Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. "Never, Lord!" he said. "This shall never happen to you!" Jesus turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men." Mathew 16:21-23

    Now which is it? Is Peter the rock? If so then he is also Satan. Jesus did not just equate Peter to Satan, He actually called Peter Satan. Because he literally became Satan possessed at that very moment because he would have had Jesus avoid the cross. No, the rock commendation can only stand if the Satan rebuke stands too. I think the Scripture is very clear on this and only tradition makes people think otherwise, traditions which Jesus says make void the Word of God.


    ZZZZZZZ,

    all the above can be refuted here,

    http://www.scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html

    I'm tired of teaching pigs how to sing, only wasting my time and it irritates the pig, if those who are protestant are open to the truth they will find it, but if their mind be already petrified then why bother. It is not our job to convince you of the truth, only to let those who hear hear and those who do not want to hear, not hear, thats what the disciples job was, going from place to place and letting people hear the truth, those who were obstinate they then remembered the words of Jesus which was as they left the town to shake the dust from their sandals, which is what I'm doing now, after all if your looking for the truth you'll e-mail John and debate with him, not me, for I know nothing and consider John more intelligent in that area. :)

    here are more debates for you relating to the authority of the Church.

    http://www.scripturecatholic.com/church_qa.html

    if after reading it soul winner and discussing it with John and you still are not satisfied and remain incredulous in your thinkin, then it can be said that "We played the pipes for you and you wouldn't dance; we sang sad songs and you wouldn't cry." Matthew 11:17

    God bless and good night
    Stephen

    ( I have no idea why my writing is still in bold ):confused:


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    ZZZZZZZ,

    all the above can be refuted here,

    http://www.scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html

    I'm tired of teaching pigs how to sing, only wasting my time and it irritates the pig, if those who are protestant are open to the truth they will find it, but if their mind be already petrified then why bother. It is not our job to convince you of the truth, only to let those who hear hear and those who do not want to hear, not hear, thats what the disciples job was, going from place to place and letting people hear the truth, those who were obstinate they then remembered the words of Jesus which was as they left the town to shake the dust from their sandals, which is what I'm doing now, after all if your looking for the truth you'll e-mail John and debate with him, not me, afterall, I know nothing. :)

    here are more debates for you relating to the authority of the Church.

    http://www.scripturecatholic.com/church_qa.html

    after reading it soul winner and discussing it with John and still arent satisfied and remain incredulous in your thinkin, then it can be said that "We played the pipes for you and you wouldn't dance; we sang sad songs and you wouldn't cry." Matthew 11:17

    God bless and good night
    Stephen

    ( I have no idea why my writing is still in bold ):confused:

    Now that's a great idea, link me to someone who thinks the same as you to support your argument. How constructive is that? Look just read the scripture and draw your conclusion based on it, not on what someone else wants you to believe it says. If God had left the building of the church up to Peter and the apostles at Jerusalem then that documentary would be titled: "A history of that obscure splinter sect off Judaism called Christianity that nobody ever heard of." Goodnight God bless etc etc..


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,114 ✭✭✭Stephentlig


    Now that's a great idea, link me to someone who thinks the same as you to support your argument. How constructive is that? Look just read the scripture and draw your conclusion based on it, not on what someone else wants you to believe it says. If God had left the building of the church up to Peter and the apostles at Jerusalem then that documentary would be titled: "A history of that obscure splinter sect off Judaism called Christianity that nobody ever heard of." Goodnight God bless etc etc..

    well Soul winner if the following verse told me that the Bible was the pillar and bulwark of the truth then I'd be proclaiming it from the rooftops and be protestant, but unfortuntatley for you and your Bible alone theological buddies it says quite the opposite.

    "If I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth."

    here is Johns website, www.scripturecatholic.com go on ahead and e-mail him if you looking for the truth, his exegesis is a fine one and one that comes from the church. should you reply to me now I wont respond, this post thus ends our correspondance.

    God bless soul winner,

    Stephen <3


  • Registered Users Posts: 626 ✭✭✭chozometroid


    ZZZZZZZ,

    all the above can be refuted here,

    http://www.scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html

    I'm tired of teaching pigs how to sing, only wasting my time and it irritates the pig, if those who are protestant are open to the truth they will find it, but if their mind be already petrified then why bother. It is not our job to convince you of the truth, only to let those who hear hear and those who do not want to hear, not hear,
    Do you realize how you sound? Protestants can say the exact same thing you said, with the addition of "read the Bible and see what it actually says" instead of "listen to what the Catholic Church says cuz they're right."

    I guess you wouldn't be tired of "teaching" if we weren't pigs, eh? The only one who isn't a pig is one who believes the same thing as you?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    I'm sure Christians can discuss things in this forum without referring to each other as pigs.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,114 ✭✭✭Stephentlig


    my statement was meant as one leaning to a symbolic nature, who here can teach a pig how to sing? i'll give that man a dollar!!!

    my apologies if that caused offence and was taken the wrong way.

    yours in Christ

    Stephen


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Now that's a great idea, link me to someone who thinks the same as you to support your argument. How constructive is that?

    Actually that is exactly how academic argument works! You CITE other people to support your argument.
    Look just read the scripture and draw your conclusion based on it, not on what someone else wants you to believe it says.

    so if you believe the Bible says the Earth is 6,000 years old then you are correct? Or should you look for something to inform your interpretation?

    Do you really reject the Early church fathers as all being wrong?
    You do know practically the entire New Testament can be recovered from Early church fathers writings?

    And what did Christians do for the first 400 or so years of Christianity when they had no actual written Bible to read? Mind you most probably couldn't read anyway. But the point is they didn't have a Bible to "draw their own conclusions" they relied on the early church fathers and others to maintain the unwritten tradition.
    If God had left the building of the church up to Peter and the apostles at Jerusalem then that documentary would be titled: "A history of that obscure splinter sect off Judaism called Christianity that nobody ever heard of." Goodnight God bless etc etc..

    In fact this is basically what Mc Cullogh says at the very end of the series! He quotes a Dominican friar I think who told him at Aquinas had said people who think God is the answer are wrong, God is the question. He refers to the ability of Christianity to adapt and to question as central to a world religion in order to explain how and obscure Jewish splinter sect grew and thrived.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    ISAW wrote: »
    And what did Christians do for the first 400 or so years of Christianity when they had no actual written Bible to read? Mind you most probably couldn't read anyway. But the point is they didn't have a Bible to "draw their own conclusions" they relied on the early church fathers and others to maintain the unwritten tradition.

    They had the Jewish Scriptures (our Old Testament). Also, after the first 20 years or so, they has an increasing number of Epistles. Certainly, within 100 years, all the books that make up our New Testament were widely circulated and viewed by many churches as Scripture.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    well Soul winner if the following verse told me that the Bible was the pillar and bulwark of the truth then I'd be proclaiming it from the rooftops and be protestant, but unfortuntatley for you and your Bible alone theological buddies it says quite the opposite.

    "If I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth."

    here is Johns website, www.scripturecatholic.com go on ahead and e-mail him if you looking for the truth, his exegesis is a fine one and one that comes from the church. should you reply to me now I wont respond, this post thus ends our correspondance.

    God bless soul winner,

    Stephen <3

    Hey NEWS flash: We are the Church. A people who belong to the Lord. The word is eclesia (ec-le-sia) out-called-ones. I'm not arguing with John, I'm arguing with you. I want to hear your arguments not John's. Tell me what you think. If you're too insecure to do that then I suggest you stop posting in this forum altogether. Popping in and out and referring to people who don't view reality the way you do as pigs is a tad immature and close minded. If you want to quote John then go ahead and quote him, tell me what he says and why you agree with it, don't just post a link and expect me to argue with that. I want what's in your mind not John's. Thank you.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    ISAW wrote: »
    Actually that is exactly how academic argument works! You CITE other people to support your argument.

    Yes please cite them. Support your citation with your own reasons for believing it. Plus it is even better to cite a source from the opposing camp whose official statement(s) happen to support your position rather than citing somebody who is already indoctrinated with the same doctrine as you, like what Moonsharp did in another thread when he quoted the Pope's official statement in support of the theory of evolution.

    ISAW wrote: »
    so if you believe the Bible says the Earth is 6,000 years old then you are correct? Or should you look for something to inform your interpretation?

    Where does the Bible say that the earth is 6000 years old?
    ISAW wrote: »
    Do you really reject the Early church fathers as all being wrong?

    Wrong about what exactly? Did I say that they were wrong about something?
    ISAW wrote: »
    You do know practically the entire New Testament can be recovered from Early church fathers writings?

    Yes I did know that, all except 11 verses. What's your point?
    ISAW wrote: »
    And what did Christians do for the first 400 or so years of Christianity when they had no actual written Bible to read?

    They read letters from the apostles and the Old Testament.
    ISAW wrote: »
    Mind you most probably couldn't read anyway.

    Most of them could and for those who couldn't books and letters were read out to them.
    ISAW wrote: »
    But the point is they didn't have a Bible to "draw their own conclusions" they relied on the early church fathers and others to maintain the unwritten tradition.

    Yes I know that but I still don't get your point?

    ISAW wrote: »
    In fact this is basically what Mc Cullogh says at the very end of the series! He quotes a Dominican friar I think who told him at Aquinas had said people who think God is the answer are wrong, God is the question. He refers to the ability of Christianity to adapt and to question as central to a world religion in order to explain how and obscure Jewish splinter sect grew and thrived.

    Like I said, rose tinted glasses. If he had done any kind of real research into the subject he would have concluded that Christians believe that God is the only answer, and that there is no other. Jesus Christ was His answer to the world and you either accept that or you don't. There is no other Christianity. That is either absolutely true or it is absolutely false.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    I'm not arguing with John, I'm arguing with you. I want to hear your arguments not John's. Tell me what you think. If you're too insecure to do that then I suggest you stop posting in this forum altogether. Popping in and out and referring to people who don't view reality the way you do as pigs is a tad immature and close minded. If you want to quote John then go ahead and quote him, tell me what he says and why you agree with it, don't just post a link and expect me to argue with that. I want what's in your mind not John's. Thank you.


    I agree.


    These guidelines from another forum might be helpful for Stephen to consider applying to his own approach. The problem might not be that we are close minded or unteachable as he suggests (although I fail to see how someone could magic the doctrine of the RC Church = the Church from the paltry amount of scripture posited to support that notion). The problem might be that we can't be convinced by a non-presented argument. Nor by an argument ad sola weblinkum

    1. Points should be supported with evidence and/or reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions.
    2. Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided. Make the argument in your own words and use links as supporting references.
    3. Avoid lengthy cut-n-pastes. Introduce the point in your own words and provide a link to your source as a reference.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    double post


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    I watched the last in the series last night (after finding myself switching off half way through the first). For some reason I'd the impression that Dr. McCullough was a Christian and was a bit baffled about his investigation into the connected but quite separate issue of Christendom (without his apparently discerning the difference between the two).

    Then he mentioned that he was a "friend of Christianity" implying that he isn't a Christian but has benevolent feelings towards it. In which case he's a lost man, blind spiritually .. and his approach is perfectly explained.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 635 ✭✭✭grrrrrrrrrr


    Is there any part of Christianity than ye would agree on?? do ye all even believe there is a god?? that would be a good starting point


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    Is there any part of Christianity than ye would agree on?? do ye all even believe there is a god?? that would be a good starting point

    Yeah, that Jesus is LORD !!! What else do we need to agree on?


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,711 ✭✭✭keano_afc


    Yeah, that Jesus is LORD !!! What else do we need to agree on?

    AMEN to that!


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,626 ✭✭✭Glenster


    he mentioned that he was a "friend of Christianity" implying that he isn't a Christian but has benevolent feelings towards it. In which case he's a lost man, blind spiritually .. and his approach is perfectly explained.

    I thought he was reasonably fair throughout the series. It's good to see a critical programme on Christianity that talks to the mainstream christians rather than focusing on the crazy fundamentalists.

    I particularly like the reverend from St. Martin in the Fields and his response to the homosexual question, he made an interesting point, one that makes a lot of the anti-gay stuff in the old testament not as relevant to the modern world.


Advertisement