Don't sell those Rosary beeds?

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

There's no untruths, you have mentioned three different times. That very accusation is an untruth itself. Basically your reasoning is very muddled, I am trying to summarize and work my way through so I can understand it, but it's impossible. I get the impression you are unable to treat this subject with objectivity because you have a chip on your shoulder about the RC Church. I have been there myself. But I'd like to think at this age of my life I wouldn't hold grudges.

I have explained, in language so plain that even a brain-damaged sheep could understand, that Roman Catholicism has developed over time and that setting a date for its beginning depends on whether you are referring to the time when it first claimed to be the Catholic (Universal) Church (Leo's reign beginning in 440) or its full blown manifestation complete with all its extrabiblical doctrines as they stand today (the 19th Century). I have also, in this and in another thread, stated that the roots of the whole problem can be traced back to Constantine in 314, meaning that any reference to Roman Catholicism before that time is hopelessly anachronistic.

At no time have I changed my mind on this, nor have I made any statements that would be inconsistent with this view.

I don't know if you are genuinely incapable of grasping fairly simple concepts, or whether you are deliberately being pathetic and misrepresenting me. In the words of Augustine, "Let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable".

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

I have explained, in language so plain that even a brain-damaged sheep could understand, that Roman Catholicism has developed over time and that setting a date for its beginning depends on whether you are referring to the time when it first claimed to be the Catholic (Universal) Church (Leo's reign beginning in 440) or its full blown manifestation complete with all its extrabiblical doctrines as they stand today (the 19th Century). I have also, in this and in another thread, stated that the roots of the whole problem can be traced back to Constantine in 314, meaning that any reference to Roman Catholicism before that time is hopelessly anachronistic.

At no time have I changed my mind on this, nor have I made any statements that would be inconsistent with this view.

I don't know if you are genuinely incapable of grasping fairly simple concepts, or whether you are deliberately being pathetic and misrepresenting me. In the words of Augustine, "Let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable".

I am fairly good at grasping simple concepts but a lot of your reasoning was convoluted. If your latest insult at me is similar to how you treat people who question your Church preaching, I can only draw two conclusions:
1. These people don't question.
2. Anybody who does question just moves on.

Unlike Augustine's quote, both options are possible.

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I am fairly good at grasping simple concepts but a lot of your reasoning was convoluted. If your latest insult at me is similar to how you treat people who question your Church preaching, I can only draw two conclusions:
1. These people don't question.
2. Anybody who does question just moves on.

Unlike Augustine's quote, both options are possible.

Plenty of question and answer times happen at our church, but generally those who ask questions display some knowledge, or a willingness to learn, concerning the subject at hand.

I am really interested by this, Tim. I have clearly stated that an organisation can develop over a period of time, and that you might date the organisation's starting point as being:
a) When the primary interests and motivations of the organisation begin to become prominent, even if the organisation itself has not taken shape (embryonic stage).
b) When the organisation begans to become recognisable as a distinct structure (infancy stage).
c) When the organisation assumes its present shape and form (adult stage).

You can apply this model to any organisation or historical movement (eg communism, Nazism, the Salvation Army etc). It would seem to me to be a fairly basic idea for anyone seeking to understand sociological or historical developments, and hardly convoluted by any stretch of the imagination.

Are you genuinely claiming that this is too confusing for you? Or are you (as I suspect) just taking the mickey?

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

Plenty of question and answer times happen at our church, but generally those who ask questions display some knowledge, or a willingness to learn, concerning the subject at hand.

I am really interested by this, Tim. I have clearly stated that an organisation can develop over a period of time, and that you might date the organisation's starting point as being:
a) When the primary interests and motivations of the organisation begin to become prominent, even if the organisation itself has not taken shape (embryonic stage).
b) When the organisation begans to become recognisable as a distinct structure (infancy stage).
c) When the organisation assumes its present shape and form (adult stage).

You can apply this model to any organisation or historical movement (eg communism, Nazism, the Salvation Army etc). It would seem to me to be a fairly basic idea for anyone seeking to understand sociological or historical developments, and hardly convoluted by any stretch of the imagination.

Are you genuinely claiming that this is too confusing for you? Or are you (as I suspect) just taking the mickey?

What's making this confusing is your bias against the RC Church. I stated in previous posts when the RC church began seems a matter of theological interpretation or dispute. Rather than agreeing with this, you take the long way around, equivocate and instead of sticking to the subject at hand objectively, seem all to keen to use this thread as an opportunity for more RC mud slinging - describing when the "rot" set in etc.
If you are not slagging that off you are slagging me off. None of this is necessary or helpful in the discussion.

It seems my summary in post 59 seems reasonable and beyond that of a retarded sheep. You have differing views of when the RC Church began, depending on what is meant by RC Church.
But as you say, all organisations have an organic nature, and so if one takes that approach one can decided whenever one wants when an organisation began. I think in your case, you are using this convenient maxim and letting your anti-RC bias to dictate history to you.

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

What's making this confusing is your bias against the RC Church. I stated in previous posts when the RC church began seems a matter of theological interpretation or dispute. Rather than agreeing with this, you take the long way around, equivocate and instead of sticking to the subject at hand objectively, seem all to keen to use this thread as an opportunity for more RC mud slinging - describing when the "rot" set in etc.
If you are not slagging that off you are slagging me off. None of this is necessary or helpful in the discussion.

So you find things confusing when another poster has a bias for or against something? Well, you might wish every debate to be carried on in totally value-free terminology, indeed you may even imagine that you yourself never betray any bias in your posts, but I freely admit that I am biased. An organisation that has tortured and killed its enemies over the years claims to be the sole representative on earth of one who taught His followers to turn the other cheek and forgive their enemies. Yes, I have a bias against such a claim. I also have a bias against the Inquisition, the Crusades, witchhunts, antisemitism, and other crimes against humanity.

As for your claim that it is a matter of theological interpretation or dispute when the Catholic Church began, that is true in the same sense that it was a matter of theological interpretation or dispute in Galileo's day whether the sun revolved around the earth or not. Of course Galileo was correct because his observations were based on science, not theology. In the same way, history clearly demonstrates that the Roman Catholic Church did not exist at the time when Christians developed the Canon of Scripture.

But as you say, all organisations have an organic nature, and so if one takes that approach one can decided whenever one wants when an organisation began.

You complain about me slagging you off but then you make statements like this that virtually invite a slagging. Of course you can't decide for yourself when an organisation began. For example, it would be the utmost nonsense to claim that the Salvation Army began in 55BC.

What I have stated is that, depending on your criteria, you can date the beginning of an organisation to its embryonic stage, to its infancy, or to its mature expression.

So, for example, you could say that the Salvation Army had its origins in the many evangelical organisations that carried out charitable work in the East End of London in the early 19th Century. You could also legitimately claim that the Salvation Army began in 1865 when William Booth began a movement called The Christian Mission. You could also point to 1878 when the Christian Mission was reorganised using military terminology and uniforms and rebranded itself as the Salvation Army. However, only a complete moron would claim that the Salvation Army began in, say 1520. Even if the Salvation Army tried to make such a claim, we would be entitled to point out that historians agree that claim to be nonsense. Only someone who is wilfully ignorant would try to stifle debate by claiming that the Salvation Army's false claim was a matter of theological interpretation or dispute.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote:

In the same way, history clearly demonstrates that the Roman Catholic Church did not exist at the time when Christians developed the Canon of Scripture.

There's a difference between developed and finalised. I am not talking about developing I am talking about the finalisation of it.

Here is the historical fact.
The earliest historical reference of the 27 books forming canon is
Athanasius' Easter letter 367. This list was ratified in Rome 382.
There is no earlier historical reference of the 27 books and only the 27 books being Canon. We don't have any historical references of the 27 books and only the 27 as Canon before that.

Yes or No, do you accept that?

PDN wrote: »

Only someone who is wilfully ignorant would try to stifle debate by claiming that the Salvation Army's false claim was a matter of theological interpretation or dispute.

I am not going to fall for analogy. let's leave them out.

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

There's a difference between developed and finalised. I am not talking about developing I am talking about the finalisation of it.

Here is the historical fact.
The earliest historical reference of the 27 books forming canon is
Athanasius' Easter letter 367. This list was ratified in Rome 382.
There is no earlier historical reference of the 27 books and only the 27 books being Canon. We don't have any historical references of the 27 books and only the 27 as Canon before that.

Yes or No, do you accept that?

OK, so you want to talk only about the finalisation of the canon of the New Testament, but you want to refer to Roman Catholicism during its development rather than its finalisation? A tad inconsistent of you, but let's humour you.

Yes, a letter by Athanasius of Alexandria is the oldest surviving list of New Testament books that coincides exactly with our modern New Testament canon.

Now I look forward to you demonstrating how a guy who claimed to be the Pope of Alexandria was actually acting on behalf of an organisation that claims that there was only Popes in Rome. This should be fun.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

OK, so you want to talk only about the finalisation of the canon of the New Testament, but you want to refer to Roman Catholicism during its development rather than its finalisation? A tad inconsistent of you, but let's humour you.

Yes, a letter by Athanasius of Alexandria is the oldest surviving list of New Testament books that coincides exactly with our modern New Testament canon.

I have always been referring to the finalisation of Canon. Nothing new there.
What is new is an admission on your part that there earliest evidence we have of the finalisation is Athanasius. I think you wasted a lot of time in this thread harping on and on about 1st, 2nd and 3rd century AD.

Now I look forward to you demonstrating how a guy who claimed to be the Pope of Alexandria was actually acting on behalf of an organisation that claims that there was only Popes in Rome. This should be fun.

Yes I may have to admit error in all this.
The first list of NT Canon was by the Pope of the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria. However Athanasius was / is revered a saint in the RC Church. I am going to have admit the limits of my knowledge now. I am not sure of the exact nature of the relationship between Athanasisus and the RC Church.