When I asked you to use arguments to back up your claim, I used the word "arguments" for a reason: it is sound arguments that would convince me join forces with you and other anti catholic fanatics. To my great disappointment, all I got was a deluge of other unsubstantiated claims of a grotesque wingnuttery.
Clearly, the fact that you conceded my point about the position you endorse being a conspiracy theory not taken seriously anywhere in scholarly circles doesn't help.
The term "Conspiracy Theory" is a wonderful little term coined by the CIA when pushing the story of JFK's assassination and attempting to discredit any inquiry into the inconsistency of reports, contradicting evidence, etc. There's a reason I generally downgrade anyone who uses the term to "useful idiot."
As you'll find out in due time, when the full JFK file drop comes. The term, has, since, been used as a form of lazy criticism. As such, I don't really feel all that compelled to put in the effort to formulate an extensive analysis which will only be deemed a "conspiracy theory" in the end by a tool.
While it is true that there have been pseudo-Christian heretical movements since pretty much the very beginning, the claim that Christianity was a "loosely organized group" simply doesn't hold up. The Acts of the Apostles, the Epistles and the writings of the Early Church Fathers show that the Church has always been rather decisive when it was about combating heresies and defending orthodoxy. Gnosticism, modalism, manichaeism etc. have never been considered to be all branches of the same Church, but once their heresies were recognized as such, these movements were simply cut off by the Church.
And this is exactly why there is no need for me to engage in an extensive debate. You already know the details, you just like to exclude them for convenience and only bring them out when you think it's convenient.
The problem with your entire premise is that there was no centrally organized Church among the gentiles. While most of what we understand as Christianity came from the writings of the Apostle Paul, there is not much evidence that these churches were especially rigid in their practices or teachings. Evidence and experience suggests that, to the contrary, the Church became even more diverse in its customs and structure as it spread from Paul's original churches.
Christianity spread throughout the Roman empire and into the Slavic regions before the proclamation by the Roman Emperor that Christianity would be the official religion of Rome. It was only after this point that we saw more rigid structuring of the Church as part of a state function. The Church gradually began to replace governors within the Roman Empire, and many of the functions of state that were once handled by corps or individuals began being absorbed into the doctrine of the churches.
It was also around this time that the official state of Rome began to crumble and the greater state of Christendom began to emerge. Even so, the teachings of Christ were already rather spread and diverse. While Christians often get blamed for the forced conversion of many regions - this was less a function of evangelism, as many of these regions were already exposed to Christianity - but more a function of State, which had the goal of regulating the official religion into a specified structure.
Of course these groups might (and in fact did) simply launch their accusations back to the Church Catholic, and they did have their collection of apocryphal writings. What they couldn't do, however, is trace their lineage back to the Apostles. The Church Catholic could, and in fact did.
Gee, a large state-run religious sect could manage to trace its lineage back to the Apostles. Color me shocked. It would be more surprising if they couldn't either rationalize existing documents to justify their case, or manufacture such documents to establish consensus.
It should, also, come as little surprise that the more diverse Christian sects had difficulty doing so, particularly after the Roman army came through and roflstomped their towns. The persecution of Christians within Rome was not at all by accident. Many of the original churches within the Roman Empire were raided and burned by the Romans. After the Romans declared Christianity its official religion, they also went on a fun rampage through neighboring countries to burn their records, as well. It's a pattern that you'll find relatively consistent when trying to look up the who is who in the dawn of religion. The moment a state gets a hold of the religion, records start being burned.
As Ignatius of Antioch (35-108, probably a disciple of John the Apostle) puts it: "See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. […] Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. […] Whatsoever [the bishop] shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.” (St. Ignatius: Letter to the Smyrnaeans; Ch 8)
Ah, yes, but what is meant by these words when they were written?
The lens of history has a habit of adding things that were never truly there in the first place.
As Irenaeus of Lyons (130-202, student of Polycarp of Smyrna, himself a student of John the Apostle) says: "But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the churches, they [Gnostics] object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth." (Against Heresies 3.2.2; ANF p. 416)
And, of course, these traditions include using Mary as an idol.
From these quotes we learn that these Church Fathers were extremely attentive to preserve doctrinal orthodoxy, and also that they learned from their Apostolic mentors that the Church Catholic is indeed the pillar of the Faith and the real body of believers in Christ.
I'm sure they had absolutely no objections, whatsoever, to the Roman Emperor declaring Christianity the official religion and subsidizing the Church into a state institution.
More to the point, Roman Catholics believe in the Deity of Christ and His double nature, they believe in the Trinity, they believe in the Virgin Birth and wait patiently for Jesus' second coming. Perhaps they hold to some theological errors, but none of those is equal in importance as the orthodox beliefs that I listed that they follow.
Or perhaps you want to tell me that the past or present corruption in the Vatican is enough to outbalance all of this? Because that would not only be a case of theological illiteracy on your part, but also of irrational hatred of Catholicism. Not that it'd be surprising, as anger and ignorance are key elements of a conspiracy theory.
Ah, yes, and now you know what I feel toward Catholocism, as well. You enjoy projecting these things onto others. As this wears on, it's becoming more and more clear that you speak with a forked tongue.
If you read revelations, it becomes rather apparent that the Church will be co-opted into serving the devil and the masses enthralled by its splendor. I could say similar things about "music christianity" among the protestant denominations. Toned down rave parties that effectively boil down to "do as thou't will" because "wuvz." Not that God is angry and hateful - but that the entire context of what Jesus came to do has been subverted by both the Catholic Church and, now, the Protestant Church, as well.
You should actually crack open that Bible of yours. Isaiah. Ezekiel. Revelations - fun books to read. The prophets were 'conspiracy theorists' of their day. Jesus, himself, was quite the brazen one. Look up what he had to say about the Pharisee. And, so I ask, as you continue to speak with a forked tongue... how are you to avoid the fires of Gehena? To be thrown to the garbage pit and burned as refuse.
Not that I overlooked all the other absurd claims you made, but, as I said above, I'm interested in arguments, not in unsubstantiated one liners.
What I find very interesting about the difference between 'intellectuals' and, well, the truly intelligent, is that the 'intellectuals' seem to believe that it is required that their argument be accepted via any means necessary. If the individual can't be broken, then he should be publicly flogged and humiliated to dissuade others from being willing to advance similar ideas.
On the other hand, the truly intelligent can recognize reality for what it is, warn those around them about it - and then be content to let Laputians walk into trees. It is this distinction which is crucial. The 'intellectuals' are not representing reality, but their vision of a better world. As such, this 'better world' is not true reality, but a sort of prescription for the general public to be given to treat a perceived deficit. Therefor, when people choose to believe something other than the prescription, the 'treatment' will fail, and the 'better world' will collapse.
Perhaps you do it voluntarily, perhaps you are simply a tool. In either case, this is all coming to an end within our lifetimes. The beast is going to be revealed for what it is.
