Christian snowflake or Christian under constant threat - it’s Merry Christmas people!

[Aim64C]

You know, one thing that cult members and conspiracy theorists have in common is that their bias is so strong that even if you present a detailed rebuttal to the claim they make, they'll dismiss you as a "tool" or a "useful idiot", or with catchphrases like "there's a difference between intellectual and intelligent", and they'll genuinely think that your points have been thoroughly debunked. It is painfully obvious that this is exactly the case with you as well.

What is ironic is that you do not understand you are part of a cult.

Who knows, it may be true that the causes of JFK's murder will be discovered soon and that it will result in the clear exposition of the demonic roots of the Roman Catholic Church, but what if that's not too soon? What if I die before that, and end up in the fires of Gehenna that, as you say, are already waiting for me? If you are a Christian you ought to be concerned with the salvation of each of your lost brothers and sisters. With me, it would be easy stuff: I just need to hear arguments that are stronger than mine and than the virtual entirety of contemporary scholarship's. You still haven't bothered producing any.

And that is how your fate is sealed. To you, it is important that people know what to believe. To me, it is important that they understand there is a debate. To those who believe in an objective reality, it will evident itself and the issue will be sorted. To those who believe reality is incumbent on a system of accrediting, then it is important that all who question the incumbency be slandered.

You've largely ignored my argument that the early Church was extremely attentive to preserve doctrinal orthodoxy, and merely reiterated that there were huge doctrinal diversities within it. I have clarified how heretical movements were not parts of the Church but were cut off once their heretical teachings got discovered, and as far as I can see, no response was given to this.

Because the point was never actually made, and doesn't need a rebuttal. You arbitrarily label a branch of the church 'heretics' and then proceed to associate the apostles, who were persecuted by Rome, with the church as it was incarnated within the officialdom of the Roman Empire.

Moreover, there's a difference between doctrine and custom. For example, the Serbian Orthodox have a custom called "slava", which means that each family has some kind of a "guardian saint", that Greek Orthodox and Russian Orthodox do not follow. Yet, these three are all perfectly Orthodox and there's zero dispute about it.

*yawn*

You then start rehearsing the old pagan polemic that the Roman Empire collapsed because the State and the Church became more assimilated together. This is just as false as it is irrelevant. The truth of a religion has as much to do with its history as it claims to. The historical claims of Christianity are obviously that Jesus Christ died and rose from the dead, but also that: "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (Matt. 16:18-19, KJV).

*yawn*

Ecclesia

You must be registered for see links

Spoiler

It is significant that this is the first occurrence of the word Church (Ecclesia) in the New Testament, the only passage but one (Matthew 18:17) in which it is found in the whole cycle of our Lord’s recorded teaching. Its use was every way significant. Partly, doubtless, it came with the associations which it had in the Greek of the Old Testament, as used for the “assembly” or “congregation” of the Lord (Deuteronomy 18:16; Deuteronomy 23:1; Psalm 26:12); but partly also, as soon at least as the word came in its Greek form before Greek readers, it would bring with it the associations of Greek politics. The Ecclesia was the assembly of free citizens, to which belonged judicial and legislative power, and from which aliens and slaves were alike excluded. The mere use of the term was accordingly a momentous step in the education of the disciples. They had been looking for a kingdom with the King, as its visible Head, sitting on an earthly throne. They were told that it was to be realised in a society, an assembly, like those which in earthly polities we call popular or democratic. He, the King, claimed that society as His own. He was its real Head and Founder; but, outwardly, it was to be what the word which He now chose described. And this Church He was about to build. It need hardly be said that the word ecclesia did not lend itself so readily as the English equivalent does to the idea of building. The society and the fabric in which the members of the society meet were not then, as they are now, described by the same term. The similitude was bolder than it seems to us. Like the “city set on a hill” of Matthew 5:14, like the “vine” of John 15:1, it may well have been suggested by the scenery in the midst of which the words were uttered. For there upon one rock rose the ruins of the old Canaanite city of Hazor; and on another the stately palace built by the Herodian princes, and still, as the Castle of Shubeibeh, covering an extent of ground equal to that occupied by the Castle of Heidelberg (Stanley’s Sinai and Palestine, c. 11). Once started on its way, the similitude became the fruitful source of new thoughts and phrases. The ecclesia was the “house of God” (1Timothy 3:15); it was a “holy temple” (Ephesians 2:21). All gifts were bestowed for the work of “edifying” or building it up (1Corinthians 14:3-4; Ephesians 4:12). Those who laboured in that work were as “wise architects or master builders” (1Corinthians 3:10). But Christ, we must remember, claims the work of building as His own. Whatever others may do, He is the supreme Master-builder. As in His sacerdotal character, He is at once Priest and Victim, so under the aspect now presented (consistency of metaphors giving way to the necessities of spiritual truth) He is at once the Founder and the Foundation of the new society.

Then, when I argued that it is only the Church Catholic that can trace its lineage back to the Apostles, all you've been able to say in response was this:

Frankly, I find it hard to express the extent to which this is grasping at straws. If you try to escape the consequences of my claim that the Church Fathers I quoted did in fact learn their things from the Apostles themselves by invoking a smokescreen of skepticism and advance the hypothesis that history has somehow been hijacked by Catholics, then why trust history at all? After all, one can do the same and cover his ears to pretty much any scientific or historical data he's presented with, and then respond: "you say so only because you're being manipulated by propaganda". But since you yourself tried to appeal to history to discredit the Church Catholic, your argument is simply self refuting.

It has more to do with the fact I really don't care to get into a deep theological argument that ultimately boils down to an issue of faith or allegiance. For those, such as yourself, that are fiercely allied to the Catholic Church as an icon of what the Church really is - there is going to be almost no convincing you, while your attitude does a very good job of warding people off from giving much credibility to your arguments in the first place. You rely almost exclusively on the research of the Catholic Church and its own heavily policed doctrine to reinforce your claims - something most people from outside the Catholic church instinctively recognize.

Thus, my mission is accomplished simply by proposing the idea that one should be wary of trusting the Catholic Church to tie itself to a history it was largely responsible for selectively purging records from and also maintains a repository of an unknown number of ancient texts held as privileged information. It is rather suspect to most rational people, and as such, my argument will always make more sense.

You're not going to question your allegiance to the church doctrine with anything I have to say or am going to spend the effort to say - so, the truth will evident itself as time goes on.

Finally, you say that if you are a conspiracy theorist, so were Jesus and the Prophets. That's patently false, none of them needed to recur to historical revisionism to support their stances. As a matter of fact, you do.

It's not called historical revisionism when the holes in Islam's claims of historical authenticity in its doctrine are challenged.

But it's suddenly historical revisionism when things like archeology are used to question the Catholic claim to being the true Church. Remind me again who is part of the cult.

That's cute, pot shots used to handwave arguments away. Neither the Church Fathers nor Catholics use Mary as an idol. Actually, an Arabian sect used to worship Mary, and they got harshly rebuked by the Church. Obviously, Catholics, Orthodox and all the "Apostolic" Christian churches have a strong veneration to Mary, but that's in no way idolatry. As for the Early Church's stance on the issue, here's Irenaeus back for you: " That the Lord then was manifestly coming to His own things, and was sustaining them by means of that creation which is supported by Himself, and was making a recapitulation of that disobedience which had occurred in connection with a tree, through the obedience which was [exhibited by Himself when He hung] upon a tree, [the effects] also of that deception being done away with, by which that virgin Eve, who was already espoused to a man, was unhappily misled — was happily announced, through means of the truth [spoken] by the angel to the Virgin Mary, who was [also espoused] to a man. For just as the former was led astray by the word of an angel, so that she fled from God when she had transgressed His word; so did the latter, by an angelic communication, receive the glad tidings that she should sustain (portaret) God, being obedient to His word. And if the former did disobey God, yet the latter was persuaded to be obedient to God, in order that the Virgin Mary might become the patroness (advocata) of the virgin Eve. And thus, as the human race fell into bondage to death by means of a virgin, so is it rescued by a virgin." (Adversus Heresies).

Jesus spoke at great length about the importance of his mother. He also spoke at great length about how humanity was condemned from birth and that we were all fucked because of Eve.

I seem to recall Peter rambling on about the same. The point is that it's a rather curious doctrine that is clearly a later development within the church establishment. The importance of the Virgin birth of Jesus became a much greater priority in the debates among theologians as the divinity of Jesus became a major question. Or, rather - whether or not the Messiah was divine, or simply an emissary of the divine in a sort of 'super prophet' role.

It's far more convenient to use the economic model of the cross with spreading Christianity - the idea that a god died for your sins - than it is to convey the more nuanced salvation of the Jews from their heinous theocratic structure of rule and how that can apply to every people. So, make Jesus God and focus on the whole crucified but innocent part.

Also, Christianity was estabilished as the Empire's official religion in 381 with the Emperor Theodosius, the people I quoted lived in the first two centuries, and joyfully accepted martyrdom for their faith. I guess they'd be happy to hear that you call them idolaters.

I'm sure they have much more important concerns on their minds than what I think of the statements you attribute to them in the context and meaning in which you do. They are, clearly, strangers to conflicting opinions and arguments related to theology and would gladly throw "I died for this belief" out as a way to try and make me feel bad about questioning the accuracy of their belief. They are big boys. We can all sit down and have a discussion about who really said what and what they meant by it after this world has passed behind us, and it is highly unlikely any of them will be butt-hurt because a person thousands of years in the future questions the context and conclusions their words are being used to support.