ICTHUS ICTHUS ICTHUS

[Krush2k2]

ok, so you belive the Catholic Church is not the true one church founded by Jesus Christ, right? Well just answer me one question-if we put together the bible-then what stops you from beliveing in the Gospel of Phillip or all the other books that the Catholic church did not include for the bible? If we arent the true church, then your bible is false, right? How do you explain that?

[amarkich]

I think he has answered this before. It goes something like this: God willed that the books of the Bible would be revealed to men, so he revealed them in such a way that all Christians could look to the same books and know that they are the Bible...something along those lines. The argument I just presented has plenty of holes in it, but they do a decent job of covering up most of them.

[Krush2k2]

how come the men willed were Catholic if that isnt even the true church of God? eh? heh it does have a hole, come back home Icthus!

[Broccolifish]

[quote name='amarkich' date='Nov 29 2004, 04:40 PM'] I think he has answered this before. It goes something like this: God willed that the books of the Bible would be revealed to men, so he revealed them in such a way that all Christians could look to the same books and know that they are the Bible...something along those lines. The argument I just presented has plenty of holes in it, but they do a decent job of covering up most of them. [/quote]
Who are "they"? What are the holes?

[quote]how come the men willed were Catholic if that isnt even the true church of God? eh? heh it does have a hole, come back home Icthus![/quote]
The Bible has always been known by the Church. The Roman Catholic Church is not a true Church of Christ because it has abandoned the Gospel; but it was not always so. When the Scriptures were revealed, there was unity in the Church. After the Roman Catholic Church departed from the Faith, those who rejected her teachings (which we call heresies) came out from her as the Lutherans, Calvinists, and others.

Your statement begs the question by assuming that the men who received the Scriptures would accept the church we call the Roman Catholic Church today; Protestants would argue that men like James, Peter, and Paul would not even recognize the Catholic Church today. There is not a one-to-one identicate correlation between the Roman Catholic Church and the ante-nicene Church, just as there is no identicate relationship between modern day Judaism and the faith of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, and Elijah.

[Kilroy the Ninja]

[quote name='Broccolifish' date='Nov 29 2004, 05:27 PM'] Who are "they"? What are the holes?


The Bible has always been known by the Church. The Roman Catholic Church is not a true Church of Christ because it has abandoned the Gospel; but it was not always so. When the Scriptures were revealed, there was unity in the Church. After the Roman Catholic Church departed from the Faith, those who rejected her teachings (which we call heresies) came out from her as the Lutherans, Calvinists, and others.

Your statement begs the question by assuming that the men who received the Scriptures would accept the church we call the Roman Catholic Church today; Protestants would argue that men like James, Peter, and Paul would not even recognize the Catholic Church today. There is not a one-to-one identicate correlation between the Roman Catholic Church and the ante-nicene Church, just as there is no identicate relationship between modern day Judaism and the faith of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, and Elijah. [/quote]
I think you need a sign.

Welcome to Phatmass.

Please play nice.

God Bless.

[Krush2k2]

[quote name='Broccolifish' date='Nov 29 2004, 05:27 PM'] Protestants would argue that men like James, Peter, and Paul would not even recognize the Catholic Church today. [/quote]
Pish Posh. How about the fact there has been an unbroken line of succession in Popes? Elabroate-in WHAT way would they reject the Church they layed the foundation for?

[Dave]

[quote name='Broccolifish' date='Nov 29 2004, 06:27 PM'] The Bible has always been known by the Church. The Roman Catholic Church is not a true Church of Christ because it has abandoned the Gospel; but it was not always so. When the Scriptures were revealed, there was unity in the Church. After the Roman Catholic Church departed from the Faith, those who rejected her teachings (which we call heresies) came out from her as the Lutherans, Calvinists, and others.

Your statement begs the question by assuming that the men who received the Scriptures would accept the church we call the Roman Catholic Church today; Protestants would argue that men like James, Peter, and Paul would not even recognize the Catholic Church today. There is not a one-to-one identicate correlation between the Roman Catholic Church and the ante-nicene Church, just as there is no identicate relationship between modern day Judaism and the faith of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, and Elijah. [/quote]
The Bible has NOT always been known by the Church. The Church existed for several centuries before the Bible was even compiled! And note that when I say "Church" I'm referring to the Catholic Church. It's the Church Jesus Christ founded -- the one that Christ said that gates of hell would never prevail against. The Church also has never departed from the faith. What the Church teaches now it taught 2000 years ago -- no exceptions.

You'd actually be surprised at the similarities between the ante-Nicene Church and the Roman Catholic Church today, which of course are one and the same. I could think of a lot of similarities. What similarities would you like to see info on?

[ironmonk]

[quote name='Broccolifish' date='Nov 29 2004, 07:27 PM'] Who are "they"? What are the holes?


The Bible has always been known by the Church. The Roman Catholic Church is not a true Church of Christ because it has abandoned the Gospel; but it was not always so. When the Scriptures were revealed, there was unity in the Church. After the Roman Catholic Church departed from the Faith, those who rejected her teachings (which we call heresies) came out from her as the Lutherans, Calvinists, and others.

Your statement begs the question by assuming that the men who received the Scriptures would accept the church we call the Roman Catholic Church today; Protestants would argue that men like James, Peter, and Paul would not even recognize the Catholic Church today. There is not a one-to-one identicate correlation between the Roman Catholic Church and the ante-nicene Church, just as there is no identicate relationship between modern day Judaism and the faith of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, and Elijah. [/quote]
Sorry bro,

You've been told wrong.

I suggest reading the Britannica Encyclopedia on the topics of:
"Roman Catholicism"
"biblical literature" (pay close attention to the "process of canonization")
"apostolic succession"



"We are compelled to concede to the Papists that they have the Word of God, that we received it from them, and that without them we should have no knowledge of it at all."
~ Martin Luther, Commentary on St. John


I also suggest reading the first Christian writings, also known as "Early Church Fathers"

You can buy them here: [url="http://www.logos.com/products/details/518"]http://www.logos.com/products/details/518[/url] (Protestant edition)

The Early Church Fathers CD-ROM comes in two versions, Protestant and Catholic. Simply put, the difference is that the Protestant edition contains additional front matter written at a later date. There is no difference in the actual ECF text.

Kind of funny how protestants need to add to them - the additional front matter.

You can read them for free here: [url="http://www.NewAdvent.org/Fathers/"]http://www.NewAdvent.org/Fathers/[/url]


The Catholic Church of today is the same Catholic Church of 33 AD. If you say otherwise, prove it with creditable sources, mainly the Early Church Fathers or Britannica.


God Bless,
ironmonk

[God Conquers]

So you purport that the CHurch of the 5th century believed different things then the CHurch today?

I defy you to find writings by theologians anf fathers of that period that contradict Catholic teaching.

Jerome, John of Chrysostom, Augustine all believe in the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist and the primacy of the Roman Pontiff.

[Krush2k2]

heh Good Job Dave, Ironmonk and God Conquers-as for Broccolifish-what about a reply to what they wrote? Cat got your tongue?

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Nov 29 2004, 08:25 PM'] Sorry bro,

You've been told wrong.

I suggest reading the Britannica Encyclopedia on the topics of:
"Roman Catholicism"
"biblical literature" (pay close attention to the "process of canonization")
"apostolic succession"



"We are compelled to concede to the Papists that they have the Word of God, that we received it from them, and that without them we should have no knowledge of it at all."
~ Martin Luther, Commentary on St. John


I also suggest reading the first Christian writings, also known as "Early Church Fathers"

You can buy them here: [url="http://www.logos.com/products/details/518"]http://www.logos.com/products/details/518[/url] (Protestant edition)

The Early Church Fathers CD-ROM comes in two versions, Protestant and Catholic. Simply put, the difference is that the Protestant edition contains additional front matter written at a later date. There is no difference in the actual ECF text.

Kind of funny how protestants need to add to them - the additional front matter.

You can read them for free here: [url="http://www.NewAdvent.org/Fathers/"]http://www.NewAdvent.org/Fathers/[/url]


The Catholic Church of today is the same Catholic Church of 33 AD. If you say otherwise, prove it with creditable sources, mainly the Early Church Fathers or Britannica.


God Bless,
ironmonk [/quote]
Don't treat Aaron as if he is a fool, Ironmonk.

[quote]I also suggest reading the first Christian writings, also known as "Early Church Fathers"[/quote] Are you trying to be insulting? Really, that's how it comes across.

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='Krush2k2' date='Nov 29 2004, 11:18 PM'] as for Broccolifish-what about a reply to what they wrote? Cat got your tongue? [/quote]
"Cat got your tongue"

Why is this kind of rude, uncharitable remark tolerated on this website, and yet when I refuse to acknowledge the Roman Catholic Church as the 'catholic' Church, and instead apply the term "Romanism" and "Romanist" to that body, and those who follow her, my posts are deleted.

I posit that there is a double standard at Phatmass, one by which Roman Catholics actions are judged, and one by which Protestants actions are judged.

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote]"Cat got your tongue"[/quote]

Oh, Krush, this is a hate crime against Icthus! How dare you! LOL.

Icthus, you were the one claiming to be want sensative debate on another thread.

[quote]I posit that there is a double standard at Phatmass, one by which Roman Catholics actions are judged, and one by which Protestants actions are judged.[/quote]
Your posit is wrong.

1) Your slurs against Catholics (e.g. Romanist) can be found on the website, undeleted.

2) Your slurs against Protestants (e.g. "proddies", "prots") can also be found on the website, undeleted.

3) To compare the phrase "Cat got your tongue" to your constant use of religious slurs is laughable.

[ICTHUS]

Actually, it's a hate crime against Aaron (Broccolifish), who is my friend.

[quote]Your posit is wrong. 

1)  Your slurs against Catholics (e.g. Romanist) can be found on the website, undeleted.

2)  Your slurs against Protestants (e.g. "proddies", "prots") can also be found on the website, undeleted.

3)  To compare the phrase "Cat got your tongue" to your constant use of religious slurs is laughable.[/quote] As far as I've seen, none of my 'slurs' remain on this site, having been edited.

In addition, what would you have me call you? Certainly not the Catholic Church, for you are not, having abandoned the Gospel.

Edited December 1, 2004 by ICTHUS

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='Krush2k2' date='Nov 29 2004, 04:30 PM'] ok, so you belive the Catholic Church is not the true one church founded by Jesus Christ, right? Well just answer me one question-if we put together the bible-then what stops you from beliveing in the Gospel of Phillip or all the other books that the Catholic church did not include for the bible? If we arent the true church, then your bible is false, right? How do you explain that? [/quote]
I would probably adopt the books which there has never been any doubt as to the canonicty of, of course - the ones in the Bible today.

[peach_cube]

Dude, you can't say that there was no doubt about the canonicty of all the books included in the bible. I know you know better.

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Dec 1 2004, 07:31 PM']As far as I've seen, none of my 'slurs' remain on this site, having been edited.[/quote]

OK. Thanks to the magic of the phorum search, I found ~2 pages full of posts with the terms Romanist and Romanism.

A hsitory of your slurs (bolds are mine):

Beginning with your slurs against Protestants:
[b]Topic: Ccc Paragraph 841 (re Muslims)[/b]
[quote name='ICTHUS' date=' Aug 12, 2003']I will never compromise with the Mohammedans, just like I wont compromise with the [b]Prottys[/b]. Ill join the SSPX if I have to.[/quote]

Then, there's your slurs against Catholics:
[b]Topic: A Critique Of Non-calvinist Soteriologies[/b]
[quote name='ICTHUS' date=' Jul 18 2004']No doubt, [b]Romanists [/b]would like to throw the Letter to the Romans out of their canon, though, since it contradicts so many of their beliefs[/quote]

Then, you apologized:
[b]Topic: For The Record, An Apology[/b]
[quote name='ICTHUS' date=' Jul 18 2004']Alright. To be honest, I could be a little nicer to you guys. I'm sorry for all the references to 'Romanists' and 'Romanism' - I realize that those terms were originally concocted by the Reformers and that Roman Catholics find them highly offensive, and that they are unnecessary. So, for the record, this is me saying I'm sorry and that I'm going to stop using those terms.[/quote]

One month later...
[b]Topic: Clarification For The Proposal To Icthus[/b]
[quote name='ICTHUS' date=' Aug 19 2004']I think it's just that the [b]Romanists [/b]want to keep the Truth supressed by their wickedness (Romans 1) by preventing non-Catholics from communicating.[/quote]

A few weeks later, you repeat that you should stop using the slurs for the sake of charity:
[b]Topic: Justification[/b]
[quote name='ICTHUS' date=' Sep 9, 2004']I regard them [note: Eastern Rite Catholics] as Roman Catholics because they submit to the Bishop of Rome. 'Romanist' is a derogatory word used by the Reformers that many Roman Catholics find offensive, and I really should stop using for the sake of charity because it is wholly unnecessary.[/quote]

A few weeks more, and the term reappears in your vocabulary.
[b]Topic: Hymn To The Pope [/b]
[quote name='ICTHUS' date=' Sep 30, 2004']You [b]Romanists [/b]always amaze me. You think that anything with a touch of attitude is a refutation. Your [b]Romish [/b]religion disgusts me.[/quote]

[b]Topic: The Catholic Church: The Church that Christ Founded[/b]
[quote name='ICTHUS' date=' Nov 23, 2004']"If I recall correctly, it was you [b]Papists [/b]who organized your 'crusade' to CGR, and you have been trying (in vain, might I add) to spread the doctrinal disease of your [b]Romanism [/b]to a great bunch of bible-believing Christians. So I might retort the same thing."[/quote]

Protty...Romanist...Papist...Romanism...Romish...

What value do these terms have? They just make you into a "resounding gong or a clashing cymbal."

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Dec 1 2004, 07:31 PM']In addition, what would you have me call you? Certainly not the Catholic Church, for you are not, having abandoned the Gospel.[/quote]

I am not a Catholic Church. I am a Catholic Christian. And I have not abandoned the Gospel.

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Dec 1 2004, 07:33 PM'] I would probably adopt the books which there has never been any doubt as to the canonicty of, of course - the ones in the Bible today. [/quote]
Interesting criterion.

So I guess you'd be throwing out Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, the 2 John, 3 John, Jude, and Apocalypse/Revelation?

Maybe you'd also throw out the end of the Gospel of Mark (16:9-20)?

There's a bit more that has been the subject of dispute, so your Bible might be getting a bit lighter...

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm"]Canon of the New Testament (New Advent link)[/url]

[Krush2k2]

When I said cat got your tongue, its just a phrase used to hurry a reply, not an insult to anyone. Also Icthus, with respects-if you adopt the bible books compiled by a church that hasnt changed, what makes u not adopt the church that put it together?

[ironmonk]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Dec 1 2004, 07:20 PM'] Don't treat Aaron as if he is a fool, Ironmonk.

[/quote]
Why do you think he's a fool?

Not reading the Early Church Fathers writings does not make someone a fool. Maybe he was never shown the writings. It might not be his fault that he doesn't know that they all are Catholic.


[quote] Are you trying to be insulting? Really, that's how it comes across.[/quote]

It's obvious that he hasn't read them... just as you have failed to.



God Bless,
ironmonk

Edited December 6, 2004 by ironmonk