GCM Home | Bible Search | Rules | Donate | Bookstore | RSS | Facebook | Twitter

Author Topic: The Anti-Catholic Bible (and other myths)  (Read 28049 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Elvisman

  • Guest
The Anti-Catholic Bible (and other myths)
« on: March 02, 2012, 10:46:29 AM »
Loraine Boettner was an anti-Catholic Protestant Theologian who lived in the 20th century.
His book, “Roman Catholicism
« Last Edit: March 02, 2012, 11:00:27 AM by Elvisman »

Christian Forums and Message Board

The Anti-Catholic Bible (and other myths)
« on: March 02, 2012, 10:46:29 AM »

Offline AVZ

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2165
  • Manna: 59
    • View Profile
Re: The Anti-Catholic Bible (and other myths)
« Reply #1 on: March 02, 2012, 01:07:47 PM »
Loraine Boettner was an anti-Catholic Protestant Theologian who lived in the 20th century.
His book, “Roman Catholicism

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: The Anti-Catholic Bible (and other myths)
« Reply #1 on: March 02, 2012, 01:07:47 PM »

Elvisman

  • Guest
Re: The Anti-Catholic Bible (and other myths)
« Reply #2 on: March 02, 2012, 01:18:24 PM »

I have a few Bibles. "Roman Catholicism" isn't one of them. Your fantasies are getting the better of you.
But then again it doesn't make a difference. In your opinion anyone on this board who does not agree with what you say is an anti-Catholic anyway.

This thread clearly is a provocation with the only goal to engage in a similarly provocative exchange of unpleasantries.
Perhaps some day when you are done feeling sorry for yourself and have worked your way out of 'Protestant oppression' you can make an attempt to start a useful and educative thread?

Wisdom and peace to you

Actually - you're mistaken.  If somebody disagrees with the Catholic position - that's just fine with me.
It is only when thay invent or perpetuate existing falsehoods about the Church when I refer to them as "anti-Catholic".

If you don't want to become Catholic - don't.  However, don't invent lies about the Church to support your case.
I know many non-Catholic Christians who are NOT anti-Catholic.  Unfortunately, I also know many who ARE.

As for the purpose of this thread - it is merely an attempt to understand the mindset of the anti-Catholic.  If I can PROVE to the anti-Catholic that a certain falsehood is, well - false - then perhaps they will stop perpetuating it and we can come to a deeper mutual understanding.

I think the reason this thread offends you so is pretty obvious . . .

Offline mclees8

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3071
  • Manna: 108
    • View Profile
Re: The Anti-Catholic Bible (and other myths)
« Reply #3 on: March 02, 2012, 10:40:32 PM »
Loraine Boettner was an anti-Catholic Protestant Theologian who lived in the 20th century.
His book, “Roman Catholicism
« Last Edit: March 03, 2012, 08:03:57 AM by mclees8 »

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: The Anti-Catholic Bible (and other myths)
« Reply #3 on: March 02, 2012, 10:40:32 PM »

Elvisman

  • Guest
Re: The Anti-Catholic Bible (and other myths)
« Reply #4 on: March 03, 2012, 08:40:30 AM »
You reaaly concider your self an expert on truth and false hoods about the catholic Chruch

So you say the fourth century is wrong about the origion of the Catholic church. You are going to say that the papacy started with Peter. But there are certain differnce as to the posture of the church duing the time of Peter. So we need to clarify just what these differences were and when did the changes take place.

The difference are strikng. First the apostles were authority but common and not exalted above the church which is all who beleived Jesus was Lord. When we go throught the book of acts we will see several cases that back this up. We do not see them flaunting their authority or ambition for power and position. Not at all like what we see portrayed as the church today under papal rule. So what century did the the bishops put on royal robes and tall hats and take on a religious political posture flaunting their authority as vicars of Christ over the congregation and the empire. What century did popes first sit on thones surrounded with grandeur

Surely some one who calims to have all the right answers could answer this.

No, Mclees - you don't get off that easy.

YOU have made the statement that the Catholic Church didn't come about until AD 325.
This is a falsehood that YOU have perpetuated - so the onus is on YOU to prove it. 

This PRECISELY the kind of unsubstantiated rubbish that this thread is all about and PRECISELY why people like you and AVZ are so offended by it.  Because educated Catholics like myself won't let you get away with it any longer. 

PROVE your ridiculous statement that the Catholic Church didn't come about until the year 325 with REAL history - not your inane opnions.

To ALL my anti-Catholic friends on this forum who spread this sort of drivel - the party's over . . .

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: The Anti-Catholic Bible (and other myths)
« Reply #4 on: March 03, 2012, 08:40:30 AM »



Offline mclees8

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3071
  • Manna: 108
    • View Profile
Re: The Anti-Catholic Bible (and other myths)
« Reply #5 on: March 03, 2012, 11:29:47 AM »
You reaaly concider your self an expert on truth and false hoods about the catholic Chruch

So you say the fourth century is wrong about the origion of the Catholic church. You are going to say that the papacy started with Peter. But there are certain differnce as to the posture of the church duing the time of Peter. So we need to clarify just what these differences were and when did the changes take place.

The difference are strikng. First the apostles were authority but common and not exalted above the church which is all who beleived Jesus was Lord. When we go throught the book of acts we will see several cases that back this up. We do not see them flaunting their authority or ambition for power and position. Not at all like what we see portrayed as the church today under papal rule. So what century did the the bishops put on royal robes and tall hats and take on a religious political posture flaunting their authority as vicars of Christ over the congregation and the empire. What century did popes first sit on thones surrounded with grandeur

Surely some one who calims to have all the right answers could answer this.

No, Mclees - you don't get off that easy.

YOU have made the statement that the Catholic Church didn't come about until AD 325.
This is a falsehood that YOU have perpetuated - so the onus is on YOU to prove it.  

This PRECISELY the kind of unsubstantiated rubbish that this thread is all about and PRECISELY why people like you and AVZ are so offended by it.  Because educated Catholics like myself won't let you get away with it any longer.  

PROVE your ridiculous statement that the Catholic Church didn't come about until the year 325 with REAL history - not your inane opnions.

To ALL my anti-Catholic friends on this forum who spread this sort of drivel - the party's over . . .


No! the onus is on you. You are the smart guy here. There is a history, which you think of youself some expert. There is a time when the church took on a new posture that bolsted authority and put on fancy hats and robes which is show for ones office. This was done for a reason so it has a history. A place and time  of origion. Tell us now when where and why did they do it?  It shouldn,t be that hard for one as smart as you.

Offline AVZ

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2165
  • Manna: 59
    • View Profile
Re: The Anti-Catholic Bible (and other myths)
« Reply #6 on: March 03, 2012, 11:52:22 AM »
I know many non-Catholic Christians who are NOT anti-Catholic.  

What's your definition of a non-Catholic Christian?

Elvisman

  • Guest
Re: The Anti-Catholic Bible (and other myths)
« Reply #7 on: March 03, 2012, 12:19:57 PM »

No! the onus is on you. You are the smart guy here. There is a history, which you think of youself some expert. There is a time when the church took on a new posture that bolsted authority and put on fancy hats and robes which is show for ones office. This was done for a reason so it has a history. A place and time  of origion. Tell us now when where and why did they do it?  It shouldn,t be that hard for one as smart as you.

WRONG.
I've already given the quotes from the Early Church that it was called the CATHOLIC CHURCH by the end of the First Century.

Ignatius of Antioch
"Follow your bishop, every one of you, as obediently as Jesus Christ followed the Father. Obey your clergy too as you would the apostles; give your deacons the same reverence that you would to a command of God. Make sure that no step affecting the Church is ever taken by anyone without the bishop’s sanction. The sole Eucharist you should consider valid is one that is celebrated by the bishop himself, or by some person authorized by him. Where the bishop is to be seen, there let all his people be; just as, wherever Jesus Christ is present, there is the Catholic Church." (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 107]).


You're not going to derail this conversation.
YOUR claim was that the Church didn't begin untilo AD 325.
PROVE it.

Elvisman

  • Guest
Re: The Anti-Catholic Bible (and other myths)
« Reply #8 on: March 03, 2012, 12:23:18 PM »

What's your definition of a non-Catholic Christian?

Every Christian who is not in FULL Communion with Christ's Catholic Church.
A Christian, by definition is one who has been Baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Offline Josiah

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1871
  • Manna: 80
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: The Anti-Catholic Bible (and other myths)
« Reply #9 on: March 03, 2012, 02:47:01 PM »
Loraine Boettner was an anti-Catholic Protestant Theologian who lived in the 20th century.
His book, “Roman Catholicism

Offline Josiah

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1871
  • Manna: 80
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: The Anti-Catholic Bible (and other myths)
« Reply #10 on: March 03, 2012, 02:55:57 PM »

I've already given the quotes from the Early Church that it was called the CATHOLIC CHURCH by the end of the First Century.

Ignatius of Antioch
"Follow your bishop, every one of you, as obediently as Jesus Christ followed the Father. Obey your clergy too as you would the apostles; give your deacons the same reverence that you would to a command of God. Make sure that no step affecting the Church is ever taken by anyone without the bishop’s sanction. The sole Eucharist you should consider valid is one that is celebrated by the bishop himself, or by some person authorized by him. Where the bishop is to be seen, there let all his people be; just as, wherever Jesus Christ is present, there is the catholic church." (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 107]).





Yup.  The word "catholic" was/is a common, popular ADJECTIVE meaning "whole" "universal"  "entire."   Yes, this is the first reference we have to it being applied to the church (the assembly of PEOPLE), ergo to BELIEVERS.   But it is beyond silly and well into the laughably absurd to argue that ERGO, the RC Denomination existed at this time and he is referring to that specific intracongregational denomination.  Absurd.   Let's say I write that my Toyota is awesome.   Then, in 2311, Toyota introduces a new sports car with the official/legal moniker of The Toyota Awesome.   By your "logic" here, you'd post "Hey, Josiah owned an Awesome way back in 2012!"   Do you see how absurd your thinking is?   

By the way, in the first century, people were also using the ADJECTIVE "orthodox" to refer to the corpus of believers.  So, if the EOC was as illogical and silly as you, they'd quote those and say, "Ah, the Greek Orthodox Church existed then!"  (Ignoring the difference between adjectives and nouns).

BTW, Elvis, it's a grammatical mistake to capitalize adjectives.   And it's misleading to quote the father as capitalizing two words when he did not, he in no way indicated that a denomination existed then - much less YOURS by the legal moniker in which it is now incorporated around the word.   It's misleading.  It's grammatically wrong.  It's disrespectful to this church father.




.

Elvisman

  • Guest
Re: The Anti-Catholic Bible (and other myths)
« Reply #11 on: March 03, 2012, 05:39:00 PM »

I've never heard of this supposed person or this book....  But it is not uncommon to affirm that no denomination existed before the 4th century. Any.  Still existed or otherwise.  To suggest that all that affirm that there was no single denomination for the Roman Empire before that is not "proof" that someone is merely copy/pasting from some supposed book.   That's just silly.   And baseless.

I don't know if this man or book even exists, much less that what you say is in it is "bogus."  But when I post that the RC Denomination's DOGMA (1551) of Transubstantiation originated in the 10th century, was debated but eventually was affirm in the 13th and made dogma in the 16th, I'm not quoting from any book, I'm just repeating what every single one of my Catholic teachers taught us.   CATHOLIC.  TEACHERS.  Not this man or some book I've never heard of...   If you want to teach that what the RCC proclaimed at Trent was declared in those exact terms as Dogma in 31 AD, okay, but that doesn't make one a copy/paster of some book I've never heard  of.
We already had a thread about "anti"   You revealed yourself to be FAR more "anti" than anyone else here.   How ironic for YOU (of all people) to complain about being "anti!"   If you want to go over that again (and you'd be embarrassed to do so), I'll give my opinion of you and your church - and see if you will say more or less about me and my church, ergo which is more "anti."  Want to repeat that?   I'm sure you don't.   It just reveals, YOU are the "anti" one.   

I don't know where you copy/paste stuff from (I occasionally recognize a typical CatholicAnswers kind of absurdity, the usual CA anti-Protestantism).   It no more makes it right than posting from Jack Click does.  And your refusal to document anything you say only confirms you don't care if it's true or not - only if it seems to be pro-RCC.   

The fact that you have never heard of these anti-Catholic authors is even more pathetic.  These are the very sources you and others glean your falsehoods from and you don't even know where it's coming from.

This is PRECISELY why I always remind you that you left the Catholic Church out of ignorance - because you DID.

As for your finger-pointing about who is more "anti" - the only thing I have been "anti" about on this forum is lies and liars.  If you have to make up lies to buttress your phony positions about the Catholic Church - then you are a liar.
If you merely disagree with Catholic positions - then more power to you.  I hope you find what you're looking for. 

Unfortunately, FAR too many of you resort to falsehoods - even if you don't know WHERE they came from . . .

Offline AVZ

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2165
  • Manna: 59
    • View Profile
Re: The Anti-Catholic Bible (and other myths)
« Reply #12 on: March 03, 2012, 07:54:06 PM »

What's your definition of a non-Catholic Christian?

Every Christian who is not in FULL Communion with Christ's Catholic Church.
A Christian, by definition is one who has been Baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

How can someone who is not part of the body of Christ, and has no part in the salvation of this body be called a Christian?
Adolf Hitler was baptized, yet do we consider him a Christian?
« Last Edit: March 03, 2012, 11:02:36 PM by AVZ »

Amo

  • Guest
Re: The Anti-Catholic Bible (and other myths)
« Reply #13 on: March 04, 2012, 06:11:23 AM »
Quote
How can someone who is not part of the body of Christ, and has no part in the salvation of this body be called a Christian? Adolf Hitler was baptized, yet do we consider him a Christian?

Interesting question.  Hitler had a few things in common with Rome.

The Virtual Jewish History Tour
Rome
By Rebecca Weiner


During the Reformation, in 1555, Pope Paul IV decreed that all Jews must be segregated into their own quarters (ghettos), and they were forbidden to leave their home during the night, were banned from all but the most strenuous occupations and had to wear a distinctive badge — a yellow hat. More than 4,700 Jews lived in the seven-acre Roman Jewish ghetto that was built in the Travestere section of the city (which still remains a Jewish neighborhood to this day) If any Jews wanted to rent houses or businesses outside the ghetto boundaries, permission was needed from the Cardinal Vicar. Jews could not own any property outside the ghetto. They were not allowed to study in higher education institutions or become lawyers, pharmacists, painters, politicians, notaries or architects. Jewish doctors were only allowed to treat Jewish patients. Jews were forced to pay an annual stipend to pay the salaries of the Catholic officials who supervised the Ghetto Finance Administration and the Jewish Community Organization; a stipend to pay for Christian missionaries who proselytized to the Jews and a yearly sum to the Cloister of the Converted. In return, the state helped with welfare work, but gave no money toward education or caring for the sick. These anti-Jewish laws were similar to those imposed by Nazi Germany on the Jews during World War II.

During the Reformation, talmudic literature as a whole was banned in Rome. On Rosh Hashana 1553, the Talmud and other Hebrew books were burned. Raids of the ghetto were common, and were conducted to insure that Jews did not own any "forbidden" books (any other literature besides the Bible and liturgy). It was forbidden to sing psalms or dirges when escorting the dead to their burial place. Every Saturday, a number of Jews were forced to leave the ghetto and listen to sermons delivered in local churches. Also, whenever a new Pope was ordained, the Jews presented him with a Torah scroll. Jews continued to live in the ghetto for almost 300 years.

JewishEncyclopedia.com

Persecution under Pope Paul IV.
Under Paul IV. (1555-59) the Jews were subjected to further oppression. By his direction they were deprived of valuable franchises, enclosed within the ghetto, subjected to further taxation, limited in their commerce to old clothing, prohibited from practising any art other than medicine, and this not among the Christians, and forbidden the use of their calendar. As a means of satisfying his feeling of hatred against the Spaniards, Paul IV. practised cruelty toward the Portuguese Jews; he sent an inhuman commissioner, a certain Cesare Galuaba, to Ancona with orders to incarcerate all who did not accept baptism and to condemn them to the stake. Thus terrorized, sixty-three renounced their faith. Twenty-three men and one woman, whose names have been handed down in chronicles, preferred death to apostasy, and these were all hanged together and afterward burnt on the Piazza della Mostra ("Shalshelet ha-?abbalah" of Gedaliah ibn Ya?ya, and local records). (Compare D. Kaufmann, "Les Vingt-quatres Martyrs d'Ancona," in "Rev. Ét. Juives," xxxi. 222-230.) Thoroughly alarmed, many of the Jews fled. Prayers for the dead are still said, and the elegy composed by Jacob de Zano is still recited annually in the synagogues for these martyrs.

Online Ladonia

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1869
  • Manna: 117
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: The Anti-Catholic Bible (and other myths)
« Reply #14 on: March 04, 2012, 10:27:32 AM »
Avz. No doubt about it, the ant-semitsm of the Catholic Church in times past was an abomination. I could never understand it, our founder being a Jew himself. But, this has all been addressed and apologies have been made. Lets us go forward in true harmony and mutual respect.