catholicism the Wrong religion to be in??

ok rockpuck. i am not full of hate, if you read any of my other threads you will see that i have been communicating with some of the other members who differ in opinion with me with no offensive comebacks, just more questions to them.
i think its really funny that anytime you are wondering about something and have anything negative to say about it at all, and then ask the people to explain why it is that way, all of a sudden you are a catholic basher, and full of hate, or something like that.
ok if we stopped taking the bible literally then what we go by. maybe YOU guys SHOULD start taking it literally. thats why there is words in the bible to tell you exactly what and what not to do. maybe the people should have drew pictures, and then you can kind of guestimate what to do. the things not to do are specified. not put there to not take "literally"
im no saint, but i certainly do not bow to statues , and if i kill someone, im sure that saying 150 hail marys will not take that sin away. there is somethings that you just dont do.
anyway, no offense to you, but here is a question. why do they baptize a baby? why not give it a chance to grow up and have a mind of its own and decide for itself which religion it would like to be baptized in? even jesus wasnt baptized until he was like 30.
also it says in the bible that children are innocent and until they reach the point of knowing right and wrong, then they need to be baptized and only after they are taught in that religion by a educated person.

im out
-mindtrip02

It is a book of fables, to tell you stories on how to live your life in a good, moral, just way. If you need more then that, religion will not save you. IMO.

[edit on 7/24/2006 by Rockpuck]

On apostolic succession, I think that there are two ways of looking at it. One is that jesus was being literal when he said that peter is the rock of the church, that peter, once jesus was gone, was the leader.

I don't think that there is much support for this, no one in the early times acknowledged Peter as head, including the other apostles, as far as I know. There isn't anything indicating that they defered to him, and surely, after peter is dead, the apostles aren't going to turn to the guy that succeeds him on theological matters, no? Surely, when the apostles were alive, they supersed anyone else, even if Peter was their cheif.

Originally posted by Nygdan
On apostolic succession, I think that there are two ways of looking at it. One is that jesus was being literal when he said that peter is the rock of the church, that peter, once jesus was gone, was the leader.

Ah ha, but it this a prophesy?

Peter will be Pope, according to St Malachi, when Christ is here with his Millenium Kingdom.

Peter would then be, the Rock of his Church. NO??

Just thought I throw that out for your consideration.

Have a Good Night Nygdan

Ciao

Shane

Originally posted by Shane

Originally posted by chief_counsellor

No other Christian church can trace their history back to the time of Christ, other that the Catholic church.

I trust the Following will correct this assumption, since it clearly is not the case.

www.sundayschoolcourses.com...
As stated earlier, there are no direct early historical, or even literary references to these legends. The earliest reference of any kind may be in William Blake's famous poem, "Jerusalem", which is now a much-loved hymn in England (watch the last 10 minutes of the movie "Chariots of Fire" to hear it sung):

Just thought you may find this of interest.

Ciao

Shane

As stated in the source you cited, it is only legend, and "there is no direct early historical, or even literary references to these legends".

If you ever find God And that essence is life eternal you will not find it in mans creation his works are finite , you may find it within you if you seperate yourself from the world and clean yourself up and get rid of the mental baggage you carry.

Hey chief_counsellor

Maybe this should be reviewed a little

Some further ponderings?

Glastonbury Abbey
www.newadvent.org...
[GLESTINGABURH; called also YNISWITRIN (Isle of Glass) and AVALON (Isle of Apples)]

Benedictine monastery, Somersetshire, England, pre-eminently the centre of early Christian tradition in England. Though now thirteen miles inland from the Bristol Channel, it was anciently an island encircled by broad fens, the steep conical hill called Glastonbury Tor rising therefrom to a height of about four hundred feet. Thus, difficult of access and easy of defence, it formed a natural sanctuary round which has gradually clustered a mass of tradition, legend, and fiction so inextricably mingled with real and important facts that no power can now sift the truth from the falsehood with any certainty.

It goes on, and is quite interesting.

The first impression produced on a modern mind by William of Malmesbury's pages is that the whole is one barefaced invention, but on this point the late Professor Freeman may be quoted as an unbiased authority (Proc. of Somerset Archæological Soc., vol. XXVI): "We need not believe that the Glastonbury legends are facts; but the existence of those legends is a great fact.… The legends of the spot go back to the days of the Apostles. We are met at the very beginning with the names of St. Phillip and St. James, of their twelve disciples, with Joseph of Arimathea at their head,… we read the tale of Fagan and Deruvian; we read of Indractus and Gildas and Patrick and David and Columb and Bridget, all dwellers in or visitors to the first spot where the Gospel had shone in Britain. No fiction, no dream could have dared to set down the names of so many worthies of the earlier races of the British Islands in the Liber Vitæ of Durham or Peterborough.

And here was something that has been addressed THREE (3) times by various Councils. All coming back to the Conclusion, Glastonbury Abbey was the First Christian (NOT Catholic) Church.

GLASTONBURY ABBEY
www.ensignmessage.com...

GLASTONBURY ABBEY occupies what is believed to be the site of the first Christian Church building in the world. The original church was built of wattles, and its size was probably the same as the Tabernacle in the Wilderness.

Eusebius (A.D. 260-340), Bishop of Caesarea and the Father of Church History after the sacred Canon closed, says: "The Apostles passed beyond the Ocean to, the Isles called the Britannic Isles."

Gildas, the British historian (A.D. 516-570) says: "Meanwhile, these islands received the beams of light - that is, the Holy precepts of Christ, the true Sun - at the latter part, as we know, of the reign of Tiberius Caesar." 'As we know' seems to refer to a generally accepted knowledge.

This date would be at the latest A.D. 37, some four years after the Crucifixion.

This fits in with the decision of the Councils of Basle, Pisa and Constancethat the British Bishops took precedence of the French and Spanish because Our Church was founded immediately after the Passion of Christ.

And there are some further interesting point's I was not aware of but makes very good SENSE, reflecting upon them.

Aristobulus, the fellow worker of St Paul, was associated with Glastonbury; there is testimony from the Eastern Church that Aristobulus was the first Bishop of the Britons, and that St Paul chose him as such.

St Paul appointed Aristobulus (Rom. 16:10) one of the 70 disciples, father-in-law of St Peter, as first Bishop of Britain. St Paul chose him as such.

He also made Linus first Bishop of Rome; Linus was the son of Caractacus, the British King, who was taken prisoner to Rome. And it must have been Linus and Gladys (who changed her name to Claudia on being adopted by Claudius the Emperor) who founded the Church in Rome, as we know that neither St Peter nor St Paul did so.

When St Paul went to Rome as a prisoner he found Linus and Claudia there, both of them Christians from Britain, where they had been converted by Joseph of Arimathea. Hence the British Church is older than the Church in Rome. It is interesting to observe that Pudens, Linus and Claudia are mentioned by St Paul in his Second Epistle to Timothy (4:21), which Epistle the Apostle wrote when he was himself a prisoner in Rome and a friend of these British Christians.

I never quite considered that previously.

And this is really interesting. I thought it was best to look at this lastly.

VATICAN CONFIRMATION that JOSEPH of ARIMATHAEA (the VIRGIN's uncle) went to ENGLAND and continued the Conversion of the BRITISH.

(It had already been STARTED by Jesus - Himself).
jahtruth.co.uk...


"Britain, partly through Joseph of Arimathaea, partly through Fugatus and Damianus, was of all kingdoms FIRST TO RECEIVE THE GOSPEL." (Even before Palestine).

The antiquity of the British church had been challenged by the ambassadors of Spain and France before the Roman Catholic Council of Pisa (A.D. 1417). The British (catholic) delegates Robert Hallam, Bishop of Salisbury, Henry Chichele, a former Archbishop of Canterbury and Thomas Chillendon, won the day, the council affirmed that the British church (not the Church of England and not catholic because it was pre-catholic) was the first Christian church (community).



The VATICAN MANUSCRIPT quoted by Baronius in his "Ecclesiastical Annals A.D. 35", (the same year in which the Acts of the Apostles state that all, except the Apostles, were scattered abroad from Judaea) records that in this year Lazarus, Maria Magdalene, Martha, her handmaiden Marcella, Maximin a disciple, Joseph the Decurion (Roman Minister for Mines) of Arimathaea, against all of whom the Jewish people had special reasons for hatred, were exposed to the sea in a vessel without sails or oars. The vessel drifted finally to Marseilles, and they were saved. From Marseilles Joseph and his company passed into Britain, and after preaching the Gospel there, died (and was buried). Other sources report that there were a total of 14 people in the vessel.

This was a real good site for some review. Someone when to great lenghts to make this clear. A very dutiful Catholic Preist. (But you would need to read it.)

So, despite the suggestion you may have, I believe the Catholic Church itself does not deny this fact.

That's all I wish to note.

Have a Good evening

Ciao

Shane

I am not sure what you are proving here Shane.. that the Catholic church was not actually the first church?

Originally posted by Rockpuck
I am not sure what you are proving here Shane.. that the Catholic church was not actually the first church?

Exactly!

"Others" have expressed the Catholic Church was First, but according to the Catholic Church, they even recognize, Glastonbury Abbey was the First "CHRISTIAN CHURCH".

It predates any Christian Sects or Religions.

I am just trying to reflect some TRUTH to claims made in error by these "Others".

Ciao

Shane

From what I've read on the NewAdvent.org site, this was a Benedictine Monastary, which is in fact Catholic.

Originally posted by chief_counsellor
From what I've read on the NewAdvent.org site, this was a Benedictine Monastary, which is in fact Catholic.

Well NewAdvent seems to be ignoring the Councils findings.
And that's upto them to spin things as they wish.

I only offered the truth to the matter, and you can accept the Catholic Truths or the Spun History as you see fit. That's upto you.

At least others reviewing this will have the truth presented, and will be able to decide on this, for themselves. Rather than solely on Spun Catholic hearsay.

Ciao

Shane

Yeah, it was a Benedictine Monastary, which is in fact Catholic.

reply to post by mindtrip02


You just misunderstand the Catholic Church. Don't you call your father father ? And the Bible says no?? You just misinterprete the Bible with your mind. Images and statues help the people to pray, to think about God. Yes, we show respect to the Pope and to everyone. The Pope is the successor of Peter, the first Pope Mt16,18.

All these so called Christians and Catholics hardly read the bible themselves and rely on the church's and priests set up by the government to read the bible for them.

Almost all these church goers break Gods law in the bible everyday.

Had these people actually read the bible they will see God doesn't love everyone and Jesus wasn't sent for everyone either.
He was sent for the people of Israel who were black hebrews.
Also God clearly shows he is raciest or shows favoritism to certain race in the scriptures.

Most people still think the jews in the bible are same white jews in Israel today thinking today Jesus would have looked like and been a Khazar jew(fake white jew).
They will be in for a big surprise.

Rev 2:9: “I know your works, tribulation, and poverty (but you are rich); and I know the blasphemy of those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan.”

Rev 3:9: “Indeed I will make those of the synagogue of Satan, who say they are Jews and are not, but lie—indeed I will make them come and worship before your feet, and to know that I have loved you.”