[Tj3]

Right, Jesus and the Apostles didn't found a denomination. They founded the Catholic Church.

That is a claim, but not one supported by either history or, more importantly, scripture.

A thread was recently opened in order to provide you ample opportunity to substantiate your assertion that the Catholic Church was founded in the fourth century by Constantine.

The thread quickly degenerated and was closed.

Now the only "evidence" you adduced in support of this claim--a claim that is well outside the mainstream of historical scholarship on early Christianity, be it secular, Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox--was a snippet from Newman which it was clearly demonstrated you had misunderstood.

If you feel that this is outside of historical scholarship, with all due respect, you should spend more time checking out what historical scholars are saying. This is one of your most common defense - just state it and therefore it must be accepted as true.

Second, another one of your common approaches is to simply tell the person that they are wrong. Again, not compelling. It is you who claims that your denomination was founded by Jesus - we should find evidence of that clearly in scripture, but we find nothing.

[sndbay]

Joe,
Thanks much for your clarification and your idea about founder and foundation.
I think of it this way as divine and human.
Jesus the divine founder and foundation Peter the human foundation.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

John 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

The Truth as it is written:

Eph 2:19-22Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner [stone];
In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

1 Thess 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received [it] not [as] the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

(This account written in scripture of man includes Peter)

Peter represents his love for God..

[sndbay]

Question?

Luke 24:26 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?

The Gospel.. Christ ... His Glory... The Church that is the House of God which is the habitation of God through the Spirit.

Note the Keys:
Luke 24:7 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

Luke 24:44 And he said unto them, These [are] the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.



Note Peter said: To "Him" give all the prophets witness, that through "His Name" whosoever believeth in "Him" shall receive remission of sins. (Acts 10:43)

[sndbay]

Luke 7:28 For I say unto you, Among those that are born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist: but he that is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.

Paul was know as least of the prophets


Those that are sanctify in Truth, in The Word, are not of this world.
John 17:16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

~In Christ.. His Way

[Akoue]

If you feel that this is outside of historical scholarship, with all due respect, you should spend more time checking out what historical scholars are saying. This is one of your most common defense - just state it and therefore it must be accepted as true.

Here are just a few of the most widely respected historians who don't endorse your claim:

Arnaldo Momigliano, Peter Brown, W.H.C. Friend, Manlio Simonetti, Jaroslav Pelikan, Henry Chadwick, R.M. Grant, Hans von Campenhausen, T.D. Barnes, Heinrich Dorries.

If you look them up, you'll find that these are indeed eminent historians. You can even read their work for yourself.

You've been asked dozens of times to provide the names of historians whom you have found to advance the claim that the Catholic Church began in the fourth century. The only people I know of who make this claim are fundamentalist revisionists, none of whom are well-respected scholars or academics, but writers of popular pulp. You claim to be in the know here, and that I am not, so please, simply provide a few names of eminent historians who share your view.

[Tj3]

Here are just a few of the most widely respected historians who don't endorse your claim:

Arnaldo Momigliano, Peter Brown, W.H.C. Friend, Manlio Simonetti, Jaroslav Pelikan, Henry Chadwick, R.M. Grant, Hans von Campenhausen, T.D. Barnes, Heinrich Dorries.

If you look them up, you'll find that these are indeed eminent historians. You can even read their work for yourself.

Ho hum - do you want to play a numbers game? You claimed that belief in the historical and Biblical position is "...a claim that is well outside the mainstream of historical scholarship on early Christianity, be it secular, Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox".

You've been asked dozens of times to provide the names of historians whom you have found to advance the claim that the Catholic Church began in the fourth century. The only people I know of who make this claim are fundamentalist revisionists,

This is the problem. It is the same problem that occurs in every discussion that we have. Any scholar or source which disagrees with you, you automatically place demeaning labels on this, sight unseen. You even reject what one of your own cardinals stated. If I listed hundreds of the finest scholars, you would simply label them accordingly. So why should I waste my time further if there is no serious intent to consider the facts?

But I note that once again you distract from YOUR claim that YOUR denomination was founded by Jesus and the Apostles. If true, that should be found explicitly stated in scripture. The onus is not on me to prove what you claim is not true - the onus is on you to prove that it is.

[JoeT777]

That's funny I don't ever remember Tj3 supporting any of his wild historical or Scriptural claims.


JT

[Tj3]

That’s funny I don’t ever remember Tj3 supporting any of his wild historical or Scriptural claims.

Memory issues? :D

[Akoue]

You even reject what one of your own cardinals stated.

No, I very clearly explained how you had misunderstood what Newman was saying.

As it stands, you have provided the name of not one single reputable historian to back up your claim. If you are going to insist on making assertions that you know many find demeaning to their faith, you really ought at the very least to be prepared to substantiate those claims. Given the topic of this thread, there was no earthly reason for you to once again trot out your unsubstantiated revisionist historical claim about the origins of the Catholic Church. You did so, as you so often have, in order to advance your agenda of presenting the Catholic Church as a man-made institution that is at odds with Scripture. You are, in other words, being polemical--and, I'm sure, self-consciously so. I am well within in my rights to ask you to substantiate your polemicisms. So far, you have offered nothing but a misreading of a few lines of Newman.

Notice that I'm not even asking you to present the case for your claim. I no longer believe that you are able to do so. So just provide the names of those historians who share your view. I'll be happy to evaluate them on my own time.

[Akoue]

That’s funny I don’t ever remember Tj3 supporting any of his wild historical or Scriptural claims.


JT

That's because Tom thinks that quotation is the same thing as substantiation. How else are we to explain his trotting out a quote from Newman--which he obviously misunderstood--to "substantiate" his claim?

[Tj3]

No, I very clearly explained how you had misunderstood what Newman was saying.

No, you claimed that it meant the opposite of what he said. Even most Catholics that I have spoken with understood immediately what he was saying. But you are one of the rare persons who thinks that he said the opposite.

Akoue, when I see you take anything seriously which disagree with you, maybe I'll put more effort into it. But I honestly don't care about even trying because you clearly will not consider anything other than that which agrees with you.

Now, as I said the onus is actually on you, and putting up a smokescreen does not change that reality. You have yet to show that your denomination was founded by Jesus. That is what started this, and you still have failed to validate the claim.

[Akoue]

[QUOTE=Tj3;1603441]No, you claimed that it meant the opposite of what he said. Even most Catholics that I have spoken with understood immediately what he was saying.
[QUOTE]

And I'm supposed to what, take your word for it? You never hesitate to accuse others of mendacity (in fact, you recently suggested that Wondergirl was lying about her profession, of all things). It's been my experience that people who readily suspect mandacity in others do so because they are themselves frequent perpetrators of it.

Akoue, when I see you take anyting seriously which disagree with you, maybe I'll put more effort into it. But I honestly don't care about even trying because you clearly will not consider anything other than wthat which agrees with you.

Now, as I said the onus is actually on you, and putting up a smokescreen does not change that reality. You have yet to show that your denomination was founded by Jesus. That is what started this, and you still have failed to validate the claim.

Funny, I've had lots of really pleasant exchanges right here at AMHD with people with whom I disagree. But I notice that, once again, you're talking about me instead of posting those names.

As for the "onus": This thread is about Peter. Fred has repeatedly asked you to stay on topic and you have refused, reverting once again to specious historical claims, claims which you have been asked many times, by many posters (so it's not just me) to substantiate. When a little pressure is put on you you begin the passive-aggressive silliness. It's pretty transparent, and it gives many of us a good laugh. And yet for all that, you still haven't managed to come through with any historical evidence for your claim. Shoot, you haven't even come through with a few names of reputable historians who share your view. That doesn't leave your claim on a very firm footing.

[Tj3]

And I'm supposed to what, take your word for it? You never hesitate to accuse others of mendacity (in fact, you recently suggested that Wondergirl was lying about her profession, of all things). It's been my experience that people who readily suspect mandacity in others do so because they are themselves frequent perpetrators of it.

Ah, so now we plan to take this personal, I see.

Akoue, because of the fact that you have never seriously discussed anything that I have posted that disagrees with you, I really do not care what your judgment is of anything. If you would take the time to consider the relative merits of the facts, then your opinion would carry weight.

[Akoue]

never seriously discussed anything that I have posted

Still more hyperbole.

Good night, Tom.

[Tj3]

Still more hyperbole.

Good night, Tom.

It is truth, Akoue, truth. I think that it would be great if it were possible to have a serious discussion with you, but I doubt that it will ever happen.

[Alty]

It is truth, Akoue, truth. I think that it would be great if it were possible to have a serious discussion with you, but I doubt that it will ever happen.

Tom, it takes two to discuss.

[Tj3]

Tom, it takes two to discuss.

Ah, coming on here to snipe now!

[Alty]

Ah, coming on here to snipe now!

Nope, pointing out the obvious.

[Tj3]

Nope, pointing out the obvious.

Why don't you discuss the topic or are you only on here to snipe at me?

[Akoue]

It is truth, Akoue, truth. I think that it would be great if it were possible to have a serious discussion with you, but I doubt that it will ever happen.

This might actually carry a little bit of weight if I hadn't already seen you say the same thing hundreds of times to dozens of people. It is a veritable Tomism. That's quite the persecution complex you're working on, Tom.