[RickJ]

I don't agree with any of your suppositions. They are not what either Christ or his apostles spoke about.

I just don't find it in what "the church" was thinking or doing in those early days.

... so again, we'll just have to agree to disagree :)

[Fr_Chuck]

No actually it is your issue with words and not wanting to accept that what is the catholic church today came from the original group started by Christ, lead latter by Peter and continued by all the Popes.

But yes schism, if there was no schism there would be no other denominations today. Since if all were still in communion there would still be only one church.

So since there was only ONE church, if anyone started a new church it indeed would have been in schism with the main church since being in union was part of it.

[Tj3]

No actually it is your issue with words and not wanting to accept that what is the catholic church today came from the original group started by Christ, lead latter by Peter and continued by all the Popes.

I did not say that it did not come from the original group. The majority of denominations came from the original group, but since there was no denomination in the 1st century, no denomination IS the original group.

Second, there is no evidence in the Bible of Peter being the leader nor is there evidence of a pope in the 1st century. That is why I reject those points.

So since there was only ONE church, if anyone started a new church it indeed would have been in schism with the main church since being in union was part of it.

Scripture and history does not indicate that there was a single church organization. There was one true church but that is the body of Christ. In the Bible we see that there were unbelievers in the organized churches, which means that the organized churches are not the body of Christ, but may contain members who are also members of the body of Christ.

So when we see references to one church, we cannot assume that is speak of a church organization because we know that was not the case.

[Akoue]

Can you tell me any other church that Eusebius and newman might be speaking of other than the Roman catholic Church?

Christianity, which had just been given legal recognition by the Roman Empire.

Did not Constantine live in the 4th century?

Yes.

Was Constantine not the Pontif of the pagan Roman religion?

What do you mean by "Pontiff"?

What was the "new religion" that Newman speaks of?

Chrisianity, which had just been given legal recognition by the Roman Empire.

Ponder those questions for a bit.

Thanks, I'm good.

So where is all this historical evidence that the Catholic Church began in the fourth century? So far you haven't introduced any.

[Tj3]

Christianity, which had just been given legal recognition by the Roman Empire.

Yes, of course they had, once Constantine decided the it was useful to him.

What do you mean by "Pontiff"?

Look it up. It is not like there are a lot of definitions of "pontiff" relative to this context.

Chrisianity, which had just been given legal recognition by the Roman Empire.

Actually, it was Constantine's version of Christianity - changed as indicated by Newman.

So where is all this historical evidence that the Catholic Church began in the fourth century? So far you haven't introduced any.

Exactly the response that I expected. I have just established that One of your best known and best respected denominational Cardinals says that Constantine started a new religion, and Constantine lived in the 4th century.

[JoeT777]

Entire volumes have been written on that subject...
One thing you might find helpful is reading the works of the early Christian writers. Here's a nice list that you can read online and/or print.
CHURCH FATHERS: Home

Yes, this is a excellent source – I use it often and would recommend it to everybody.

Thanks,


JoeT

[Akoue]

Yes, of course they had, once Constantine decided the it was useful to him.

Okay, so Constantine converted to Christianity and gave it legal recognition because it was useful to him. That doesn't come close to demonstrating that he started the Catholic Church.

Look it up. It is not like there are a lot of definitions of "pontiff" relative to this context.

It's just not at all clear what the force of this is supposed to be. Is it your idea that the title "Pontifex Maximus" shows us that Constantine founded the Catholic Church? If so, that would be a massive non sequitur. The title "Pontifex Maximus" was used in pagan religion, and then came to be used as one of a number of titles for the bishop of Rome. Similarly, the title "Kurios" had been used for pagan Gods (esp. Apollo and Zeus) and for pagan religious leaders, and yet Christians have always used the title "Kurios" to refer to Christ. So what do you think this shows?

Actually, it was Constantine's version of Christianity - changed as indicated by Newman.

Are you going to give historical evidence that Constantine founded the Catholic Church, or are you doing Newman exigesis? Explain, if you can, how what you've said about Newman's remarks about Eusebius demonstrates that Constantine founded the Catholic Church.

Have you any historical evidence for your historical claims?

I have just established that One of your best known and best respected denominational Cardinals says that Constantine started a new religion, and Constantine lived in the 4th century.

You haven't yet established anything. All you've done is to quote a snippet of Newman. Yes, Newman was a Cardinal. And yes, he is a respected theologian (though it would be a gross exaggeration to say that he is one of the "best respected" Catholic theologians--he is a respected theologian), but he is not an especially eminent Church historian. Do you know of any eminent historians who hold the view that the Catholic Church didn't exist until the fourth century? If so, please name and quote them here.

In any event, Newman wasn't claiming that Constantinte started a new religion. That is a rather dramatic misreading of his very simple point, which is that Constantine replaced the "old" pagan religion of the Roman Empire with the "new" religion of Christianity. This is what Newman is talking about, and this is why he refers to Eusebius--because this is what Eusebius was talking about as well. Neither Newman nor Eusebius is making the claim that Constantine began a new religion: It was new in the sense that Christianity supplanted the old pagan religion of the empire. Surely you can tell that from even a casual perusal of the text.

So again, I'll ask you to present historicall evidence for your claim. The musings of a nineteenth century English bishop don't by any stretch of the imagination constitute historical evidence--even if those musings could reasonably taken to imply what you have suggested. But, of course, they don't imply that; you are misrepresenting Newman. So maybe you want to leave the Newman exigesis to one side and bring something relevant to bear on the topic. You have yet to do so, though I'm sure it won't be difficult for you, since you claim to have an enormous wealth of evidence in store for us.

[Tj3]

Okay, so Constantine converted to Christianity and gave it legal recognition because it was useful to him.

I note that you added a claim - that he converted to Christianity. That is, at very best, a matter of controversy. There appears to have been as much political convenience in the supposed conversion as anything. The other claim that you made here was a premise in your argument, not mine.

That doesn't come close to demonstrating that he started the Catholic Church.

I note that in your syllogism above, you ignored everything that either I or Newman or Eusebius said and then stated a conclusion based upon that. So you post two premises, both yours, neither of which had anything to do with what I said, one not validated, and then you claim that the conclusion agrees with you.

Surprise! Can you say "circular reasoning"?

If you had no intend of even considering the facts placed before you, why bother wasting your time and time?

It's just not at all clear what the force of this is supposed to be. Is it your idea that the title "Pontifex Maximus" shows us that Constantine founded the Catholic Church? If so, that would be a massive non sequitur.

Once again, you rush to conclusion. So far there have been two logic fallacies posted in your post, two conclusions and neither based upon anything that I posted.

No wonder we cannot have any value added dialogue when you completely avoid discussing what I post. If this is the approach that you intend to take, clearly even if I had Constantine stand in front of you and tell you that he did it, you'd claim that he was senile and didn't mean what he said.

[JoeT777]

Originally Posted by Tj3
Yes, of course they had, once Constantine decided the it was useful to him.

Okay, so Constantine converted to Christianity and gave it legal recognition because it was useful to him. That doesn't come close to demonstrating that he started the Catholic Church.

I think the response to TJ here is so obvious that one normally wouldn't think of it. The contention is that there was no “Catholic Church” until Constantine was converted. Well duh! If there were no Catholics in existence what did Constantine convert to? In order to make this statement Tj would need to advance the concept that Constantine is the FOUNDER of the Catholic Church. On other sites, this argument is used by Tj to mislead those who don't know the history of the Catholic Church.

Originally Posted by Tj3
Look it up. It is not like there are a lot of definitions of "pontiff" relative to this context.

It's just not at all clear what the force of this is supposed to be. Is it your idea that the title "Pontifex Maximus" shows us that Constantine founded the Catholic Church? If so, that would be a massive non sequitur. The title "Pontifex Maximus" was used in pagan religion, and then came to be used as one of a number of titles for the bishop of Rome. Similarly, the title "Kurios" had been used for pagan Gods (esp. Apollo and Zeus) and for pagan religious leaders, and yet Christians have always used the title "Kurios" to refer to Christ. So what do you think this shows?

This has been discussed before on other threads. The underlying contention here is that the Catholic Church took on a (pagon) Latin name Pontiff (pontifex) which was also the name of the pagan high priest of the Roman Republic. But, there is also another meaning ignored, pontifex is drevied form the words 'bridge' + 'facere' or 'to make' making the word pontifex mean “bridge-builder”. This objection has to do with using the vulgar (or common) language of the day. And the Tj contention is that if you use a pagon name for your leader you must be pagon.

Originally Posted by Tj3
Actually, it was Constantine's version of Christianity - changed as indicated by Newman.

Are you going to give historical evidence that Constantine founded the Catholic Church, or are you doing Newman exigesis? Explain, if you can, how what you've said about Newman's remarks about Eusebius demonstrates that Constantine founded the Catholic Church.

Have you any historical evidence for your historical claims?

I'm not sure Tj3 understands who Eusebius or for that matter understands that Neman converted. The piece quoted is one of his pre-conversion works. I think Tj3 is forcing contextual interpretations to support his arguments.

Originally Posted by Tj3
I have just established that One of your best known and best respected denominational Cardinals says that Constantine started a new religion, and Constantine lived in the 4th century.

You haven't yet established anything. All you've done is to quote a snippet of Newman. Yes, Newman was a Cardinal. And yes, he is a respected theologian (though it would be a gross exaggeration to say that he is one of the "best respected" Catholic theologians--he is a respected theologian), but he is not an especially eminent Church historian. Do you know of any eminent historians who hold the view that the Catholic Church didn't exist until the fourth century? If so, please name and quote them here.

In any event, Newman wasn't claiming that Constantinte started a new religion. That is a rather dramatic misreading of his very simple point, which is that Constantine replaced the "old" pagan religion of the Roman Empire with the "new" religion of Christianity. This is what Newman is talking about, and this is why he refers to Eusebius--because this is what Eusebius was talking about as well. Neither Newman nor Eusebius is making the claim that Constantine began a new religion: It was new in the sense that Christianity supplanted the old pagan religion of the empire. Surely you can tell that from even a casual perusal of the text.

So again, I'll ask you to present historicall evidence for your claim. The musings of a nineteenth century English bishop don't by any stretch of the imagination constitute historical evidence--even if those musings could reasonably taken to imply what you have suggested. But, of course, they don't imply that; you are misrepresenting Newman. So maybe you want to leave the Newman exigesis to one side and bring something relevant to bear on the topic. You have yet to do so, though I'm sure it won't be difficult for you, since you claim to have an enormous wealth of evidence in store for us.

Newman exegesis? I didn't know you could do this – did Newman write a bible?

JoeT

[Akoue]

I note that you added a claim - that he converted to Christianity. That is, at very best, a matter of controversy. There appears to have been as much political convenience in the supposed conversion as anything.

Okay, so instead of "conversion" lets say "supposed conversion". Still, nothing that you've said comes within a country mile of demonstrating that Constantine founded that Catholic Church. So give some historical evidence that he did.

I note that in your syllogism above, you ignored everything that either I or Newman or Eusebius said and then stated a conclusion based upon that. If you had no intend of even considering the facts placed before you, why bother wasting your time and time?

First, I didn't provide a syllogism.

Second, I haven't ignored anything. I simply explained that what you provided is not evidence that Constantine founded the Catholic Church. Neither is it evidence that the Catholic Church originated in the fourth century. Where is this evidence you claim to have?

Once again, you rush to conclusion. So far there have been two logic fallacies posted in your post, two conclusions and neither based upon anything that I posted.

If I have, indeed, committed any *logical* (that's the term) fallacies, please point them out. I notice you are now avoiding the subject matter and instead engaging in a kind of meta-discussion. Explain how anything you have said demonstrates that the Catholic Church wad begun by Constantine in the fourth century. My only interest is in seeing the compelling evidence you claim to have. I'm not talking with you for the fun of it; I want to see your evidence.

No wonder we cannot have any value added dialogue when you completely avoid discussing what I post.

"Value added" doesn't mean what you appear to think it means.

I have addressed your posts point by point. I have discussed the claims made in your posts, demonstrating that--so far at least--they do no support your assertion that the Catholic Church was founded, or otherwise begun, by Constantine. If you'd like to stay on topic, then you might rather present your evidence rather than complaining about me. I have addressed your posts your claims in a sober and clear way. So far, what you've offered falls far short of supporting your claim. So by all means, provide some evidence that will so that we can evaluate it.

[Akoue]

I note that you added a claim - that he converted to Christianity. That is, at very best, a matter of controversy. There appears to have been as much political convenience in the supposed conversion as anything. The other claim that you made here was a premise in your argument, not mine.



I note that in your syllogism above, you ignored everything that either I or Newman or Eusebius said and then stated a conclusion based upon that. So you post two premises, both yours, neither of which had anything to do with what I said, one not validated, and then you claim that the conclusion agrees with you.

Surprise! Can you say "circular reasoning"?

If you had no intend of even considering the facts placed before you, why bother wasting your time and time?



Once again, you rush to conclusion. So far there have been two logic fallacies posted in your post, two conclusions and neither based upon anything that I posted.

No wonder we cannot have any value added dialogue when you completely avoid discussing what I post. If this is the approach that you intend to take, clearly even if I had Constantine stand in front of you and tell you that he did it, you'd claim that he was senile and didn't mean what he said.

Another edited post.

Please, explain what syllogism I constructed and how it is guilty of circularity.

I am unaware of having offered a syllogism. I merely explained why your "evidence" is not in fact evidence for your claim. But if I am mistaken, and am guilty of some form of circularity, kindly explain what that circularity is and how my post is guilty of it.

[Tj3]

Okay, so instead of "conversion" lets say "supposed conversion".

No, let's not discuss that at all. That is not something that even put forward as a premise. It is something that you put forward to distract away from what I posted.

First, I didn't provide a syllogism.

Not a good one, and not one that complied with the rules of logic, I agree.

Second, I haven't ignored anything. I simply explained that what you provided is not evidence that Constantine founded the Catholic Church.

What you examine where premises that you created and posted.

Do you actually intend to discuss the topic at hand, or just post up your own ideas and congratulate yourself on how good you can impress yourself at the quality of your argument?

Otherwise you are simply playing games and the message that I hear is that you have no interest in a serious examination of the facts.

[Akoue]

I think the response to TJ here is so obvious that one normally wouldn’t think of it. The contention is that there was no “Catholic Church” until Constantine was converted. Well duh! If there were no Catholics in existence what did Constantine convert to? In order to make this statement Tj would need to advance the concept that Constantine is the FOUNDER of the Catholic Church. On other sites, this argument is used by Tj to mislead those who don’t know the history of the Catholic Church.

Thanks for the background info. I was unaware that he has used this very specious line in other venues.

This has been discussed before on other threads. The underlying contention here is that the Catholic Church took on a (pagon) Latin name Pontiff (pontifex) which was also the name of the pagan high priest of the Roman Republic. But, there is also another meaning ignored, pontifex is drevied form the words ‘bridge’ + ‘facere’ or ‘to make’ making the word pontifex mean “bridge-builder”. This objection has to do with using the vulgar (or common) language of the day. And the Tj contention is that if you use a pagon name for your leader you must be pagon.

And that would be a curious conclusion to draw, since by that reasoning the NT is guilty of importing paganism when it refers to Christ as "Ho Kurios".

[Akoue]

No, let's not discuss that at all. That is not something that even put forward as a premise. It is something that you put forward to distract away from what I posted.



Not a good one, and not one that complied with the rules of logic, I agree.



What you examine where premises that you created and posted.

Do you actually intend to discuss the topic at hand, or just post up your own ideas and congratulate yourself on how good you can impress yourself at the quality of your argument?

Otherwise you are simply playing games and the message that I hear is that you have no interest in a serious examination of the facts.

Are you announcing with this that you do not intend to provide evidence for your thesis? If so, that is certainly your right. But then why are you still posting? This thread was begun in order to provide you ample room to present your case that the Catholic Church was founded by Constantine. So far, you have made a number of claims, but none of those claims substantiates your thesis. By all means, substantiate your thesis if you can.

Since I cannot find any syllogism, let alone any fallacy, in my posts, why don't you present what you take my syllogism to be in premise and conclusion form. That will make it much easier for you to demonstate that fallacy or fallacies of which you take me to be guilty.

[Tj3]

I think the response to TJ here is so obvious that one normally wouldn’t think of it. The contention is that there was no “Catholic Church” until Constantine was converted.

No denomination. It all depends upon what you mean by "catholic". That is a point that I addressed earlier.

Well duh! If there were no Catholics in existence what did Constantine convert to?

I don't remember any claim that Constantine converted to Catholicism. I thought that he claimed to convert to Christianity. Perhaps you cabn show us the historical record where he claimed to convert to Catholicism rather than Christianity.

In order to make this statement Tj would need to advance the concept that Constantine is the FOUNDER of the Catholic Church. On other sites, this argument is used by Tj to mislead those who don’t know the history of the Catholic Church.

Ho hum - rather than address the points, you go after the person with false accusations. Compelling I suppose to some, but I would not expect discerning folk to be taken in by such a weak approach.

This has been discussed before on other threads. The underlying contention here is that the Catholic Church took on a (pagon) Latin name Pontiff (pontifex) which was also the name of the pagan high priest of the Roman Republic. But, there is also another meaning ignored, pontifex is drevied form the words ‘bridge’ + ‘facere’ or ‘to make’ making the word pontifex mean “bridge-builder”. This objection has to do with using the vulgar (or common) language of the day. And the Tj contention is that if you use a pagon name for your leader you must be pagon.

Perhaps you'd do better at arguing your own position (if you have anything to defend your position with). You do a lousy job at presenting mine. BTW, there was only one meaning for pontiff - bridge builder. What it meant in the pagan Roman religion was "priest" - the bridge between man and God.

I’m not sure Tj3 understands who Eusebius or for that matter understands that Neman converted.

Still going after the person with nothing to defend your position?

The piece quoted is one of his pre-conversion works. I think Tj3 is forcing contextual interpretations to support his arguments.

You might want to have another look at the dates.

[Tj3]

Are you announcing with this that you do not intend to provide evidence for your thesis?

Why should I waste my time putting up more information when you won't even deal with the first points that I raised.

[Akoue]

Why should I waste my time when you won't even deal with the first points that I raised.

But that's just it, you haven't really made any points. You quoted Newman and have gestured vaguely. What do you take the quote from Newman to prove? What makes you think that the Catholic Church began in the fourth century?

You are welcome to lash out at me all you like. But lashing out is a poor substitute for substantiating a claim that you are keen to make with some frequency. You appear to be convinced that you are right. So explain why you think that. What historical evidence justifies your claim that Constantine started the Catholic Church?

[Tj3]

But that's just it, you haven't really made any points.

Ignoring them does not make them go away.

This is the same way that you deal with every discussion. If someone disagrees you distract and deny, along with demeaning personal comments. That approach says that you know that you cannot deal with the issue, so you avoid it.

You are welcome to lash out at me all you like. But lashing out is a poor substitute for substantiating a claim that you are keen to make with some frequency.

If you thought that the claim had no validity, you would not be using uch a deceptive approach to distract away from the points that were raised, and then follow-up with denial.

If you were so certain of your position, you would address the points head on.

But if you choose not to, I am under no obligation to waste my time when I have things to do, I have a life, and people who are actually interested in discussing points with respectful value-added dialogue.

[Akoue]

Ignoring them does not make them go away.

This is the same way that you deal with every discussion. If someone disagrees you distract and deny, along with demeaning personal comments. That approach says that you know that you cannot deal with the issue, so you avoid it.



If you thought that the claim had no validity, you would not be using uch a deceptive approach to distract away from the points that were raised, and then follow-up with denial.

If you were so certain of your position, you would address the points head on.

But if you choose no to, I am under no obligation to waste my time when I have things to do, and people who are actually interested in discussing point with respectful value-added dialogue.

I have addressed each of your posts, and each of the claims made in them, head-on.

It appears you have once again chosen to resort to invective. But invective isn't evidence. Your claim needs you, Tom. It's it's out there just dying a painful death. Give it some help, back it up while there's still time.

I'll touch base later to see what historical evidence you've come up with the prove that the Catholic Church was founded in the fourth century by Constantine. Take a little time away from the computer and try to put something together.

[Tj3]

I have addressed each of your posts, and each of the claims made in them, head-on.

You addressed YOUR points. I am actually surprised that you have struggled so much with the first points raised.

I'll come back later and see if you actually dare to address the points that raised.