The Pope tees off on NeoLibs

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Other major churches such as the Orthodox and Coptic churches claim similar descent from Jesus and/or the apostles. Since very little is known about the historical Jesus such claims should be regarded as religious dogma and not historical fact. My point is merely that your position of other churches having branched off from the Catholic church is inaccu ...[text shortened]... s of the early Christianity of the 1st Century AD, which is no longer practiced today by anyone.

Let me be more specific:

IF you accept the Gospels as being authentic records of Jesus' words, then Matthew 16:18 clearly states that Jesus will establish a Church with Simon Peter as its head. IF you accept that Peter became the first Bishop of Rome, then the Pope Francis has a lineage (called the "apostolic succession"😉 dating back to St. Peter and hence to Jesus.

Assuming you accept those conditions, the RCC isn't an "offshoot".

Originally posted by whodey
Being ruthless is what being in power is all about. It is what helped get them there.

That is why Jesus unequivocally said that his kingdom was not of this world, and why he distanced himself from attaining political power.

As we have seen from the past, theocracies produce some of the most oppressive governments in human history. We see it in Christianity in the past and we are seeing it today in Islam.

Did Jesus specifically state he was going to establish a Church on Earth? Yes or no?

And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Matthew 16:18

Originally posted by no1marauder
Let me be more specific:

IF you accept the Gospels as being authentic records of Jesus' words, then Matthew 16:18 clearly states that Jesus will establish a Church with Simon Peter as its head. IF you accept that Peter became the first Bishop of Rome, then the Pope Francis has a lineage (called the "apostolic succession"😉 dating back to St. Peter and hence to Jesus.

Assuming you accept those conditions, the RCC isn't an "offshoot".

With the caveat, though, that the lineage is a bit muddled during the antipope/Avignon pope era.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

And Constantine was different how?

Originally posted by no1marauder
Did Jesus specifically state he was going to establish a Church on Earth? Yes or no?

And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Matthew 16:18

Peter seemed to have the most success with evangalism.

So does this mean that Jesus specifically meant the coming Catholic church?

I doubt it.

God also set up the nation of Israel. Too bad they all turned their backs on him and later paid the price.

God is not a respecter of persons. If the Pope, or any other man, opposes him he will be dealt with accordingly. Martin Luther is a prime example. There is no doubt in my mind that God sent Martin Luther to give the Catholic church a nice swift kick in the arse. Men cannot buy their way into heaven, which the Catholic church tried to feed an Biblically ignorant populace. That is apostacy.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Did Jesus specifically state he was going to establish a Church on Earth? Yes or no?

And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Matthew 16:18

Jesus may have specifically said many things but he specifically wrote nothing whatever that has survived and there are specifically zero contemporary accounts to which we might refer for his specific statements. What we have was not only written retrospectively but written by followers of Paul and the new Christian faith in order to supply their own version of a history that has no alternative accounts by non adherents of the new faith. Whatever they had in mind when conveniently getting to write their own history, or in writing this specific quotation, it took not years but many centuries before it was pronounced as attributing such special importance to the Bishop of Rome. Curiously enough, by the time this happened Western Christianity had diverged significantly from Greek and other versions of the Christian tradition. Certainly, of the four patriarchs - the Bishops of Rome, Antioch, Alexandria and Constantinople - only one was now within the western fold.

This is an interesting aside pointing out that the title of pope was not unique to the Roman patriarch:

Historically, the title "Pope" was first adopted by Pope Heraclas, the 13th Alexandrine Archbishop (232–249 AD), three centuries before it was assumed by John I, the Roman Bishop (523–526), who ratified the Alexandrian computation of the date of Easter. Bestowing the title on Rome's Pontiff did not strip it from Alexandria's, and the Roman Catholic Church recognizes this.[1]
The full ecclesiastical title is Papa Abba, and the person bearing it stands for the devotion of all monastics, from Pentapolis in the west to Constantinople in the east, to his guidance. Within this denomination, it is the most powerful designation, for all monks in the East to voluntarily follow his spiritual authority, and it is said that it should be assumed that he is a bearer of Christ.
For the Patriarchs of Alexandria prior to the schism after the Council of Chalcedon, see List of Patriarchs of Alexandria. For the patriarchs of the Byzantine Orthodox church after the split with the Oriental Orthodox church, see List of Greek Orthodox Patriarchs of Alexandria.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Coptic_Orthodox_Popes_of_Alexandria

.... for centuries, the British isles enjoyed a Celtic Christianity which held no concept of popes or bishops or parishes, and it was from here that much of Europe was recovered for Christianity after a long period of paganism. The political intervention by which Celtic Christianity was pushed aside in the Synod of Whitby 664, to make way for the Roman version, fully equipped with its materialistic trappings, was a triumph for a political Church at the expense of a more authentic ancient religious tradition.

Originally posted by finnegan
Jesus may have specifically said many things but he specifically wrote nothing whatever that has survived and there are specifically zero contemporary accounts to which we might refer for his specific statements. What we have was not only written retrospectively but written by followers of Paul and the new Christian faith in order to supply their own versi ...[text shortened]... of Alexandria.[/quote]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Coptic_Orthodox_Popes_of_Alexandria

The weight of scholarly opinion says that Matthew was written in the 1st Century. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/matthew.html

Evidence that Peter went to Rome preached and was martyred there also predates any of the later disputes you allude to.

Originally posted by whodey
Peter seemed to have the most success with evangalism.

So does this mean that Jesus specifically meant the coming Catholic church?

I doubt it.

God also set up the nation of Israel. Too bad they all turned their backs on him and later paid the price.

God is not a respecter of persons. If the Pope, or any other man, opposes him he will be dealt ...[text shortened]... ven, which the Catholic church tried to feed an Biblically ignorant populace. That is apostacy.

God seemed to have respected the person of Simon Peter enough to declare him "the rock upon which he will build His Church".

I don't recall him mentioning Martin Luther, however.

Originally posted by finnegan
.... for centuries, the British isles enjoyed a Celtic Christianity which held no concept of popes or bishops or parishes, and it was from here that much of Europe was recovered for Christianity after a long period of paganism. The political intervention by which Celtic Christianity was pushed aside in the Synod of Whitby 664, to make way for the Roman ve ...[text shortened]... a triumph for a political Church at the expense of a more authentic ancient religious tradition.

"more authentic ancient religious tradition."

According to whom?

Originally posted by finnegan
.... for centuries, the British isles enjoyed a Celtic Christianity which held no concept of popes or bishops or parishes, and it was from here that much of Europe was recovered for Christianity after a long period of paganism. The political intervention by which Celtic Christianity was pushed aside in the Synod of Whitby 664, to make way for the Roman ve ...[text shortened]... a triumph for a political Church at the expense of a more authentic ancient religious tradition.

Romans Christianized Gaul and Britain in the first few centuries CE.

St Patrick Christianized Ireland, casting the Druidic snakes out, in the name of Rome and the Pope, in the fifth century.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11554a.htm

When Germain commissioned by the Holy See proceeded to Britain to combat the erroneous teachings of Pelagius, he chose Patrick to be one of his missionary companions and thus it was his privilege to be associated with the representative of Rome in the triumphs that ensued over heresy and Paganism

And of course the pagan English annexed most of Britain also in the fifth century, before Pope (and Saint) Gregory the Great started the process of Christianizing them in 596.

Which centuries did you have in mind where the "Celtic Church" Christianized pagan Europe?

Originally posted by no1marauder
God seemed to have respected the person of Simon Peter enough to declare him "the rock upon which he will build His Church".

I don't recall him mentioning Martin Luther, however.

Well that is a pretty lame retort.

Do you really think that the gospel condones people buying their salvation?

If so, the top 1% will be the only ones saved.

Why not start another thread about how Mohammad was not a pedophile by marrying a 9 year old girl? It sure beats trying to defend the Catholic church covering up known and proven pedophiles today.

Why are left wingers always defending pedophiles?

Originally posted by whodey
Well that is a pretty lame retort.

Do you really think that the gospel condones people buying their salvation?

If so, the top 1% will be the only ones saved.

Why not start another thread about how Mohammad was not a pedophile by marrying a 9 year old girl? It sure beats trying to defend the Catholic church covering up known and proven pedophiles today.

Why are left wingers always defending pedophiles?

One wonders if you are ever ashamed of the baldfaced lies you continually spout on this forum.

The answer certainly appears to be "no".

I'll ignore the pedophile BS. Even someone as ideologically and personally twisted as you appear to be knows that no one here and certainly Pope Francis are not "defending pedophiles". So you just feel like making a false accusation. Shame on you.

As to the issue of indulgences, I'll assuming you're just ignorant (a pretty solid bet 100% of the time). The RCC has never, ever claimed that people can "buy" salvation. Wiki has a good article that I'm sure you won't read. But it's rather clear:

An indulgence thus does not forgive the guilt of sin, nor does it release from the eternal punishment which Church doctrine associates with unforgiven mortal sins.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgence

Originally posted by no1marauder

no one here and certainly Pope Francis are not "defending pedophiles". So you just feel like making a false accusation.

I see no one being punished for these crimes.

All I see is a lot of talk.

Those that are in a position of authority have a duty to see that wrong doers are punished.

If not, then it is as good as giving their consent and approval.