Suggested Prayer for Recoverig Postmodernist

[emballantine]

"Why would you treat as reliable a Gnostic writing which gives no historical background or in any way demonstrates itself to be the work of an eyewitness or a companion thereof? The Gnostics were (like the Masons) sycretics who pulled whatever they thought was nifty out of all the religions they encountered. They (like the Muslims) most likely thought Jesus was nifty and tried to make Him out to be one of their own."
-Fear

Why would you treat as reliable a religion which is known to have removed entire books of the bible from their final version? The Gnostics were the first christians, and therefore their writing would be the closest to an eye whitness account. The "Catholic" church having arrived three hundred years after the fact and then blatantly removing verse from the new testament to better suit their needs and intent would not be considered a reliable source.

Fear, the religion you follow is one that has condemned the idea of knowledge from its very birth in this world. Why? Because to possess knowledge is to possess power. Now, I am not a christian, but I have read the bible and know Christs teachings to be quite simple. That in Him is salvation. That was too simple for the Romans. If everyone knew that it was that simple, (yes I am slightly over simplifying...obviously there is the love thy neighbor and be an all around good person stuff) then how would the rich maintain control over the poor? I'm sorry, but the Catholic church has proven itself to be nothing more than a brilliantly masterminded corporation manufacturing salvation for 2000 years. Greed is what your religion is founded on.

Of course, this is not to say that Catholics themselves are greedy or even wrong. If they come to their religion in ernest and find in it the true route to salvation then it is aboslutely the right religion for them. But know one who preaches the Catholic doctrine word for word has any foundation for arguing against other beliefs. And you as a catholic have simply put your fingers in your ears and your arguments pretty much sound like..."I'm not listening, I'm not listening, I'm not listening, I'm not listening!"

[Fear_nam_Beanntan]

Originally posted by emballantine
Why would you treat as reliable a religion which is known to have removed entire books of the bible from their final version?

I'm not sure what you mean by this. There were several books whose canonical status was disputed in the early Church, for example Hebrews, James, II Peter, II & III John, Jude, the Shepherd of Hermas, Barnabas, and the Didache. True, in the final canon which was put together at Carthage the last three of these books were exculded, but it would be dishonest to say that the Catholic Church took them out of the Bible because she had never put them in. Neither the Muratorian canon, Origen's canon, nor Eusebius's canon listed these three books as canonical. The only one that comes close is Origen's canon which says that they *might* be Scripture.

That having been said, there is really nothing in either the Shepherd of Hermas, Barnabas, or the Didache which in any way threatens the historical claims of the Catholic Church. In fact they are quite often cited by Catholic apologists as proof that the early Christian Church held distinctively Catholic beliefs. For example Hermas teaches baptismal regeneration, and the Didache teaches the sacrifice of the Mass. Hermas and the Didache are good, pious Catholic books, just not Scripture.

Barnabas is an odd book, to say the least. It is fairly anti-Semetic, claiming that the Jews lost their covenant relationship with God when they worshipped the golden calf, and that God intended the Kosher dietary laws to be interpreted metaphorically i.e. as teaching what kind of people to avoid and it was a testament to Jewish perfidy that they interpreted Kosher literally. Also quite amusing, Barnabas tries to do Bible code with a translation of the Old Testament! I myself am quite glad it never made it into the canon of Scripture.

The Gnostics were the first christians, and therefore their writing would be the closest to an eye whitness account.

Hardly. Many books of the New Testament can be proven by the internal and external evidence tests to have been written within a few decades of the death of Christ. Moreover, New Testament apocrypha such as the aformentioned books as well as the earliest of the Apostolic Fathers (e.g. Clement, Ignatius) were also written well before the Gnostic works found at Nag Hammadi. The Gnostics were a non-Christian group who borrowed some elements of Christianity. They are dependent on the Catholic writers of the New Testament, not the other way around.

The "Catholic" church having arrived three hundred years after the fact and then blatantly removing verse from the new testament to better suit their needs and intent would not be considered a reliable source.

Regarding the first claim, that the Catholic Church did not arrive until three hundred years after Christ, I will simply supply one quote from an Apostolic Father.

"But avoid divisions, as being the beginning of evils. Do ye all follow the bishop, as Jesus Christ doth the Father; and follow the presbyters as the apostles; and have respect unto the deacons as unto the commandment of God. Let no one, apart from the bishop, do any of the things that appertain unto the church. Let that Eucharist alone be considered valid which is celebrated in the presence of the bishop, or of him to whom he shall have entrusted it.

"Wherever the bishop appear, there let the multitude be; even as wherever Christ Jesus is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful either to baptize or to hold a love-feast without the consent of the bishop; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that also is well pleasing unto God, to the end that whatever is done may be safe and sure."
(The Epistle of St. Ignatius of Antioch to the Smyrnaeans, translated by Charles H. Hoole, 1885)

This was written in approximately 110 A.D.

Fear, the religion you follow is one that has condemned the idea of knowledge from its very birth in this world.

Actually the Catholic Church, following the teachings of Jewish wisdom literature, has always held reason and wisdom in very high esteem. This statement is purely ignorance.

Now, I am not a christian, but I have read the bible and know Christs teachings to be quite simple. That in Him is salvation. That was too simple for the Romans. If everyone knew that it was that simple, (yes I am slightly over simplifying...obviously there is the love thy neighbor and be an all around good person stuff)

You are indeed over simplifying. Christ taught that to reject his representatives was to implicitly reject Him (Luke 10:16), that it was necessary to walk in His commandments and to suffer for Him to be saved (Matt 16:24), that one must believe and be baptized if one is to escape condemnation (Mark 16:16), that those who eat His flesh and drink His blood abide in Him and He in them (John 6:56), and many other distinctively Catholic things.

But know one who preaches the Catholic doctrine word for word has any foundation for arguing against other beliefs.

Quite the contrary. The Catholic Church has the full support of history behind her religious claims, and embraces the exact kind of philosophy which is necessary to provide a logical foundation to exclusivist religion.

And you as a catholic have simply put your fingers in your ears and your arguments pretty much sound like..."I'm not listening, I'm not listening, I'm not listening, I'm not listening!"

I think any objective reading of my posts here will show that I base my arguments on fact and reason, and it is you who ignore evidence and give emotional and unsubstantial responses which harldy merit answer.