Chili

It is not a Christian religion but is Catholic, which is just opposite to Christian in direction, and so Catholics are not Christian and not even close.

We have an Order called Jesuits who can be seen as followers of Jesus, but they are not Christian as Jesuit. Then we have the Church Triumphant and that is where the Christians are, but they are not part of the active Church called Catholic.

In between is the Church Suffering that defines our purgatorians and they are also not Catholic.

I add this only so you can understand why and how Catholics are not Christian, that for them is not even part of their religion, and also never was.

Duvduv

Far be it for me as an Orthodox Jew to be defending traditional Catholicism, but in looking into the doctrinal changes arising from ecumenism and relativism reflected in Vatican II there is no way it is the same Roman Catholicism as before - i.e. concerning the status of Protestantism and other religions in relation to authenticity vis a vis salvation, closeness to God etc.

aa5874

Papal succession is a dead giveaway.

Who needed to claim that the apostle Peter was the First Bishop of ROME??

Who needed to claim that the Church of ROME goes all the way back to Peter??

This is so easy.

All writings where Papal succession is argued most likely was composed by the Church of Rome.

It is remarkably easy.

Now, just look for arguments about Papal succession in any writing of antiquity and you will be able to deduce who most likely composed them.

You won't find any arguments about Papal succession in the writings of Justin Martyr, Aristides, Minucius Felix, Tatian, Theophilus of Antioch, Athenagoras of Athens, and Arnobius.

Chili

And no sir, not asking for compliments and you seem to know more about it then I do. I am neither but just a casual observer these days, although I was raised Catholic where nothing really mattered as long as you do what Catholics do (for example like hanging panties on his clothes line at night).

Chili

They just wrote that so the protestants can have apostolic succession to John 6:66, which is very important to them.

Chili

And it is rather ignorant for you to be critical of our 'Gospel of Tradition' which is just the same as your "Torah of Tradition" wherein neither of them really knows what those scriptures are all about, but is the Real form of Jew and Catholic that will deliver. This is precisely what 'bleeding water' is all about from your 'motherland' called Jewishness as Jew through and through.

Einstein and Spinoza come to mind here who once were Jew but left the congregation to be the man that they were called to be in being one with God in nature instead of seeing God in nature that Christians here call Panteist as look-alike. Plato called that a deprivation instead of a privation, obviously as look-alike.

So what should Einstein say when they ask him about his view on God? He has no eqaul and he is God? Of course he can't, but Russian lit is full of that, and so actually is all literature to some extent and by degree as a form of vision that ranges between lyric and noetic to present their point of view.

And salvation is a typical protestant/American thing wherein innocent people are asked to stand in line to receive their worth of rightousness from God, they say, but must first confess their sins and spit it all out so they can get zapped by the evangelist with all forms of hokus pokus to entrench a memetic trial in them so that they might receive . . . and forever will remember the day when they first believed and must burn bible passages to nurse the memory of that glorious day = fire driven slavery that we call hell on earth.

This so makes them saved-sinners that you call Messianic Jew, as saved Jew now also torn between heaven and earth as if their veil is partially torn and will have seen the light. Effectively this sends them in a tailspin from there into eternity, that itself is called the state of mind that they call Christian, and now here have a hardon for the Pope who still is Catholic himself and only "ex-cathedra" is Christian in their own priviledged kind of way.

Chili

Delete please, thank you.

aa5874

The very writers of the Church explained why they fabricated their own papal succession.

Examine the words of "Prescription Against the Herestics" No person of the Jesus cult could have produced any records of the cult going back to Peter because there was NO such person.

There were only 2nd century stories about Jesus and No records of the cult before the stories were invented and this is confirmed by the writings of Justin.

Justin believed the stories of Jesus were composed since the 1st century but he could NOT produce any history of the Jesus cult until the time of Simon Barchocebas or c 133 CE.

Justin had to use Prophecies as history. Effectively, Justin presented a Big Black Hole from c 33 CE to c 133 CE for the Jesus cult.

Justin Martyr wrote NOTHING about Papal succession, did NOT mention a single bishop of anywhere, and did NOT refer to any bishop of his Church or called himself a Bishop.

Who would benefit directly from inventing Papal succession??

Duh!!! Duh!!!

The Roman Church most likely INVENTED Papal succession.

There was NO Roman Church until the 4th century.

Chili

Nor was there a Paul.But it was not an invention because the Jews knew exactly how it is done, both wrong and right, and so the rigth was always there.

The invention was how to 'stamp it out' with 'it' here the being the fire, or partial fire that in Plato's Seventh Epistle:

"emerges in the soul on a sudden from much emergent dwelling and living with the matter itself (syn-ousia and sy-zen with the pragma), as if something set alight by a leaping fire and forthwith nourishing itself."

On a sudden Diotima tells Socrates in Plato's "Symposium" (210E), "a man is given something wonderous and beautiful in nature."

Now syn-ousia is evidence of par-ousia wherein sy-zen is "in being" instead of being outsider to it that so converts neologism into paralogism as out-side talk by look-alikes, still fed from the same source, to note, and so will point at Jesus instead of himself as "sighting being one with what is sighted" Metaphysics Book XII Chapter 9), that I call 'seeing the seer see.'

This here (syn-ousia), is the fullness of Aristotle's perception (aisthesis) that becomes insight (nous) in logos as knowledge itself, and that requires consumation or imediacy with the being it is pointing at. This is how 'insigths' are created that we all know so well, except that here now, the very I we represent inside our own mastery as crafty craftsman is the subject of our inquiry that must come to the fore (who am I really?), in the same way that 'land must come to the fore after from the crowsnest it was seen.'

This concept is also the basis for Plato's "theory of recollection" (as distinct from our concept of learning), to be recalled from this same infinite source, and thus not just from our own left brain. Later Rousseau used Emile to present the same idea that led to the Montessori model of learning that we here have warped again.

Three words you need to know for this: syllogism, paralogism and neologism that speak for deduction, seduction and induction in that order, and so now the seducers must be stamped out and it took them 400 years to get that masterplan in place.

Then lets add that it is fueled by an infinite source still with the great divide remaining in between, from which it follows that they will first go underground to ply their [fornication] trade.

And let's be reminded that Jesus also said that the [thousand year] reign of God is already in our midst (from which their trade is plied as half boiled, the savages noticed, and finished the job for the them).

Chili

Maybe not on topic directly, but for the 'crafty craftsman' to find himself his mastery must be conquered which so is the end for him. This could be one reason why for the Greeks also 'pirating' was fair game that in itself was not the end.

This would be much in the same way as for us the true beauty of gold that we find in the land of Havilah is not in the shine we see in the gold itself, but in our ability to walk away from it, they say (and let the church come for the spoils when they do walk away from it, I suppose, but that is not part of the argument here now).

Now our ability to walk away from it is found in the details of Plato's Sophists 267D and 218C where all along we are sifting through the genus of each insight (eidolon or ousia), while not not looking for another glow (insight) but in dividing, bisecting, bifurcating from glow to glow (as if our shepherds were on the run), we find unity with the matter itself that he nows calls par-ousia or final Form and then the shine is upon us as 'the being' called the son, who then so is born in us.

So his point here now is that glows are needed to guide us through to our homebase, and this only true if we are already struck by the different ways they appear to us now as 'mere formulations of images' that at one time made us crafty as the artisan at work. We would simply call this involutional melancholia today, where in the distance we see the image of this final glow, which of course must be seen to not just bring boredom about, but yet another aim (that I once called 'mother superior' in charge), and notice the celestial light in the back-ground here:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melancholia_I


It is in this manner that we arrive at the third river of Gen.2:14 on which I elaborated here.


http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=323278



And notice the apology she makes for us to go from shine to shine in disarray.