Well, he can claim an old, monolithic man-made religious establishment as his foundation.

Yes, although I chose the one out of 30,000, but I think that's a typo. The doctrines of the Catholic Church are the doctrines from which, at some point, to some degree all other Christian traditions deviated.

Please explain what the "common knowledge in the historical community" says the truth is.

How many of those "flavors" can be traced to the original "recipe" formulated by Jesus Christ, and passed down through 2000 years by an unbroken line of "master chefs"?

Old.  I agree.  About 1,970 years.

As monolithic as the Rock of Peter.

C'mon, you're an atheist, jc.  All religions are man made in your estimation, or aren't they?  I'm disappointed.  

Oh, and another reason I'm Catholic.  Small batch bourbon and hand made cigars.  Can't do that if you're a Baptist.  Gonna finish this drink and my smoke, night prayers with the boys and off to bed.

Tchuss!

I agree.

One of the great encyclicals, or formal teacings written by Pope John Paul II is titled "Dives in Mersericordia".  One of the messages I came away from this beautiful letter with was that God is indeed, as the Latin title proclaims "rich in mercy".  He cannot possibly punish a man for sincerely failing to grasp Catholic claims, if that man has in every other respect sincerely tried to love God with all his heart, soul, and mind, and his neighbor as himself.  I think a perfect example of a man of this sort is Ghandi.

On the other hand, knowing and fulfilling the will of God gets more and more difficult the more one is distanced from the Church and her teachings.  As with any journey, the accuracy of the road map affects the ability of the pilgrim to successfuly reach his destination.

I think that one of the great surprises of all time will be on that final day at the judgement of Christ when we see who has attained the Kingdom and who hasn't.

Yet the Samaritan woman was granted the cure she desired.  As was the Roman centurion's servant ("Lord, I am not worthy to have you under my roof, but only speak the word and my servant will be healed&quot.

In the parable of the Good Samaritan, Jesus even portrays himself as a Samaritan, a non-Jew, who happens across a suffering mankind on the side of he road after having suffered a brutal assault.  The legal observation of the Pharisees (the dominant Jewish party) and the sacrifices of the Levites(the Jewish priesthood) passed him by.  A Samaritan though, not just a Gentile, but  a virual pariah (sp?) to te Jewish people picks him up and binds his wounds, takes hm to an inn (the Church), provides for his upkeep (the Sacraments) and promises to return for him.

Further, in the "Great Commission", Jesus charges the apostles, not with spreading the Gospel among the Jews, but to the ends of the earth.  Remember, this is before the destruction of the Temple and the Dispersion of the Jews

God forbade the worship of statues, not the religious use of statues. In fact, he actually commands the construction of images at several points.  Read the desription of the 'mercy seat" with the golden cherubim in Ex 25, or the description f te Temple in Ezekiel's vision in Ezekiel 41, the bronze serpent in Numbers 21.

That addresses images, now to the saints.  The saints are those individuals whom we believes are te examplars of ways to live the Christian life.  We look to them as examples of holiness and seek to emulate those qualities which they exhibited. 

For example, Mary the Mother of God, is the proto-Christian.  Her perfect submisson t the will of God is summed up in her "fiat" in the opening chapters of the Gospel of Luke, "Be it done to me according to your Word".  Her message to us is summed up in her direction to the servants at the wedding feast at Cana in the Gospel of John ("Do whatever He tells you&quot.  Whenever I see an image of the Blessed Mother, these are the things I am reminded of.

The saints are as alive now, if not more so, as the were during their life on earth. Indeed, St Paul assures us that we are surrounded by a "great crowd" of witnesses, who are cheering for us in this race.  they exist still, in the very presence of the King.  That their prayers are before Him is clearly stated inthe Revelation of John when he describe the heavenly liturgy. They can, and do intercede for us with God, directly and perfectly, in His presence.

 Where did I say Paul wrote Mark? I said Paul wrote his works and someone (we don't know who despite opinions to the contrary) came along some years later and wrote Mark - other writers borrowed from Mark and thus the gospels were born. I'm glad you at least accept that the church fathers only have their opinions on which to base their views. They wrote their opinions - I wrote mine. Why does their having a pope put "St." in front of their name give them more credence? - That's for you to decide.

In other words, Matthean priority stems from the fact that the Church fathers ordered the books. I can see that it's a reasonable assumption but I have to disregard a lot of scholarship to do it. If god gave me this brain why should I forego its use in order to believe in him/her/it/them?

I don't have to believe in the atomic theory or the properties of light. Those things can be measured. Unlike God, those things don't need my belief to power them. God-belief isn't all that much different from a shaman claiming to generate mana to pull off his stunts to his believing flock.

You choose to accept marvels which remain mysteries? Is that just a fancy way of saying "If I don't know how something works, I'll just say "God did it" (or I'll accept some saint/pope's saying that) and never bother looking for myself"? Why give God a pass? 

I see that on some of these issues we are just going to have to agree to disagree because of the viewpoints we are coming from. Still, this is all very interesting.

I am Australian, it is still predominantly a christian country, but not as strong in that regard as the US. So this is the religion I am most familiar with.

My parents were both atheists, actually. They did not brain-wash/indoctrinate me though (as some theists seem to think atheist parents do). My father actually told me to read up on different religions and make my own choice. My mothers family are strong christians and I did go to church a handful of times with my grandparents, although I honestly don't remember which denomination it was.

It took me a long time to get around to it, but I am now reading the bible (King James). It was one of my late grandfather's old bibles actually. It's tough going, but I am persistent and have an insatiable thirst for knowledge.

Definately still an atheist by the way.

I also plan to read the Koran. But first I want to get a copy of Origin of Species.

Here is a tough one: religions and myths are developed to help people understand the universe when they don't know any better, so people said that God must have created the universe because it is so amazing. God is more amazing than the universe, so where did he come from? I find it easier to believe that a mass of matter and energy always existed than that a sentient, all powerful being.

Did I miss something, or have we not been graced with the scientific basis for one church for 1500 years?

Based on this logic, and you're belief that Christianity was started by Paul, should this not be a discussion between an atheist and a "Paulist" and not between an atheist and a Christian?

I consider Peter's statement to be very important.  It's a statement of his adherence and firm belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ.  It's an affirmation of his intent to preserve those teachings.

I'm confused by this statement.  Was it the Catholic Church which defected from the precepts of Protestanism, or the other way around?  How do you arrive at a 1500-1600 date for the establishment of the Catholic Church?

Not sure where I haven't gotten yet.  Are you looking for me to prove the existence of God?  That wasn't the intent of this thread.  Besides which, I readily admit that, for the most part, my reasons for belief are largely based on arguments from emotion, which is why I seldom participate in "prove God exists" discussions.

1. You are a Paulist - you just don't admit to it. How do I know? Whenever someone asks for a 

biblical explanation of christianity, you and many others have cited Paul.

2. I read the dating somewhere. It had something to do with the earliest mention of the 

Roman Catholic Church being from that time. I'll be happy to dig it up again.

I asked you about "Peterism" once before - you never gave me an answer. 

Why isn't it called Peterism as Peter, by your own admission, is given more importance than Jesus Christ?

Again, I chalk it up to the gospel writers neding to create a backstory to flesh out the christ (a

spritual/gnostic character not a physical one)

Paul laid out. What good is a main character without a supporting cast?

Why call it christianity? Couldn't sell it any other way, maybe?

After all, the christ as Messiah stuff didn't come out until after the gospels were written 

and the writers dug through the OT prophecies. 

Paul's ideas needed to be linked back to the OT God in some fashion. 

I'll get back to you with that dating information and 

I apologize for any formatting screwups - new larger monitor.  

Edit - I did find the reference. It was to the earliest use of the tern "roman" in the RCC. 

It had nothing to do with the claimed origins of Catholicism. For me, the first use of the term tends to point to a thing's origins

 My opinion is that it started as soon as the religious bigwigs realized they 

had a moneymaker on their hands. That is considerably later than when 

the Christ character handed the reins off to the Peter character.   

I agree that we're going to have to disagree on some issues.  I'm enjoying the excahnge as well.  What a fascinating thing, the internet, that I should be able to trade ideas with an Aussie almost in real time...amazing!

Good luck with that.  It might be better to begin with the New Testament.  It's shorter, easier to understand and represents the fullness of Judeo-Christian thought.  Then go back and read the Old Testament.  St Jerome's contention was the the Old Testament was the New Testament concealed and the New Testament was the Old Testament revealed.

I always had a hard time with the older translations, especially the King James.  Even its Catholic contemporary translation, the Douai-Rheims is a tough read for me (but at least there are no unicorns in it).  I prefer the Revised Standard Version (Catholic Edition).

God is from everlasting.  He always has been. 

Now you may ask me to explain this belief more.  I can't.  You may ask to me to prove this, and I could go throught the usual Thomistic arguments for the existence of God, which you would, in the time honored tradition of theist-atheist intercourse on this site refute with some form of verbal gymnastics, at which you'd probably best me.

I don't know if you saw my earlier post here, but suffice it to say that my knowledge (not belief) of a personal God is based on personal experience and is basically an argument from emotion.  For that reason I don't arguse the existence of God here, although I do, from time to time, share my experience with others of faith.

In documents, writers most often refer to her as simply "the Church".  If a document is addressed to, or goin g to be viewed by those outside the Church, sometimes they write the Catholic Church, which is the official title by which the Church refers to herself.  Roman Catholic most specifically refers to Catholics of the Latin rite.  There are other rites within the Catholic Church (ie, Byzantine, Marionite, Ruthenian).  This refers generally to the way in which sacramnets are administered and rites are performed.  All these varied rites, though, teach the same theology, hold the same beliefs, and recognize the supremacy of the Roman Pontiff.

Paul warns in 1 Timothy against "endless genealogies and myths" and against "the godless chatter and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge [ gnosis]" (1 Tim. 6:20).

In Gal 4:4 he declares that Jesus was "born of woman, and born under the Law".  A declaration of his belief of a bodily Jesus Christ.

In 1 Corinthians (I think), Paul recounts Jesus words and actions at the Last Supper.

Bear in mind, too, that whatever else Paul was, he was no shrinking violet.  The impression one gets from his writings is of an outspoken fellow.  Surely John would have corrected his mistaken views, or Peter, but no such correction seems ever to have been made.

I'll give you credit - two of the works you cite were actually written by Paul. I Timothy wasn't.

However, the Galatians passage talks about Jesus as not being divine. 

Doesn't help you as I agree with that. He also writes about God putting everything under 

Christ's feet except himself. Is Paul a polytheist? If they're one being God is putting everything under is own feet and using different names make no sense. If you believe that Paul wrote everything that is attributed to him, 

he also wrote about putting on Christ as you would put on a garment. Can't be done with a physical Christ. 

If he meant "christ's nature" why not say that? 

Thank you for this discussion. I may not have mentioned this earlier.  

Ha, I'm still reading.

We do seem to be way off the original track, though. The detailed history of the bible is a bit past my area of knowledge as well. Don't worry, I'll but in when I have an opinion.

I look forward to seeing you on other posts.

Well, then.  This is a horse of a different color.  Of course Paul writes via a scribe often.  Many letters (without looking I know Romans is one) contain greetings added by the scribes themselve.  In fact, since someone just had me reading Galatians from one end to the other , Paul makes a big deal of the big writing of the letter since it's in his own hand.  I would still contend, however, that whether dictated, or written in his own hand, the pastoral letters represent genuine Pauline thought.  I'm quite certain that Paul would proof what was written before it was sent.

As far as style, remember that the pastoral letters (ie, Timothy, Titus, and Philemon) are written to individuals, while the remainder are formal communications written to entire congregations.  I know for a fact the style of writing I employ here is very different from the style I use when writing emails to my kids at college, and different still from notes I might make for an oral presentation.  Style is not limited by individual, but varies within an individual's communications based on his/her audience.

Now, even though the style varies from correspondednce to correspondence the thought is still mine.

But Paul seems to me to be saying that there is some sort of qualitiative difference between the "Son" of God, Jesus Christ, and the adopted "sons of God".  That it is through the qualitatively different sonship of Christ that we become sons of God.

Indeed, it is the point of dictation to rduce accurate copy.  Remember, though, my second point.  The pastoral letters, those being written to individuals, were private communications, being written to those Pal knew well.  The writing style is going to vary from those letters addressed and intended to be read as missives to Chuch congregations.  Take, for an example, the Pope's recent encyclical, Spe Salvi (an awesome piece of thought by the way {shameless plug}.  I'm sure it doesn't represent the style in which the Pope speaks to his intimates in everyday life, and even less looks like a letter to his brother might.  I know the wy I write here doesn't reflect my wrting style to my friends via email.

Henry Blake was a hoot.  I always loved the character.  But this remark (even though using fictonal characters) illustrates this point.  You nver see Henry Blake telling Radar to take a letter to his wife and make it sound romantic.  In fact, I would think that the pastorals, being written to indviduals Paul knew intimately, are even more likely than the other Epistles, to have been wriiten in Paul's own hand, reflect Paul's gravest concerns and insecurities, and to have probably undergone less scrutiny and editing than thos intended to be public writings.

Quite true.  That cae can indeed be made.  A case can alo be made that where any "son of..." references occur, whether of Man or of God, such reflect the Jewishness of the authors.  Aramaic language, and therefore contemporary Jewish minds, had no word for "species" and when denoting species used the phrase "son of" .  I suspect that it may simply indicated a translation of that idea directly nto Greek.  That being the case, the phrase "son of" would argue even more strongly for the belief in the writers of the Gospels, and of Paul, in the divinity of Christ.

A bit of bad news.  As much as I'm enjoying this exchage, I'm doin some travelling this week for a family gathering.  I'm taking my laptop, but 'll be staying with my brother who (horror of horrors) doesn't have internet access.  He lives somewhat out in the country, so acces to a wireless network may be hard to come by.  With any luck, I'll be able still particpate in this discussion with you.  If not, we can pick it back up at the first of next week.  Please pray for (oops ) rather, wish me a safe journey, and I'll talk to you then.

Tchuss!

Interesting contradiction you pose. You claimed ealier that Paul was no shrinking violet yet you say that he would have written softer prose to deal with the concerns he described in the pastoral epistles than he would have to the letters to the churches. Were the church leaders not around to read what was written to the churches? It seems ironic that Paul would write Timothy, "Don't let anyone look down on you because you're young" but treat him with kid gloves.

Enjoy your time away. It wouldn't bother me if you never wrote on your vacation. The computer is one of those things I get away from on mine. As for praying for you, why deliver my well-wishes through a middle Being when I can do it directly?

Macht Spass!

Edit - This latest encyclical you're lauding wouldn't be a way for Ratzinger to ignore his Wehrmacht past, would it?