|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
rapier
Joined: 16 Feb 2003
|
 Posted: Sat Dec 24, 2005 1:39 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Books banned by the Pope:
1409 The Bible in translation Banned by the Synod of Canterbury at St. Paul's in London. In other words, they banned the only bible that people would be able to read, and kept the other illegible one to themselves anyway. Your argument suggesting that the translation is faulty is ridiculous. If someone hadn't tried to make the bible available, the pope would've made sure nobody ever had access to Gods word.
1525 The New Testament in English translation by William Tyndale The first printed book banned in England, Tyndale was imprisoned, strangled, and burned at the stake along with copies in 1536.
1559 Dante, De Monarchia Banned by Pope Paul IV for asserting that the authority of kings came from God and not from the Pope as God's Vicar on earth
1559 Boccaccio, Il Decamerone Banned by Pope Paul IV until revised, still banned by the New England Watch and Ward Society in 1935, only in 1954 was it finally allowed in US.
1559 Calvin, entire works Banned by Pope Paul IV
1559 Erasmus, entire works Banned in the Index under Pope Paul IV
1624 The Bible as translated by Martin Luther Condemned in Germany by Papal authority
1633 Galileo, Dialogue on the Two Great World Systems Banned by Pope Urban VIII for heresy. When Galileo's wife showed his manuscripts on the telescope and the pendulum to her priest they were burned as well.
1852 Harriet Beecher Stowe, Uncle Tom's Cabin Banned in the Papal states
If the Pope had his way, the bible would have been locked away forever and its real message forgotten.
Dude I think its blatantly obvious to all that the Roman catholic church has not only burned, banned, perverted, limited access to, misinterpreted, and finally when all else failed, altered the bible can in no way be seen as christian. Gods word is the centrepiece of Christianity, not an irrelavant old book to be ignored in favor of a circus of power hungry people riven with paganism.
Perhaps you will stop ranting your personal insults and foul mouth (How christian of you) long enough to read this:
The Bible and Romanism
http://www.ianpaisley.org/article.asp?ArtKey=connell
You still havent answered my earlier proof that Catholicism is filled with paganism. And what "atrocities" are you talking of exactly? do specify. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Satori
Joined: 09 Dec 2005
Location: Above it all
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 24, 2005 1:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
ITEM #2 COUNCIL OF TOULOUSE - 1229 A.D.
Canon 14. We prohibit also that the laity should be permitted to have the books of the Old or New Testament; unless anyone from motive of devotion should wish to have the Psalter or the Breviary for divine offices or the hours of the blessed Virgin; but we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books.
|
| Quote: |
1229 - The Inquisition of Toulouse imposed by Albigensian Crusaders forbids laymen to read the Bible.
Source: The People's Chronology, Revised and updated, by James Trager, Copyright 1992, 1994, published by Henry Holt and Company, ISBN 0-8050-3134-0, New York, page 108.
|
| Quote: |
The Council of Tarragona of 1234, in its second canon, ruled that:
"No one may possess the books of the Old and New Testaments in the Romance language, and if anyone possesses them he must turn them over to the local bishop within eight days after promulgation of this decree, so that they may be burned lest, be he a cleric or a layman, he be suspected until he is cleared of all suspicion."
|
| Quote: |
In 1408 the third synod of Oxford, England, banned unauthorized English translations of the Bible and decreed that possession of English translation's had to be approved by diocesan authorities. The Oxford council declared:
"It is dangerous, as St. Jerome declares, to translate the text of Holy Scriptures out of one idiom into another, since it is not easy in translations to preserve exactly the same meaning in all things. We therefore command and ordain that henceforth no one translate the text of Holy Scripture into English or any other language as a book, booklet, or tract, of this kind lately made in the time of the said John Wyclif or since, or that hereafter may be made, either in part or wholly, either publicly or privately, under pain of excommunication, until such translation shall have been approved and allowed by the Provincial Council. He who shall act otherwise let him be punished as an abettor of heresy and error."
|
This one is odd, since the Vulgate is already a translation of the original Hebrew and Greek.
| Quote: |
| William Tyndale completed a translation of the New Testament from the Greek in 1525, which church authorities in England tried their best to confiscate and burn. After issuing a revised edition in 1535, he was arrested, spent over a year in jail, and was then strangled and burned at the stake near Brussels in October 6th, 1536. It is estimated today that some 90 percent of the New Testament in the 1611 King James Bible is the work of Tyndale. Tyndale was unable to complete his translation of the Old Testament before his death. |
| Quote: |
Rule IV
Since experience teaches that, if the reading of the Holy Bible in the vernacular is permitted generally without discrimination, more damage than advantage will result because of the boldness of men, the judgment of bishops and inquisitors is to serve as guide in this regard. Bishops and inquisitors may, in accord with the counsel of the local priest and confessor, allow Catholic translations of the Bible to be read by those of whom they realize that such reading will not lead to the detriment but to the increase of faith and piety. The permission is to be given in writing. Whoever reads or has such a translation in his possession without this permission cannot be absolved from his sins until he has turned in these Bibles ...
Rule VI
Books in the vernacular dealing with the controversies between Catholics and the heretics of our time are not to be generally permitted, but are to be handled in the same way as Bible translations. ...
Die Indices Librorum Prohibitorum des sechzehnten
Jahrhunderts (T・ingen, 1886), page 246f.
|
| Quote: |
From UNIGENITUS, The Dogmatic Constitution issued by Pope Clement XI on Sept. 8, 1713:
The following statements are condemned as being error:
79. It is useful and necessary at all times, in all places, and for every kind of person, to study and to know the spirit, the piety, and the mysteries of Sacred Scripture.
80. The reading of Sacred Scripture is for all.
81. The sacred obscurity of the Word of God is no reason for the laity to dispense themselves from reading it.
82. The Lord's Day ought to be sanctified by Christians with readings of pious works and above all of the Holy Scriptures. It is harmful for a Christian to wish to withdraw from this reading.
83. It is an illusion to persuade oneself that knowledge of the mysteries of religion should not be communicated to women by the reading of Sacred Scriptures. Not from the simplicity of women, but from the proud knowledge of men has arisen the abuse of the Scriptures and have heresies been born.
84. To snatch away from the hands of Christians the New Testament, or to hold it closed against them by taking away from them the means of understanding it, is to close for them the mouth of Christ.
85. To forbid Christians to read Sacred Scripture, especially the Gospels, is to forbid the use of light to the sons of light, and to cause them to suffer a kind of excommunication.
|
| Quote: |
From the Encyclical UBI PRIMUM of POPE LEO XII, MAY 5, 1824:
19. In virtue of Our apostolic office, We too exhort you to try every means of keeping your flock from those deadly pastures. Do everything possible to see that the faithful observe strictly the rules of our Congregation of the Index. Convince them that to allow holy Bibles in the ordinary language, wholesale and without distinction, would on account of human rashness cause more harm than good.
|
| Quote: |
11. ... We again condemn all the above-mentioned biblical societies of which our predecessors disapproved. ... Besides We confirm and renew by Our apostolic authority the prescriptions listed and published long ago concerning the publication, dissemination, reading, and possession of vernacular translations of sacred Scriptures.
12. ... In particular, watch more carefully over those who are assigned to give public readings of holy scripture, so that they function diligently in their office within the comprehension of the audience; under no pretext whatsoever should they dare to explain and interpret the divine writings contrary to the tradition of the Fathers or the interpretation of the Catholic Church.
|
| Quote: |
ITEM #13 THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH THE ONLY TRUE GUIDE TO SCRIPTURE
14. ... Wherefore it must be recognized that the sacred writings are wrapt in a certain religious obscurity, and that no one can enter into their interior without a guide[32]; God so disposing, as the Holy Fathers commonly teach, in order that men may investigate them with greater ardor and earnestness, and that what is attained with difficulty may sink more deeply into the mind and heart; and, most of all, that they may understand that God has delivered the Holy Scriptures to the Church, and that in reading and making use of His Word, they must follow the Church as their guide and their teacher. ...
|
Seems the church feels it can be the only mediator between people and christs word. I wonder how Jesus would feel about that... 
The Church stated that the objection to vernacular translations was about errors in translation, yet they did not cite any. We could still go back and test these translations if Catholics would point to the faulty sections of, say, Tyndale and co. I believe the real objection was that when people could read the word of god in thier mother tongue they were more able to understand the truth of the bible, and were able to see where Catholic teaching deviated from the bible`s message. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
n3ptne
Joined: 14 Sep 2005
Location: Poh*A*ng City
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 24, 2005 2:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
Rapier... yer dumb.
Tynsdale was executed 3 years after Henry was excommunicated. He was executed by the Anglican Church (over which there was no Papal authority) on the orders of King Henry. The Church had nothing to do with it. Cardinal Worley died in 1530, 6 years before Tyndale was executed, and 3 years before Henry was excommunicated.
The only Bibles that were ever banned were Bibles that were translated without the authority of the Church, and which either included, or excluding portions that the Church deemed a deviation from the authetnic Catholic Bible. As such, it is no mystery why Catholics were not permitted to read them. As for the laity not being able to read the Vulgate? The Vulgate takes its name from the phrase "versio vulgata" which means "the common version" as to the crudeness of its form. It was written FOR the laity and there were many different versions throughout the century, it was in fact the Vulgate that Guttenberg printed on his press... the same Guttenbreg who made the bible a household name.
The perpetual virginity isn't just Catholic tradition, it is also Islamic tradition, and was also Protestant tradition as both Luther and Zwingli believed in and adhered to it's principle. I have already, at great length, explained how the biblical references (which you are citing in English) very realistically can be shown to be a deviation on the original Greek/Hebrew texts... I have further cited a story from the Apocrypha where Christ himself stated that he was the only child of Mary. Furthermore, you buffoon, I stated that at the time Matthew was written (which is where you are drawing the quote) her perpetual virginity was a current tenet of the faith, which very much supports the Catholic claim that the English translation is a deviation from the original message, as Matthew OBVIOUSLY would have been very explicit in stating otherwise.
As to why it was prohibited for laity to be in possession of the Bible? Thats simple... before Gutenberg every bible was hand written by monks, a process which could take over 20 years. They were EXTREMELY expensive (Gutenberg's first bible sold for 300 florins each, which was equal to three years salary for the average clerk (i.e. laity)) and not, under any circumstance, to be trusted to the laity. It had nothing to do with prohibition the people from accessing the word of God, it had to do with preserving the word of God until technology was invented by which it could be spread to the laity.
Bah, this is a circle jerk... Rapier... you don't know a god damn thing about Theology, or History, I suggest you go back to telling people how wild bird flocks don't spread and infect domestic flocks with the bird flu like a good little moron.
PS... I sunk your battleship
PPS... I'm not a Christian or a Catholic. I find those that adhere to such philosophies very boring, dull, in the box thinkers with absolutely no grasp on reality or science. I am not however an atheist... but either way, you are an idiot. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
n3ptne
Joined: 14 Sep 2005
Location: Poh*A*ng City
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 24, 2005 2:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
What atrocities? Do you even read what I type? I've already posted it...
The Protestant Inquisition:
Unfortunately, the religious "scandal score" needs to be evened up now and then, and the lesser-known "skeletons in the closet" need to be rescued from obscurity, surveyed, and exposed. I take no pleasure in "dredging up" these unsavory occurrences, but it is necessary for honest, fair historical appraisal. This does not mean that I have forsaken ecumenism, or that I wish to bash Protestants, or that I deny corresponding Catholic shortcomings. Historical facts are what they are, and most Protestants (and Catholics) are unaware of the following historical events and beliefs (while, on the other hand, one always hears about the embarrassing and scandalous Catholic stuff -- and not often very accurately or fairly at that). If (as I suspect might often be the case) readers are shocked or surprised by the very title of this paper, this would be a case in point, and justification enough for my purposes of education. With that end and stated outlook in mind, I offer this copiously-researched treatise, with all due respect to my Protestant brethren, yet not without some remaining trepidation. Dave Armstrong
Luther's intolerance is very much at variance with the Protestant view still current to some extent in erudite circles, but more particularly in popular literature. Luther, for all the harshness of his disposition, is yet regarded as having in principle advocated leniency, as having been a champion of personal religious freedom . . . Below we shall, however, quote a series of statements from Protestant writers who have risen superior to such party prejudice: A. Hartmann Grisar
If we wish to find a scapegoat on whose shoulders we may lay the miseries which Germany has brought on the world, I am more and more convinced that the worst evil genius of that country, is not Hitler or Bismarck or Frederick the Great, but Martin Luther. F. Dean William Inge, The Anglican Dean of St. Paul's Cathedral.
http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ247.HTM
Ooooh yeh... forgot to say that Tyndale's bible was *NEVER* banned by the Catholics, and it in fact was what was used to compile the KJV (which Catholics read) is based almost entirely off Tyndale's work (which was of the direct Greek/Hebrew, not the Vulgate).
Gotta get to dinner. L8r. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheFonz
Joined: 01 Dec 2005
Location: North Georgia
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 24, 2005 3:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| If we wish to find a scapegoat on whose shoulders we may lay the miseries which Germany has brought on the world, I am more and more convinced that the worst evil genius of that country, is not Hitler or Bismarck or Frederick the Great, but Martin Luther. F. Dean William Inge, The Anglican Dean of St. Paul's Cathedral. |
Wow. So Martin Luther, who spoke out of how far the Catholic Church had strayed from the word of God is so sinister he surpasses Hitler. Hitler being the reason we had WWII, the Holocaust, and not to mention the unrest that followed. Hmm don��t know if I can agree with this guy on that one.
Last edited by TheFonz on Sat Dec 24, 2005 5:48 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
anyway
Joined: 22 Oct 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 24, 2005 4:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| will the real christianity please stand up, please stand up, please stand up... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bee Positive
Joined: 27 Oct 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 24, 2005 9:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| philipjames wrote: |
What on earth is wrong with preaching on the Old Testament? It's part of the Christian scriptures. Or are you suggesting that the Old Testament God is different from the Christian God. In Christian theology ALL scripture is revealed from God. Paul, Peter and other New Testament Christians were forever quoting the Old Testament. Christ himself stated that he had not come to replace the Old Testament, but to fulfill it. The early church made countless references to the Old Testament prophecies about the coming f Christ. The Ten Commandments derive from the Old Testament! What on earth is wrong about preaching on the subject of the Old Testament. It too was inspired of God.
I will not pretend to justify the theatrical excesses of televangelists. But there are good reasons why Protestant churches (most of whom are contemptuous of televangelists) don't have alters - they're pagan. Alters are for sacrifices. Christ's sacrifice was on the cross. There's no need for an alter!! As for crucifixes, they are adulterous and lead to superstitions (weeping statues etc.).
There's nothing wrong with defending your religious baggage, even if it is
Catholicism. It produced a lot of great artists and architects. But lets not pretend that Catholicism is a bible-based faith. The occassional mass (itself a blasphemy) may quote scripture (being part of a priest's job description), but attending a Catholic mass and leading a bible-centred, bible-honoring faith are two very different things.
Roman Catholicism is not Christianity. Islam has its own version of the Jesus story, as do Jews and new age wackos. Doesn't make them Christian. |
The trouble with your argument:
Protestantism didn't get started until 1500 years after Christ.
Do you mean to argue that there was NO CHRISTIANITY anywhere on earth until Martin Luther et al. invented it?
I repeat that I am NOT a Roman Catholic (while I admit to former membership), and only wish to look at these things rationally.
WHY I am not now a Roman Catholic would take hundreds of pages to write, and might surprise you. I deplore the corruption of the RCC as much as anyone--perhaps more so, since I feel deprived of a home . . .
Rationally considered, "Christianity" has gone through many permutations over the course of the past 2000-odd years.
And through at least half of its history, on an objective consideration, Christianity has been identical with Catholicism.
A simple point of comparison:
I was born in the United States, and carry a US passport.
A hyper-patriot might well call me "anti-American."
AND I HALF-ADMIT IT! I'm an expatriate by choice. I don't pay taxes. Couldn't care less about what the IRS may think. I'm not paying for America's obscene wars. I'm not going back. I despise what my country has become.
But on an objective consideration, I remain a US citizen.
Similarly, Roman Catholics are, rationally and objectively considered, Christians.
Whether they're "pure" enough to pass muster according to entirely subjective puritan norms is another question entirely.
Most of my ex-Catholic family members have long since become "born-again Christians," and they are HORRIBLE PEOPLE NOW!
They hate their Asian neighbors: full-on racism.
They praise Bush for torturing and killing Muslim captives.
I'd love to be able to say "YOU are not Christians,"
and yet on an objective consideration, if they self-identify as such . . .
Ultimately, God will judge.
Sorry if all this is a tad bit too much self-referential.
I stand up for the Catholic church because . . . well . . . NO ONE has ever loved Jesus as much as Saint Francis did. Or Padre Pio. Or a thousand other saints. It's both insulting and wrong to suggest that Catholics are not Christians.
Argue that Englishmen are not Europeans, and you'll likely find one or two who will thank you for the compliment. However . . .
BEE POSITIVE |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rapier
Joined: 16 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 24, 2005 1:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
B Positive wrote:
| Quote: |
| Protestantism didn't get started until 1500 years after Christ. |
protestantism is the authentic and original form of Christianity as proscibed in Gods word.
Thanks to Caholic suppression it was smothered for along time, and millions were martyred by the pagan pope attempting to obey God's plan for the world. But ultimately the truth showed itself.
I don't recall Jesus reccomending people confess their sins to other humans or rattling miserable rosaries to demon-possed bleeding statues of the human Mary. Satan has done his dam*dest to present an alluring decoy to draw the hapless away from the truth, appearing as an angel of light. What better ploy than to mix a little scripture then nullify it with blasphemous lies..leading the gullible to hell.
Its a miracle that the bible has survived centuries of satan-led attempts to snuff it out. but God has said he will return only once the gospel has been revealed to all nations on earth. We are nearing that time.
The simple message of Jesus...as passed on by the God inspired apostles..then such devout as william tyndale..is that.. Humans have deviated from Gods original plan for a perfect creation and proper relationship to God. We have fallen into evil, sin and injustice. to make things right and give mere mortals a shot at redemption and eternal life, God provided a sacrifice to wash the slate clean. Jesus made the way back to God clear for those who accept the offer.
This is the truth that catholicism, islam, and all other backward religions want to deny the world. Because they are agents of satan, whose sole objective is to decieve and win human souls to the eternal fires of hell.
Christianity is far older than Martin luther. Before Christ, people looked forward to the messiah. After his ressurection, they celebrated it.
Martin luther et al were inspired saints who passed the torch on.
Quote B positive:
| Quote: |
Most of my ex-Catholic family members have long since become "born-again Christians," and they are HORRIBLE PEOPLE NOW!
They hate their Asian neighbors: full-on racism.
They praise Bush for torturing and killing Muslim captives. |
I think thats a little exxagerated don't you?Don't know what sort of people you're referring to..but i never heard a christian rejoice at the idea of torturing muslims..or be essentially racist. Quite the opposite...they pray that all peoples may see the truth..and send missions of food and medical aid to the four corners of the earth- no matter their religion.
Do you see Islam sending charities around the world to supply medicine and food parcels to the poor? No..
Of course..christians are human, they have faults. But if you want to resist God's will for your life..and find reasons to not to even read the bible for yourself..then its not hard to do... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rapier
Joined: 16 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 24, 2005 3:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| n3ptne wrote: |
What atrocities? Do you even read what I type? I've already posted it...
The Protestant Inquisition:
Unfortunately, the religious "scandal score" needs to be evened up now and then, and the lesser-known "skeletons in the closet" need to be rescued from obscurity, surveyed, and exposed. I take no pleasure in "dredging up" these unsavory occurrences, but it is necessary for honest, fair historical appraisal. This does not mean that I have forsaken ecumenism, or that I wish to bash Protestants, or that I deny corresponding Catholic shortcomings. Historical facts are what they are, and most Protestants (and Catholics) are unaware of the following historical events and beliefs (while, on the other hand, one always hears about the embarrassing and scandalous Catholic stuff -- and not often very accurately or fairly at that). If (as I suspect might often be the case) readers are shocked or surprised by the very title of this paper, this would be a case in point, and justification enough for my purposes of education. With that end and stated outlook in mind, I offer this copiously-researched treatise, with all due respect to my Protestant brethren, yet not without some remaining trepidation. Dave Armstrong
Luther's intolerance is very much at variance with the Protestant view still current to some extent in erudite circles, but more particularly in popular literature. Luther, for all the harshness of his disposition, is yet regarded as having in principle advocated leniency, as having been a champion of personal religious freedom . . . Below we shall, however, quote a series of statements from Protestant writers who have risen superior to such party prejudice: A. Hartmann Grisar
If we wish to find a scapegoat on whose shoulders we may lay the miseries which Germany has brought on the world, I am more and more convinced that the worst evil genius of that country, is not Hitler or Bismarck or Frederick the Great, but Martin Luther. F. Dean William Inge, The Anglican Dean of St. Paul's Cathedral.
http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ247.HTM
Ooooh yeh... forgot to say that Tyndale's bible was *NEVER* banned by the Catholics, and it in fact was what was used to compile the KJV (which Catholics read) is based almost entirely off Tyndale's work (which was of the direct Greek/Hebrew, not the Vulgate).
Gotta get to dinner. L8r. |
Umm...sorry, did i miss something? where did dastardly protestants kill whole boatloads of people in the name of Christ?
Luther had a "harshness of disposition", how terrible.
What "atrocities" exactly, pray tell.???
Umm how about the millions of saints killed by the catholic church?
Or maybe the thousands of abused altar boys and children?
Joan of Arc: heroic woman..killed as a"heretic". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
n3ptne
Joined: 14 Sep 2005
Location: Poh*A*ng City
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 24, 2005 6:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rapier wrote: |
| The simple message of Jesus...as passed on by the God inspired apostles..then such devout as william tyndale..is that.. Humans have deviated from Gods original plan for a perfect creation and proper relationship to God. We have fallen into evil, sin and injustice. to make things right and give mere mortals a shot at redemption and eternal life, God provided a sacrifice to wash the slate clean. Jesus made the way back to God clear for those who accept the offer. |
Would this be the same message of Jesus where he emphatically states, in the Apocrypha, that Mary was a virgin for her entire life? The same Apocrypha which was originally included in the KJV, and held to be authentic biblical text until the Catholic church decided otherwise? The same Catholic Church, who upon it's decision it was not an authentic biblical text, opened the door for Protestantism to stray from the original principles of Luther and Zwingli and state that Mary had other children? Just checking.
| Rapier wrote: |
| Luther had a "harshness of disposition", how terrible. |
Oh, and if you were intelligent enough to have clicked the post... You'd see what atrocities. People killed, burned at the stake.. Hell, Tyndale was killed by the Anglican Church, and they sure weren't Catholic... Duhhhhhhhhhh. By "harshness of disposition" they mean that he personally persecuted innocent people and ordered their execution.
The quote, if you were capable of reading, is to suggest that "despite the fact he was a totalitarian douchesnozzle who raped and pillaged the innocent, he is regarded in popular literature as being a standup guy."
There are others who teach in opposition to some recognised article of faith which is manifestly grounded on Scripture and is believed by good Christians all over the world, such as are taught to children in the Creed . . . Heretics of this sort must not be tolerated, but punished as open blasphemers . . . If anyone wishes to preach or to teach, let him make known the call or the command which impels him to do so, or else let him keep silence. If he will not keep quiet, then let the civil authorities command the scoundrel to his rightful master - namely, Master Hans [i.e., the hangman]. (Janssen, X, 222; EA, Bd. 39, 250-258; Commentary on 82nd Psalm, 1530; cf. Durant, 423, Grisar, VI, 26-27)
This, considering it was the spoken word of Luther, would most certainly apply to anyone who suggested Mary wasn't a virgin, or that she bore other children...
That seditious articles of doctrine should be punished by the sword needed no further proof. For the rest, the Anabaptists hold tenets relating to infant baptism, original sin, and inspiration, which have no connection with the Word of God, and are indeed opposed to it . . . Secular authorities are also bound to restrain and punish avowedly false doctrine . . . For think what disaster would ensue if children were not baptized? . . . Besides this the Anabaptists separate themselves from the churches . . . and they set up a ministry and congregation of their own, which is also contrary to the command of God. From all this it becomes clear that the secular authorities are bound . . . to inflict corporal punishment on the offenders . . . Also when it is a case of only upholding some spiritual tenet, such as infant baptism, original sin, and unnecessary separation, then . . . we conclude that . . . the stubborn sectaries must be put to death. (Janssen, X, 222-223; pamphlet of 1536)
More of Luther's of douchebagginess.
Bullinger saw the contradiction in Luther's appeal to tradition for punishment of heretics, and thought it was "truly laughable" that he should suddenly appeal to the fact,
. . of the Church having so long held this . . . If Luther's argument, based on longstanding usage, be admitted . . . then the whole of Luther's own doctrine tumbles over, for his teaching is not that which the Roman Church has held for so long. (Grisar, VI, 259; letter to Albert, Margrave of Brandenburg)
Two well-known and reputable non-Catholic sources concur, as to the facts of Luther's adoption of persecution of non-Lutheran Protestants:
In 1530 Luther advanced the view that two offences should be penalized even with death, namely sedition and blasphemy . . . Luther construed mere abstention from public office and military service as sedition and a rejection of an article of the Apostles' Creed as blasphemy. In a memorandum of 1531, composed by Melanchthon and signed by Luther, a rejection of the ministerial office was described as insufferable blasphemy, and the disintegration of the Church as sedition against the ecclesiastical order. In a memorandum of 1536, again composed by Melanchthon and signed by Luther, the distinction between the peaceful and the revolutionary Anabaptists was obliterated. (Bainton, 295)
Last edited by n3ptne on Sat Dec 24, 2005 7:02 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
n3ptne
Joined: 14 Sep 2005
Location: Poh*A*ng City
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 24, 2005 6:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rapier wrote: |
| Joan of Arc: heroic woman..killed as a"heretic". |
Does the depth of your stupidity know no limit? Joan of Arc was killed on the orders of John Plantagenet, Duke of Bedford... another Protestant. She is a Roman Catholic Saint and Bishop Cauchon (a Catholic tool) denied her any appeals to the Pope or the Council of Basel (meaning the Pope, or any sort of officiating body of the Catholic Church had no knowledge of her charges/trial and just 24 years later, when a Pope did look into the trial, her conviction was overturned and she was proposed for canonization.)
Her execution was strictly political, on the grounds that by her actions Charles VII was coronated King of France, and not Plantagenet's nephew. Geoffroy Therage (a Catholic), her executioner, said to have, "...a great fear of being damned, [as] he had burned a saint."
Ooooh... and have you ever heard of Tony Leyva? Might want to look into him before you start castigating the Catholic Church for abusing altar boys. In the 80s he abused "several hundred" young boys, and he was a member of the Protestant clergy, not a Catholic, and of course, he's but one of the many Protestant's involved in the scandal. 
I love this guy... he tries to convince people of Catholic atrocity in lieu of the "truth" of Protestantism, and actually cites *two* cases of Protestant atrocity for which the Catholic church was completely uninvolved and against. He's great. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 24, 2005 7:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| n3ptne wrote: |
[
Would this be the same message of Jesus where he emphatically states, in the Apocrypha, that Mary was a virgin for her entire life? ) |
The Apocrypha is NOT an accepted Christian text by ANY major Christian sect be they Catholic or Protestant. To use a text that has been debunked as a foundation for your argument is flawed reasoning.
It's like using the National Enquirer in a debate between say TIME and NEWSWEEK  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
n3ptne
Joined: 14 Sep 2005
Location: Poh*A*ng City
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 24, 2005 7:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Nono Urban, you took it out of context, as I've already stated that its unaccepted by any Christian sect other than Ethiopian, and that even they only include minor portions of it.
However, it is valid in my argument to a gain a sense of historical understanding. It was initially included in the KJV, and would have been considered "the word of God" (not by Catholics) by Protestants of Luther's time. Supporting that fact? Luther/Zwingli both believed in the perpetual virginity concept, AND no part of the *real* bible (something I find amusing to say, as Constantine basically "compiled" it according to his own agenda and had burned any parts that didn't accord with his own version of faith (though he did claim to have had a vision...)) is actually in dispute with the Apocrypha's supportation of Mary's life long celibacy when looked at by the Catholic linguistic approach.
Essentially... my use in mentioning it was to support and citate that the perpetual virginity concept is, or can be, a biblical approach, and is not, depsite the claims of Protestants, "blasphemy" by any means.
Furthermore, Luther would have had any one of us burned at the stake for even suggesting that the word of Christ, in the Apocrypha, was bunk.
Protestants are now as guilty as the Catholics they accuse for "officiating" the "message of God" and acting as an intermediary. If anything this discussion, and Rapier's most ill confused grasp of Theology/History (even as a Protestant), shows the express need for a systematic organization of learned scholars to decide that which is, and that which is not "the message" of Christianity.
God, I'm glad I'm not Christian anymore, people of my philosophical persuasion have never been guilty of such offenses to both logic and humanity |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fiveeagles
Joined: 19 May 2005
Location: Vancouver
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 28, 2005 7:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Rapier,
I haven't read through much of the throught here, but know this. Satan's primary weapon against the church is division.
When we as Christians stand together in unity, this is our greatest weapon against evil.
I can understand your concern over the Catholic church and it's dark history, but please explain how you think it is going to be the platform for the antiChrist.
Right now, it is standing for the following things,
1. It stands against homosexuality, (very unpopular stance in Europe.)
2. The pope is very conservative and stands for righteousness, (Have you ever read anything by John Paul or Mother Teresa? ) Their writings show incredible intimacy with Jesus.
3. The agree on the basic tenants of the faith.
MLK brought about much powerful change to the church, but he also did incredible damage.
I believe in the future, you will see many Catholic martyrs on europe soil. Great persecution to the church is going to come from Europe in the next few years. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rapier
Joined: 16 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 28, 2005 7:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The words "antichrist" and "vicar" mean the same thing.
Antichrist, a Greek word translated into English means "ViceChrist", or Vicar of Christ". This is what the Pope claims to be.
Have a look at this fiveagles.
http://www.cuttingedge.org/news/n1359.cfm
or these:
http://www.ianpaisley.org/antichrist.asp
neptune writes:
| Quote: |
| Protestants are now as guilty as the Catholics they accuse for "officiating" the "message of God" and acting as an intermediary. |
Really? Feel free to back up your random statements... anytime is fine. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
