The original church

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

> >> DICK

> >> Basic Christianity must learned from Catholicism

> >> since that was the ONLY Christianity until Martin Luther

> >> started his competing church and then married a nun. The

> >> advanced Christianity about Jesus can come only after the

> >> basic Christianity is understood.

> 

> >TOD

> >Any moron [sic] with a basic knowledge of Christian history knows that the 

> >Catholic church was not the "ONLY" form of Christianity until Martin 

> >Luther broke from the church, nor is it "basic" Christianity, and it most 

> >certainly was not the first sect of Christianity.

> 

> You, TOD, are a both a fool and a liar, showing you know

> not whereof you speak. The Catholic WAS and IS the ONLY form

> of true Christianity, and the ONLY basic Christianity. Then

> you have no idea of what sects are and what their significance

> and relationship to Christianity might be.

> 

> >This honor goes to the 

> >Jeruselem [sic] Church, alledgedly [sic] founded by Peter and James (the

> brother of 

> >Jesus), the church that Paul broke ties with due to his teaching the 

> >abrogation of the Torah.

> 

> This, indeed, is the Holy Roman Catholic Church, headed up

> by St. Peter, appointed by Christ as the Rock of the

> Church, assisted by James, the brother of Jesus, the ones

> who chased that fool, St. Paul, out of the country. If you

> had read what I wrote and understood it and remembered it,

> you would find that I said more truth was found in Peter and

> John than Paul, the Holy Fool.


TOD
You are truly ignorant of the New Testament.  The Catholic Church is 
founded on the teachings of Paul, and not the original teachings of the 
Jerusalem Church.  They thought that the law was still in effect, the 
believed that circumcision was still a necessity, etc., that was the 
source of their conflict with Paul.  If the Catholic Church is founded on 
the Jerusalem Church, then why do they subscribe to Paul's teachings 
instead of the Jerusalem Church's teachings?  Why do they include the 
epistles of Paul in their Bible?  

DICK

> >Not to mention the Gnostic Ebionites, founded by Cerinthus, which also 

> >predate the formation of the Catholic church. 

> 

> LIE, and a lack of knowledge about basic Christianity.

> The FIRST and ONLY true Church was founded by Jesus Christ

> when he appointed St. Peter to be the Rock. No church

> founded by a human being, whether Cerinthus or Luther,

> is the true Church founded by Christ.

> 

TOD
Oh, and when did Jesus found the Catholic Church?  When did he found its 
dogmas unique only to the Catholic sect?  When did he teach of the 
Immaculate Conception, or speak of Hail Marys and Our Fathers to repent 
of sins?  When did he say a Pope was required, or that such a man was 
infallible and should be heeded?  When did he teach of Purgatory?  When 
did Peter or James teach any of the aforementioned?  

Besides, we weren't discussing the matter of whether the Catholic church 
is the "true" church, we were discussing whether it was the "only 
Christianity until Martin Luther started his competing church...." (Dick 
above).  This argument of yours is a strawman, one which I have indulged 
to expose your tremendous ignorance in this instance as well.  Where is 
your evidence to support this claim you have made that Jesus founded the 
Catholic sect, and that he just didn't found Christianity, upon which 
many other sects, included the Catholics, elaborated on to suit their own 
needs.

At any rate, your statement that Catholocism was the "only Christianity 
until Marin Luter started his competing church" is false.  


> >They were consequently 

> >persecuted out of existence by the Catholic church, an eradication that 

> >didn't occur until the tenth century, as is evident from the records of 

> >Saadia, a Jewish philosopher.

> 

> FALLACY OF APPEAL TO AUTHORITY and raising human opinion

> to the level of truth erroneously. Saadia is NOT a source

> of infallible knowledge, but only a man with his opinions.


TOD
Well, so is an appeal to the Bible so what is your point?  What is the 
source of your knowledge of Jesus and the founding of Christianity?  
Furthermore, you are very ignorant if you think that Saadia is the only 
source of knowledge of the Ebonites, he is far from it.  He just happens 
to have made the last recording of their existence.

DICK
 And this is your FALLACY OF NON SEQUITUR, with their alleged

> eradication irrelevant to the proposition.


TOD
A non sequitur is when the conclusion does not follow from your 
premises.  You are trying to describe a strawman. It wasn't even a 
strawman because it was relevant.  You stated that the Catholics were the 
only Christianity until the Protestant Reformation, and I was 
demonstrating that there did exist more, and I pointed out their longetivity 
to demonstrate that they were not just some fly-by-night sect to be 
discounted for that reason.
 
TOD

> >There were so many (mostly quibbling) sects of Christianity in the first 

> >century, that anybody that says that the Catholic church was the only 

> >sect of Christianity until Martin Luther doesn't even have a firm grasp 

> >of the New Testament, much less Christian history in general.

> 

DICK

> FALLACY OF STRAWMAN and LIE. I did NOT say NOR imply

> anything about any "sect", a word I didn't use, and one

> which has the opposite meaning to the church. The New

> Testament was compiled SOLELY by the Catholic Church.


TOD
Well, it was compiled by the Catholics yes, but since fragments of them 
exist that predate the adoption of Christianity by the Roman Empire (and 
hence, the true start of the Catholic Church) one can hardly claim that 
Catholics wrote the books of the New Testament. Name me ONE uniquely 
Catholic dogma found in the New Testament.  

DICK

> It is SOLELY a Roman Catholic document. Any fool who

> can't see this is blind.


TOD
Another assertion without evidence.  I know, you have your own little 
reality were an assertion isn't an assertion, but according to the 
English language, to assert is "to state positively, declare, affirm".

Now, you have declared that the New Testament is a "solely...Roman 
Catholic document", but you haven't lifted a finger to demonstrate this.

If all a debate with you entails is making unsubstantiated assertions 
that don't require demonstrating the truth of, I will play by your rules:

The Catholic church was not the original church of Christianity, was not 
founded by Jesus (as it is), and did not write the New Testament.

DICK
 And all history is bunk, the

> biased and prejudiced opinions of human beings. This

> fool TOD lacks any way to know reality.

> 

TOD
And this fool DICK lacks any ability to back up his puny little statements.

TOD

> >Now go ahead and bombard me with insults, but that will not change 

> >history and your ignorance of it.

> 

DICK

> I bombard many fools on this list with what they perceive

> incorrectly to be insults not understanding that the truth

> is never insulting.


TOD
The only fool I have seen on this list is you, be they Christian, 
Atheist, etc.  Furthermore, it doesn't matter if you are declaring truth 
(which there is no reason whatsoever to believe), if you include 
derogatory remarks, it is insulting.  Here is an example.  A rock is 
composed of what we call matter, you stupid, ignorant, cock-sucking, 
obtuse piece of flotsam.  A statement of truth that is insulting.

DICK

> Do you imagine history is a real thing, something

> that exists, that you can go pick up a pound of history? 


TOD
Strawman. 

DICK
You have no idea

> what reality is, living in your make believe world. 

You

> have NO understanding of even simple Christianity.


TOD
You have yet to demonstrate that you do, in fact, quite the obvious.

DICK
 You can only make 
silly unproven and unprovable assertions of

> nonsense


TOD
Excuse me, but I am fully prepared to back up my assertions, it is you 
that cannot do the same.  Actually, according to your little warped 
version of reality, I have made no assertions.

DICK
 tossing in a few insults of your own here and

> there,


TOD
You can hardly fault me for that.  I come to you in my first three post 
with respect and not so much as an insulting tone, and you come at me 
with "fool", "bimbo", "moron", etc., all in your first two post.

DICK
 a fool of the first magnitude.

TOD
An assertion from a fool with no evidence.

• Previous message: Dick's insults (was re: rock)
• Next message: The original church
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]