graven image?

[Triumph1300]

I can destroy your lies and theories just as easily as @BreadOfLife

You are not even close to BOL.

 

[Helen]

You are not even close to BOL.

Indeed, he has earned his respect on this Site. :)

 

[Marymog]

You are not even close to BOL.

I suspect you that statement was an effort to put me down or suggest I am lesser than @BreadOfLife? It didn’t work dear....:) For you see you just re-affirmed what I already said (great dragon slayer, master);) You were actually agreeing with me kiddo.

Of course since you only PARTIALLY quoted and responded to my post out of context you probably forgot those words of praise for him were in their.

At least you got a “like” from @bygrace. She sure knows how to look for post that ATTEMPT to put Marymog down but she sure can’t answer post that destroys her theories.....Oh well.

Mary

 

[brakelite]

I see. Twisting BOL’s words like you twist scripture. Why don’t you just quote him instead of making up your own words????? (You know you can cut and paste his words instead of making them up)

We’re you able to provide any historical evidence of a Christian church before the Catholic Church?

If you did I apologize, I missed it.

Curious Mary

My point being that the Roman church, despite its protestations to the contrary, is not Catholic. It isn't me who twists words and definitions. There were churches from Palestine to China, thriving, evangelistic, and living in harmony with the ruling political powers in most places for centuries, all without any contact, influence, counsel, help, or reference to Rome.
The church in Persia had trouble from persecution with the pagan Zoroastrians, and in the latter centuries with the evil Muslim Tamerlane. The Mongols however treated the Christian communities throughout their Empire with great tolerance, so long as they didn't interfere politically. Genghis Khan's own descendants, among them a granddaughter, was Christian.
What you simply do not get, and refuse to recognise, is that Christianity is not confined to the Roman church... Never was. Never will be. There have always been Christian churches that have thrived, brought souls to Christ, discipled them, baptisting them into the kingdom, and taught them the truths of scripture. What you stubbornly refuse to acknowledge is that whenever ambassadors from Rome appeared on the footsteps of those churches, and demanded that they surrender to Roman papal authority, trouble was ensured. Every time. And the result was never good. I have previously provided excellent historical references to support this. However, if you choose to remain blind that is your choice: there is nothing more I can do. Remain ignorant of you wish.

 

[Marymog]

My point being that the Roman church, despite its protestations to the contrary, is not Catholic. It isn't me who twists words and definitions. There were churches from Palestine to China, thriving, evangelistic, and living in harmony with the ruling political powers in most places for centuries, all without any contact, influence, counsel, help, out reference to Rome.5
The church in Persia had trouble from persecution with the pagan Zoroastrians, and in the latter centuries with the evil Muslim Tamerlane. The Mongols however treated the Christian communities throughout their Empire with great tolerance, so long as they didn't interfere politically. Genghis Khan's own descendants, among them a granddaughter, was Christian.
What you simply do not get, and refuse to recognise, is that Christianity is not confined to the Roman church... Never was. Never will be. There have always been Christian Chichester that have thrived, brought should to Christ, discipled them, baptisting them into the kingdom, and taught them the truths of scripture. What you stubbornly refuse to acknowledge is that whenever ambassadors from Rome appeared on the footsteps of those churches, and demanded that they surrender to Roman papal authority, trouble was ensured. Every time. And the result was never good. I have previously provided excellent historical references to support this. However, if you choose to remain blind that is your choice: there is nothing more I can do. Remain ignorant of you wish.

Thank you Brokelite.

At least we agree on something. Anyone that denies The Truth is ensured to be in trouble and the result won’t be good. Soooo I guess you are the one who decides what The Truth is???

Think about it....


Mary

 

[brakelite]

Hi brokelite,

I can destroy your lies and theories just as easily as @BreadOfLife can however i will let the great dragon slayer destroy you instead. I plan to just sit back and watch and learn from the master :)

It’s not like any of it matters. As I have recently learned the only right scriptural interpretations are the ones you approve of. Even your own church has gotten some of their scriptural interpretations wrong....haven't they Brokelite?

Mary

The"great Dragon Slayer"has chosen to hide behind the block option. Insults that constantly flow from his fingers I can quite do without.
As for your and BOLs repetitive demand for"proof" , you are aware that the Victor in war always destroyed any evidence of their enemy's existence right? Especially when the war was unjustified. Fortunately historians managed to preserve some eye witness accounts that testify to Rome perversions and cruelty, such as John Foxe. And others. But you and BOL, if you were really interested in truth, could discover those histories yourself. But you arent interested in truth are you. Otherwise you wouldn't be asking me to provide evidence that is easily within your own grasp to provide.

 

[brakelite]

Thank you Brokelite.

At least we agree on something. Anyone that denies The Truth is ensured to be in trouble and the result won’t be good. Soooo I guess you are the one who decides what The Truth is???

Think about it....


Mary

That trouble came in the form of persecution. Yes, persecution and war was always Rome's response to those who disagreed with her.

 

[Truth]

Paintings and carvings found in the catacombs are relevant to the topic. You're upset because there is nothing Protestant in the evidence of the 1st 3 centuries. I gave physical evidence of the Catholicity of the early church, I didn't bash your church with senseless ignorance and bigotry. Archaeology is a science, not an opinion.

Luther and Calvin promoted the death sentence on anyone who didn't believe the way they did, and no pope did such a thing. Would you like documentation? You understand "documentation", don't you?
You don't document any of your anti-Catholic hate because lies can't be documented, just fabricated.

I know I am Just wading in on this conversation! As you have stated above that Paintings and Carving's found in the Catacombs are relevant to the topic! Right ! So would you consider Any form of Painting's or Carving's in the History outside of those that are of Religious context of any value of what transpired in the History of man? would you think they had any relevance to what happened in the History of men? Even the Native american's Painted scenes on cave wall's, So Yes or No??

 

[Triumph1300]

 

[pia]

he has earned his respect on this Site

Could I please just double check with you, who you are referring to here ? It reads as if your respect is for BOL ? Is this what you meant ?

 

[epostle1]

Matthew 16:18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

Anti-Catholic version:
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this pebble I will build my temporary church, and the gates of Hades will overcome it sometime before 1517.

 

[epostle1]

It appears the iconoclasts have run away.

Statue of John Calvin, who banned all statues:

Here is a list of scriptures forbidding art, paintings, stained glass or statues or any such devotional aids be used in places of worship:

 

[epostle1]

I know I am Just wading in on this conversation! As you have stated above that Paintings and Carving's found in the Catacombs are relevant to the topic! Right ! So would you consider Any form of Painting's or Carving's in the History outside of those that are of Religious context of any value of what transpired in the History of man? would you think they had any relevance to what happened in the History of men? Even the Native american's Painted scenes on cave wall's, So Yes or No??

You want to trap me into a black/white answer to a multi-dimensional question. I think all art is valuable for those it is intended. You are talking about art in general, I am talking about paleo-Christian art, which has it's own style and it's own peculiar time frame. The early Christians were NOT radical Protestant iconoclasts. You may find this interesting:
LETTER OF POPE JOHN PAUL II TO ARTISTS

 

[BreadOfLife]

@Marymog Can you answer this Mary in BOL's absence?

Just as the Church at Antioch sought the Authority of the Apostles at the Council of Jerusalem - this was the model for ALL of the churches.

In the Epistle of Clement (AD 85), we see that the Church in Corinth is being dealt with by him and the Church in Rome because of their disobedience and uprising against the Corinthian clergy.

Soooo, what exactly is your point?

 

[brakelite]

Just as the Church at Antioch sought the Authority of the Apostles at the Council of Jerusalem - this was the model for ALL of the churches.

In the Epistle of Clement (AD 85), we see that the Church in Corinth is being dealt with by him and the Church in Rome because of their disobedience and uprising against the Corinthian clergy.

Soooo, what exactly is your point?

Oh, there you are!!! Long time no see!! I hope you enjoyed your vacation away me.
So, my point? That there was as apostolic, evangelical form of Christianity that rejected Roman papal authority, right from the beginning. They were Biblical... And they were modelled on Judean organisational churches through the teaching of Paul. They in fact fought against the assumed authority of Rome, resisting her demands of submission to one central Bishop. Hence the split that ensued between the east and West over the forced establishment of Easter Sunday. Patrick, leader of the Celtic church in Britain, Vigilantius, leader of the early, Waldensian church, and Lucian, Bishop of Antioch, opposed Rome. In those early centuries only those taught in the Origen schools at Alexandria had any dealings with the Roman bishops.
My point being in summary, Rome was not the only shop in town and not everyone bought their goods from her.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Oh, there you are!!! Long time no see!! I hope you enjoyed your vacation away me.
So, my point? That there was as apostolic, evangelical form of Christianity that rejected Roman papal authority, right from the beginning. They were Biblical... And they were modelled on Judean organisational churches through the teaching of Paul. They in fact fought against the assumed authority of Rome, resisting her demands of submission to one central Bishop. Hence the split that ensued between the east and West over the forced establishment of Easter Sunday. Patrick, leader of the Celtic church in Britain, Vigilantius, leader of the early, Waldensian church, and Lucian, Bishop of Antioch, opposed Rome. In those early centuries only those taught in the Origen schools at Alexandria had any dealings with the Roman bishops.
My point being in summary, Rome was not the only shop in town and not everyone bought their goods from her.

Ummmm, first of all - the Waldensians were heretics who opposed their Bishops.

As for St. Patrick, he was a student of St. Germain, who was commissioned by Rome to go to Britain to combat the Pelagian heresy. He took Patrick with him. To imply that St. Patrick was some kind of maverick preacher who was disobedient to the Pope is a historical fallacy.

The onus is on YOU to provide proof of these "Apostolic" sects of believers that were there from the very "beginning."
You see - the Catholic Church has proven that we were there from the beginning and provides the actual documentation for it.

You can make claims about anything you want - but, to provide historical documentation for it is another kettle of fish . . .

 

[brakelite]

Ummmm, first of all - the Waldensians were heretics who opposed their Bishops.

As for St. Patrick, he was a student of St. Germain, who was commissioned by Rome to go to Britain to combat the Pelagian heresy. He took Patrick with him. To imply that St. Patrick was some kind of maverick preacher who was disobedient to the Pope is a historical fallacy.

The onus is on YOU to provide proof of these "Apostolic" sects of believers that were there from the very "beginning."
You see - the Catholic Church has proven that we were there from the beginning and provides the actual documentation for it.

You can make claims about anything you want - but, to provide historical documentation for it is another kettle of fish . . .

Celtic Christianity embraced more than Irish and British Christianity. There was a Gallic (French) Celtic Christianity and a Galatian Celtic Christianity, as well as a British Celtic Christianity. So great were the migrations of peoples in ancient times that not only the Greeks, but also the Assyrians settled in large numbers in the land now called France. Thus for almost a thousand years after Christ there was in southern France a strong Greek and Oriental population. As late as 600, there were people in France who spoke the language of Assyria. Surely no one could claim that that branch of Celtic Christianity in Asia Minor, whose churches arose as the result of the labors of the apostle Paul, received their gospel from the bishop of Rome. On the other hand, it is evident that Gaul received her knowledge of the gospel from missionaries who traveled from Asia Minor. It was the Celtic, or Galatian type of the New Testament church which evangelized Great Britain.1
Thus Thomas Yeates writes: A large number of this Keltic community (Lyons, A.D. 177) — colonists from Asia Minor — who escaped, migrated to Ireland (Erin) and laid the foundations of the pre-Patrick church.”
The Roman Catholic Church throughout the centuries was able to secure a large following in France; but until after the French Revolution she never succeeded in eliminating the spirit of independence in the French hierarchy. This is due largely to the background of the Celtic race. As H. J. Warner writes: Such an independence France had constantly shown, and it may be traced not only to the racial antipathy between Gaul and Pelagian, but to the fact that western Gaul had never lost touch with its eastern kin.”
Two centuries elapsed after Patrick’s death before any writer attempted to connect Patrick’s work with a papal commission. No pope ever mentioned him, neither is there anything in the ecclesiastical records of Rome concerning him. Nevertheless, by examining the two writings which he left historical statements are found which locate quite definitely the period in which he labored.

 

[brakelite]

Ummmm, first of all - the Waldensians were heretics who opposed their Bishops.

As for St. Patrick, he was a student of St. Germain, who was commissioned by Rome to go to Britain to combat the Pelagian heresy. He took Patrick with him. To imply that St. Patrick was some kind of maverick preacher who was disobedient to the Pope is a historical fallacy.

The onus is on YOU to provide proof of these "Apostolic" sects of believers that were there from the very "beginning."
You see - the Catholic Church has proven that we were there from the beginning and provides the actual documentation for it.

You can make claims about anything you want - but, to provide historical documentation for it is another kettle of fish . . .

Many miracles have been ascribed to Patrick by the traditional stories which grew up. Two or three will suffice to show the difference between the miraculous hero of the fanatical fiction and the real Patrick. The Celtic Patrick reached Ireland in an ordinary way. The fictitious Patrick, in order to provide passage for a leper when there was no place on the boat, threw his portable stone altar into the sea. The stone did not go to the bottom, nor was it outdistanced by the boat, but it floated around the boat with the leper on it until it reached Ireland.25 In order to connect this great man with the papal see, it was related: “Sleep came over the inhabitants of Rome, so that Patrick brought away as much as he wanted of the relics. Afterward those relics were taken to Armagh by the counsel of God and the counsel of the men of Ireland. What was brought then was three hundred and threescore and five relics, together with the relics of Paul and Peter and Lawrence and Stephen, and many others. And a sheet was there with Christ’s blood [thereon] and with the hair of Mary the Virgin.26 But Dr. Killen refutes this story by declaring: He (Patrick) never mentions either Rome or the pope or hints that he was in any way connected with the ecclesiastical capital of Italy. He recognizes no other authority but that of the word of God. .. When Palladius arrived in the country, it was not to be expected that he would receive a very hearty welcome from the Irish apostle. If he was sent by [Pope] Celestine to the native Christians to be their primate or archbishop, no wonder that stouthearted Patrick refused to bow his neck to any such yoke of bondage.” About two hundred years after Patrick, papal authors began to tell of a certain Palladius, who was sent in 430 by this same Pope Celestine as a bishop to the Irish. They all admit, however, that he stayed only a short time in Ireland and was compelled to withdraw because of the disrespect which was shown him. One more of the many legendary miracles which sprang from the credulity and tradition of Rome is here repeated. “He went to Rome to have [ecclesiastical] orders given him; and Caelestinus, abbot of Rome, he it is that read orders over him, Gemanus and Amatho, king of the Romans, being present with them. .. And when the orders were a reading out, the three choirs mutually responded, namely the choir of the household of heaven, and the choir of the Romans, and the choir of the children from the wood of Fochlad. This is what all sang: ‘All we Irish beseech thee, holy Patrick, to come and walk among us and to free us.’”28 It is doubtful whether the choirs in heaven would accept this representation that they were Irish.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Celtic Christianity embraced more than Irish and British Christianity. There was a Gallic (French) Celtic Christianity and a Galatian Celtic Christianity, as well as a British Celtic Christianity. So great were the migrations of peoples in ancient times that not only the Greeks, but also the Assyrians settled in large numbers in the land now called France. Thus for almost a thousand years after Christ there was in southern France a strong Greek and Oriental population. As late as 600, there were people in France who spoke the language of Assyria. Surely no one could claim that that branch of Celtic Christianity in Asia Minor, whose churches arose as the result of the labors of the apostle Paul, received their gospel from the bishop of Rome. On the other hand, it is evident that Gaul received her knowledge of the gospel from missionaries who traveled from Asia Minor. It was the Celtic, or Galatian type of the New Testament church which evangelized Great Britain.1
Thus Thomas Yeates writes: A large number of this Keltic community (Lyons, A.D. 177) — colonists from Asia Minor — who escaped, migrated to Ireland (Erin) and laid the foundations of the pre-Patrick church.”
The Roman Catholic Church throughout the centuries was able to secure a large following in France; but until after the French Revolution she never succeeded in eliminating the spirit of independence in the French hierarchy. This is due largely to the background of the Celtic race. As H. J. Warner writes: Such an independence France had constantly shown, and it may be traced not only to the racial antipathy between Gaul and Pelagian, but to the fact that western Gaul had never lost touch with its eastern kin.”
Two centuries elapsed after Patrick’s death before any writer attempted to connect Patrick’s work with a papal commission. No pope ever mentioned him, neither is there anything in the ecclesiastical records of Rome concerning him. Nevertheless, by examining the two writings which he left historical statements are found which locate quite definitely the period in which he labored.

Many miracles have been ascribed to Patrick by the traditional stories which grew up. Two or three will suffice to show the difference between the miraculous hero of the fanatical fiction and the real Patrick. The Celtic Patrick reached Ireland in an ordinary way. The fictitious Patrick, in order to provide passage for a leper when there was no place on the boat, threw his portable stone altar into the sea. The stone did not go to the bottom, nor was it outdistanced by the boat, but it floated around the boat with the leper on it until it reached Ireland.25 In order to connect this great man with the papal see, it was related: “Sleep came over the inhabitants of Rome, so that Patrick brought away as much as he wanted of the relics. Afterward those relics were taken to Armagh by the counsel of God and the counsel of the men of Ireland. What was brought then was three hundred and threescore and five relics, together with the relics of Paul and Peter and Lawrence and Stephen, and many others. And a sheet was there with Christ’s blood [thereon] and with the hair of Mary the Virgin.26 But Dr. Killen refutes this story by declaring: He (Patrick) never mentions either Rome or the pope or hints that he was in any way connected with the ecclesiastical capital of Italy. He recognizes no other authority but that of the word of God. .. When Palladius arrived in the country, it was not to be expected that he would receive a very hearty welcome from the Irish apostle. If he was sent by [Pope] Celestine to the native Christians to be their primate or archbishop, no wonder that stouthearted Patrick refused to bow his neck to any such yoke of bondage.” About two hundred years after Patrick, papal authors began to tell of a certain Palladius, who was sent in 430 by this same Pope Celestine as a bishop to the Irish. They all admit, however, that he stayed only a short time in Ireland and was compelled to withdraw because of the disrespect which was shown him. One more of the many legendary miracles which sprang from the credulity and tradition of Rome is here repeated. “He went to Rome to have [ecclesiastical] orders given him; and Caelestinus, abbot of Rome, he it is that read orders over him, Gemanus and Amatho, king of the Romans, being present with them. .. And when the orders were a reading out, the three choirs mutually responded, namely the choir of the household of heaven, and the choir of the Romans, and the choir of the children from the wood of Fochlad. This is what all sang: ‘All we Irish beseech thee, holy Patrick, to come and walk among us and to free us.’”28 It is doubtful whether the choirs in heaven would accept this representation that they were Irish.

Thank you for that skewed Protestant version of Church history that you copied and pasted from the writings of Benjamin Wilkinson over at GospelHerald.com, which touts the writings of other anti-Catholic "giants" such as false prophetess Ellen G. White.

Well, at least we know where you're coming from . . .
YIKES . . . .

 

[Truth]

You want to trap me into a black/white answer to a multi-dimensional question. I think all art is valuable for those it is intended. You are talking about art in general, I am talking about paleo-Christian art, which has it's own style and it's own peculiar time frame. The early Christians were NOT radical Protestant iconoclasts. You may find this interesting:
LETTER OF POPE JOHN PAUL II TO ARTISTS

NO I wasn't trying to Trap you, I think that for many generation's men have tried to establish a History of what has transpired within their own culture's. Cave painting's and or Carvings were a way to express events and such. just as you claim that the painting and carvings in the Catacombs were relevant to Christianity, things that transpired within the culture of that time and place! You and Bol, continue to bring forth what you claim to be Absolute Historical Documentation for the Catholic Church, being there from the Beginning!!! Who's to Say that your Documentation is Absolute Truth, as you refer to any other Historical Documentation out side of your realm of belief, or that were written by others in history. How do we distinguish the difference, as to who wrote the Truth, AS all of History is written by those that Have Conquered, and usually written to their advantage. You know what I mean, I smell Good and you Stink, and vis-versa!!