Please be aware that I wasn't seeking to argue with you. It's my fault that it looks like I was.
I was merely using your post as a springboard for my own thoughts on the subject, which are not scholarly or vetted. Just my thoughts.
I presumed you know full well that the writing of the epistles preceded the writing of the gospels. My point was that I believe the Christology of the epistles circulated more broadly than any biography of Jesus until the gospels were written.
I hold myself responsible for any lack of clarity on that point.
,matter of fact I didn't think you were arguing with me - I took it as useful feedback that what I said could be misconstrued...I wish I could be as articulate as you when it comes to talking about Bible stuff - in case you don't realize it I used the latter part of your comments as a springboard for other stuff I wanted to share anyway.
Alexander Hislop wrote "THE Two Babylons." That was a long time ago, and was written to scholarly types, who were thought to be the only people who'd care about the contents. (That was a LONG time ago, and we've come a LONG way since then.) It's now in the public domain. (That was a long time ago.)
Ralph Woodrow read Hislop's book. He attempted to make a book with similar content that was a lot more readable and user-friendly, using Hislop's book as a guide. RW EXTENSIVELY end-note ALL his references to Hislop's book. This did nothing to make the book less user-friendly, but completely refutes the claim that, if vpw had properly footnoted or end-noted his books, that it would have been a distraction or taken away from his books. (Most people reading RW's book weren't really aware of the end-noting unless looking for it, but it was very useful for anyone looking to follow up on the contents.)
One problem was, Alexander Hislop's book was loaded with errors. That meant that RW's book was loaded with errors. RW got a lot of feedback, some of it with extensive documentation. You may notice that "Babylon-Mystery Religion" is out of print. RW chose, instead, to write a book addressing all the problems with Hislop's "The Two Babylons" and RW's "Babylon Mystery Religion" and called it "The Babylon Connection?" That should be in print now.
"The Two Babylons" is a hard read even if it's in the public domain, because it was a product of its time. Authors writing at that time wrote EXCLUSIVELY to the grad students and PhDs, and not to the public. (On these subjects, at any rate- that's why they quote Latin and expect the readers to all know what they said.) "Babylon Mystery Religion" was a nice read for protestant Christians, especially those like vpw who had an axe to grind against the RCC (not necessarily an undeserved issue.) "The Babylon Connection"" probably isn't as popular because it's not fodder for fuel for flamewars, and nobody likes to consider their previous positions were wrong, their previous beliefs were wrong.
Naturally, twi had nothing to do with any of those books except to carry them in their bookstore- they certainly didn't carry Woodrow's later book.
I believe that there are false accusations and assumptions against Catholics. One example: heard a preacher say that praying the 'hail Mary' was a form of Satan worship! I told him that I thought he could be falsely accusing Catholics of doing something they aren't. Hope that made him think about his judgment but I don't know. I think Babylon Mystery Religion was like that... attributed false assumptions to folks they do not know, do not talk to, do not befriend. I observed later that Catholics have their own interpretation of dogmas that may have (and likely does have) nothing to do with and even opposite what non-believers in that religion say they do.
In addition, I explained this concept to an offshoot of the Roman Catholic church that call themselves the Nativity of Christ Greek Orthodox Church
Hi Mark,
Is the Greek Orthodox Church an offshoot of the RCC??
The Greek/Eastern Orthdox Church members I know would never identify their church as an offshoot, especially an offshoot of the Roman Catholic Church. I may be misremembering the European History classes of my youth, but I'm pretty sure Greek/Eastern Orthodox is not an offshoot, derivative, nor sect of the Roman Catholic Church.
I mean we're talking ducks and diamonds here, but your sentence jumped out at me. Had to ask.
The Eastern Orthodox Church (including the Greek Orthodox Church) claims a history as old as the RCC, which claims a history back to the day of Pentecost.
Just as churches formed in Western Europe and ended up looking towards Rome for leadership, there were churches that formed in Greece, and other countries, who ended up looking towards Byzantium/Constantinople for "leadership" (not in the absolute sense of the Pope.) So, Orthodoxy belongs to both the RCC and Eastern Orthodox Church, and the Greek Orthodox Church is part of the EOC.
Although there were larger numbers of RCC than EOC, the Protestant Reformation split the West in a way the East was NOT split, and things have developed differently in both "high church" organizations (RCC and EOC.)
So, technically, no, the EOC is not a sect, offshoot, or derivative of the RCC. They comprise a sibling that has developed alongside the RCC, and their name recognition in, say, the US has increased greatly over the last 50 years, where it had previously been almost unknown.
The Eastern Orthodox Church (including the Greek Orthodox Church) claims a history as old as the RCC, which claims a history back to the day of Pentecost.
Just as churches formed in Western Europe and ended up looking towards Rome for leadership, there were churches that formed in Greece, and other countries, who ended up looking towards Byzantium/Constantinople for "leadership" (not in the absolute sense of the Pope.) So, Orthodoxy belongs to both the RCC and Eastern Orthodox Church, and the Greek Orthodox Church is part of the EOC.
Although there were larger numbers of RCC than EOC, the Protestant Reformation split the West in a way the East was NOT split, and things have developed differently in both "high church" organizations (RCC and EOC.)
So, technically, no, the EOC is not a sect, offshoot, or derivative of the RCC. They comprise a sibling that has developed alongside the RCC, and their name recognition in, say, the US has increased greatly over the last 50 years, where it had previously been almost unknown.
Right. It was all one Orthodox Church until the Great Schism of 1054. The split resulted in the RCC and the EOC. If memory serves.
The split could be seen as a continuation of Diocletian's effort after the crisis of the 3rd century. Charles Martel later stopped the Muslim expansion in Western Europe. His son Pepin reorganized Italy, giving the Pope more legitimacy. Pepin's son Charlemagne had himself coronated by the Pope to take on a sort of rebirth of the Western Roman Empire. He nearly married a Byzantine Empress. That would have been huge. Otherwise, there's the birth of The West.
Is the Greek Orthodox Church an offshoot of the RCC??
The Greek/Eastern Orthdox Church members I know would never identify their church as an offshoot, especially an offshoot of the Roman Catholic Church. I may be misremembering the European History classes of my youth, but I'm pretty sure Greek/Eastern Orthodox is not an offshoot, derivative, nor sect of the Roman Catholic Church.
I mean we're talking ducks and diamonds here, but your sentence jumped out at me. Had to ask.
That simply depends on the definition of offshoot. If you do not like that word. Another word can be used, for example separated. They historically were part of the Roman Catholic church, but they separated from this denomination and started another denomination. Regarding the word trinity, which is the primary topic of this forum. They do use the word trinity in their teachings. Here is a link with a web page that shows some of their teachings: https://www.nativityofchrist.org/our-faith-2/teachings/
Regarding the subject of trinity. Here are a few sentences on this subject copied from the above link.
Quote
While the inner Being of God always remains unknown and unapproachable, God has manifested Himself to us; and the Church has experienced Him as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Doctrine of the Holy Trinity, which is central to the Orthodox Faith, is not a result of pious speculation, but of the overwhelming experience of God. The doctrine affirms that there is only One God, in whom there are three distinct Persons. In other words, when we encounter the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit, we are truly experiencing contact with God. While the Holy Trinity is a mystery which can never be fully comprehended, Orthodoxy believes that we can truly participate in the Trinity through the life of the Church, especially through our celebration of the Eucharist and the Sacraments, as well as the non-sacramental services.
One of the reasons that this church separated from the Roman Catholic Church is that they did and do not believe that the Pope should have all authority, while teaching everything.
Regarding the history of the separation of the Orthodox Church from the Roman Catholic Church. Here is a link for this.
That simply depends on the definition of offshoot. If you do not like that word. Another word can be used, for example separated. They historically were part of the Roman Catholic church, but they separated from this denomination and started another denomination. Regarding the word trinity, which is the primary topic of this forum. They do use the word trinity in their teachings. Here is a link with a web page that shows some of their teachings: https://www.nativityofchrist.org/our-faith-2/teachings/
Regarding the subject of trinity. Here are a few sentences on this subject copied from the above link.
One of the reasons that this church separated from the Roman Catholic Church is that they did and do not believe that the Pope should have all authority, while teaching everything.
Regarding the history of the separation of the Orthodox Church from the Roman Catholic Church. Here is a link for this.
Thanks, Mark. The separation between the Latin and Greek churches happened so long ago, it seems redundant or superfluous to even mention it. It's either the RCC or the Orthodox Church.
I guess I was interested in the etymology of the term Catholic and when the Church self-identified that way.. I probably failed to articulate that, but I was able to scratch my itch for granularity here: https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03449a.htm
It's fascinating to me how diverse the Church has been since the very beginning. Everyone believes that they themselves are orthodox and everyone else is heterodox. Of course, this is just not possible, because everyone can't be right. So maybe everyone is wrong.
I don't identify as Trinitarian or Unitarian, but I find the contemplation of both ideas to be intellectually stimulating and spiritually rewarding. I'm only dogmatic about not being dogmatic.
I don't identify as Trinitarian or Unitarian, but I find the contemplation of both ideas to be intellectually stimulating and spiritually rewarding. I'm only dogmatic about not being dogmatic.
Regarding the subject of dogmatic, perhaps I am only dogmatic, when I meet trained dogs who wag their tails and do not growl or bark. Perhaps, I could be considered dogmatic only when I meet friendly dogs while petting them. Was I successful in getting you to laugh???
Regarding the subject of dogmatic, perhaps I am only dogmatic, when I meet trained dogs who wag their tails and do not growl or bark. Perhaps, I could be considered dogmatic only when I meet friendly dogs while petting them. Was I successful in getting you to laugh???
No. But that's ok.
Though I very much appreciate dark humor, dogmatism is too dark, even for me. I find it physically repulsive; it causes inflammation in my brain and my heart and makes me sick.
The split could be seen as a continuation of Diocletian's effort after the crisis of the 3rd century. Charles Martel later stopped the Muslim expansion in Western Europe. His son Pepin reorganized Italy, giving the Pope more legitimacy. Pepin's son Charlemagne had himself coronated by the Pope to take on a sort of rebirth of the Western Roman Empire. He nearly married a Byzantine Empress. That would have been huge. Otherwise, there's the birth of The West.
Though I very much appreciate dark humor, dogmatism is too dark, even for me. I find it physically repulsive; it causes inflammation in my brain and my heart and makes me sick.
Congratulations, for your ability to get me to laugh. Perhaps you are a humor genius and I am not.
quote : So, it’s gone from About the Way forum to doctrinal forum…now we need a Kool-Aid testimonial forum…whatever. it’s hilarious how muchdiehard-wierwille-fanskeep pushing that idle idol. There’s no use in logical debate of doctrine and Scripture interpretation with them cuz if wierwille said it – they believe it – that settles it.
I did not make even ONE reference to VP in the first post on this thread nor the 2nd. You're just going to see what you want to see. Typical.
This phenomenon, calledmotivated perception,has been explored in psychological research for decades. Indeed, the world as we conceive it in our awareness is not exactly an accuraterepresentationof what it truly is. Our perception is oftenbiased,selective,andmalleable.
This phenomenon, calledmotivated perception,has been explored in psychological research for decades. Indeed, the world as we conceive it in our awareness is not exactly an accuraterepresentationof what it truly is. Our perception is oftenbiased,selective,andmalleable.
So, if persuasion is the objective of one's writing, knowing what the audience wants to see and making one's case accordingly would seem to be a reasonable approach. Yes? No?
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
23
71
46
60
Popular Days
Jun 28
25
Jun 19
23
Jun 23
22
Jun 18
17
Top Posters In This Topic
Mark Sanguinetti 23 posts
T-Bone 71 posts
Bolshevik 46 posts
Nathan_Jr 60 posts
Popular Days
Jun 28 2022
25 posts
Jun 19 2022
23 posts
Jun 23 2022
22 posts
Jun 18 2022
17 posts
Popular Posts
johniam
When the devil tempted Jesus, as recorded in both Matthew chapter 4 and in Luke chapter 4, he offered Jesus "all the kingdoms of this world and the glory of them". He further stated that those things
T-Bone
This thread belongs in doctrinal forum. But for now, I’ll throw my 2 cents in while it’s hot off the press. note your words are in bold red 1. “Prior to the day of Penteco
Bolshevik
Hi Johniam, Maybe reread your paragraph. You say people have a choice . . . But it sounds like an ultimatum. You start off with love and end with a threat. The middle sentence feels like a li
modcat5
T-Bonè,
Please be aware that I wasn't seeking to argue with you. It's my fault that it looks like I was.
I was merely using your post as a springboard for my own thoughts on the subject, which are not scholarly or vetted. Just my thoughts.
I presumed you know full well that the writing of the epistles preceded the writing of the gospels. My point was that I believe the Christology of the epistles circulated more broadly than any biography of Jesus until the gospels were written.
I hold myself responsible for any lack of clarity on that point.
Raf.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Hi Modcat5 / Raf,
no harm done.
,matter of fact I didn't think you were arguing with me - I took it as useful feedback that what I said could be misconstrued...I wish I could be as articulate as you when it comes to talking about Bible stuff - in case you don't realize it I used the latter part of your comments as a springboard for other stuff I wanted to share anyway.
love & peace!
T-Bone
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I don't think I have, I see he is a YouTuber.
Did you happen to read The Two Babylons? Twi had that and also a shorter book like it. . . Escapes my memory. . .
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I don't see either book in the online bookstore.
Anti-Catholic books I think. Helped with the whole anti-Trinity stuff in TWI.
https://www.thriftbooks.com/w/the-two-babylons-or-the-papal-worship-proved-to-be-the-worship-of-nimrod-and-his-wife_alexander-hislop/354963/#idiq=2952469&edition=4884369
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Are you thinking of Babylon Mystery Religion by Ralph Woodrow ?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Alexander Hislop wrote "THE Two Babylons." That was a long time ago, and was written to scholarly types, who were thought to be the only people who'd care about the contents. (That was a LONG time ago, and we've come a LONG way since then.) It's now in the public domain. (That was a long time ago.)
Ralph Woodrow read Hislop's book. He attempted to make a book with similar content that was a lot more readable and user-friendly, using Hislop's book as a guide. RW EXTENSIVELY end-note ALL his references to Hislop's book. This did nothing to make the book less user-friendly, but completely refutes the claim that, if vpw had properly footnoted or end-noted his books, that it would have been a distraction or taken away from his books. (Most people reading RW's book weren't really aware of the end-noting unless looking for it, but it was very useful for anyone looking to follow up on the contents.)
One problem was, Alexander Hislop's book was loaded with errors. That meant that RW's book was loaded with errors. RW got a lot of feedback, some of it with extensive documentation. You may notice that "Babylon-Mystery Religion" is out of print. RW chose, instead, to write a book addressing all the problems with Hislop's "The Two Babylons" and RW's "Babylon Mystery Religion" and called it "The Babylon Connection?" That should be in print now.
"The Two Babylons" is a hard read even if it's in the public domain, because it was a product of its time. Authors writing at that time wrote EXCLUSIVELY to the grad students and PhDs, and not to the public. (On these subjects, at any rate- that's why they quote Latin and expect the readers to all know what they said.) "Babylon Mystery Religion" was a nice read for protestant Christians, especially those like vpw who had an axe to grind against the RCC (not necessarily an undeserved issue.) "The Babylon Connection"" probably isn't as popular because it's not fodder for fuel for flamewars, and nobody likes to consider their previous positions were wrong, their previous beliefs were wrong.
Naturally, twi had nothing to do with any of those books except to carry them in their bookstore- they certainly didn't carry Woodrow's later book.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
I believe that there are false accusations and assumptions against Catholics. One example: heard a preacher say that praying the 'hail Mary' was a form of Satan worship! I told him that I thought he could be falsely accusing Catholics of doing something they aren't. Hope that made him think about his judgment but I don't know. I think Babylon Mystery Religion was like that... attributed false assumptions to folks they do not know, do not talk to, do not befriend. I observed later that Catholics have their own interpretation of dogmas that may have (and likely does have) nothing to do with and even opposite what non-believers in that religion say they do.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Hi Mark,
Is the Greek Orthodox Church an offshoot of the RCC??
The Greek/Eastern Orthdox Church members I know would never identify their church as an offshoot, especially an offshoot of the Roman Catholic Church. I may be misremembering the European History classes of my youth, but I'm pretty sure Greek/Eastern Orthodox is not an offshoot, derivative, nor sect of the Roman Catholic Church.
I mean we're talking ducks and diamonds here, but your sentence jumped out at me. Had to ask.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
The Eastern Orthodox Church (including the Greek Orthodox Church) claims a history as old as the RCC, which claims a history back to the day of Pentecost.
Just as churches formed in Western Europe and ended up looking towards Rome for leadership, there were churches that formed in Greece, and other countries, who ended up looking towards Byzantium/Constantinople for "leadership" (not in the absolute sense of the Pope.) So, Orthodoxy belongs to both the RCC and Eastern Orthodox Church, and the Greek Orthodox Church is part of the EOC.
Although there were larger numbers of RCC than EOC, the Protestant Reformation split the West in a way the East was NOT split, and things have developed differently in both "high church" organizations (RCC and EOC.)
So, technically, no, the EOC is not a sect, offshoot, or derivative of the RCC. They comprise a sibling that has developed alongside the RCC, and their name recognition in, say, the US has increased greatly over the last 50 years, where it had previously been almost unknown.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Right. It was all one Orthodox Church until the Great Schism of 1054. The split resulted in the RCC and the EOC. If memory serves.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
The split could be seen as a continuation of Diocletian's effort after the crisis of the 3rd century. Charles Martel later stopped the Muslim expansion in Western Europe. His son Pepin reorganized Italy, giving the Pope more legitimacy. Pepin's son Charlemagne had himself coronated by the Pope to take on a sort of rebirth of the Western Roman Empire. He nearly married a Byzantine Empress. That would have been huge. Otherwise, there's the birth of The West.
Ducks lay diamonds, Geese lay gold, Swans lay?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
That simply depends on the definition of offshoot. If you do not like that word. Another word can be used, for example separated. They historically were part of the Roman Catholic church, but they separated from this denomination and started another denomination. Regarding the word trinity, which is the primary topic of this forum. They do use the word trinity in their teachings. Here is a link with a web page that shows some of their teachings: https://www.nativityofchrist.org/our-faith-2/teachings/
Regarding the subject of trinity. Here are a few sentences on this subject copied from the above link.
One of the reasons that this church separated from the Roman Catholic Church is that they did and do not believe that the Pope should have all authority, while teaching everything.
Regarding the history of the separation of the Orthodox Church from the Roman Catholic Church. Here is a link for this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic–Eastern_Orthodox_relations
Edited by Mark SanguinettiLink to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Thanks, Mark. The separation between the Latin and Greek churches happened so long ago, it seems redundant or superfluous to even mention it. It's either the RCC or the Orthodox Church.
I guess I was interested in the etymology of the term Catholic and when the Church self-identified that way.. I probably failed to articulate that, but I was able to scratch my itch for granularity here: https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03449a.htm
It's fascinating to me how diverse the Church has been since the very beginning. Everyone believes that they themselves are orthodox and everyone else is heterodox. Of course, this is just not possible, because everyone can't be right. So maybe everyone is wrong.
I don't identify as Trinitarian or Unitarian, but I find the contemplation of both ideas to be intellectually stimulating and spiritually rewarding. I'm only dogmatic about not being dogmatic.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
So tempting... I'd hate to further derail this thread....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
Regarding the subject of dogmatic, perhaps I am only dogmatic, when I meet trained dogs who wag their tails and do not growl or bark. Perhaps, I could be considered dogmatic only when I meet friendly dogs while petting them. Was I successful in getting you to laugh???
Edited by Mark SanguinettiLink to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
No. But that's ok.
Edited by Nathan_JrThough I very much appreciate dark humor, dogmatism is too dark, even for me. I find it physically repulsive; it causes inflammation in my brain and my heart and makes me sick.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
TV dinners
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Winner winner!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
Congratulations, for your ability to get me to laugh. Perhaps you are a humor genius and I am not.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Not even trying to make anyone laugh. I'm being dead serious.
But if anything is funny, it's because it's true.
Edited by Nathan_JrThe music coordinator said it, I believe it, that settles it
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Sterling silver bracelets engraved with credentials: "The Seventh TMOG"
mmmmmph
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
quote : So, it’s gone from About the Way forum to doctrinal forum…now we need a Kool-Aid testimonial forum…whatever.
it’s hilarious how much diehard-wierwille-fans keep pushing that idle idol. There’s no use in logical debate of doctrine and Scripture interpretation with them cuz if wierwille said it – they believe it – that settles it.
I did not make even ONE reference to VP in the first post on this thread nor the 2nd. You're just going to see what you want to see. Typical.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Very much human nature. Isn't that how the mind works?
This phenomenon, called motivated perception, has been explored in psychological research for decades. Indeed, the world as we conceive it in our awareness is not exactly an accurate representation of what it truly is. Our perception is often biased, selective, and malleable.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
So, if persuasion is the objective of one's writing, knowing what the audience wants to see and making one's case accordingly would seem to be a reasonable approach. Yes? No?
Edited by RockyLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.