When did the universal Church first mentioned in 110AD stop being universal?

[Mungo]

To whom are you referring?

heretoeternity.

He keeps calling me pagan and I keep reporting it as a violation of the rules but nothing happens.

So I assume it's OK to call someone pagan. Perhaps that will get some action.

 

[epostle1]

I humbly accept your exhortation, and will refrain from ad hominum attacks against Dave Hunt. I'll re-word my statement:

People who teach the Catholic Church as apostate or Whore of Babylon are vicious, under-educated, biblically illiterate bigots who twist scripture to justify their hatred for the Church and there is nothing Christian about lies and hateful polemics. Brakelite is simply a sorry victim of anti-Catholic trash.

Some anti-Catholics claim the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon of Revelation 17 and 18. Dave Hunt, in his 1994 book, A Woman Rides the Beast, presents nine arguments to try to prove this.
His claims are a useful summary of those commonly used by Fundamentalists,
and an examination of them shows why they don’t work.

Hunting the Whore of Babylon

I anxiously wait for brakelite's answer to Tom55's question:

When did that alleged apostasy occur?
If he refuses to answer then he should stop slandering the Church.

kepha31,

You continue to engage in the use of an Ad Hominem fallacy with this language, 'vicious, under-educated, biblically illiterate bigots'.

I owned up to my mistake in post #72, SOMETHING ANTI-CATHOLICS NEVER DO. If you bother to look, I then attack his false teachings, not Hunt himself. What really disturbs you is how well they have been exposed, and fussing about my "ad hominum" is a red herring to the facts.
Hunting the Whore of Babylon
Please learn what an Ad Hominem fallacy is at The Nizkor Project. Here it is:

We cannot have a sensible, reasonable conversation when you attack a person's character with your Ad Hominem fallacies. All you did was reword one Ad Hominem fallacy and replace it with another Ad Hominem fallacy.

Oz

I took responsibility with "I humbly accept your exhortation, and will refrain from ad hominem attacks against Dave Hunt." There, my responsibility ends. I am not responsible for your acceptance or rejection of it.

kepha31,

You continue to engage in the use of an Ad Hominem fallacy with this language, 'vicious, under-educated, biblically illiterate bigots'

I think I made myself clear. No individual is being singled out after I apologized. I am attacking the standard anti-Catholic fundamentalist ideology which is based on lies, preached by vicious, under-educated, biblically illiterate bigots'.
Please learn what an Ad Hominem fallacy is at The Nizkor Project. Here it is:



We cannot have a sensible, reasonable conversation when you attack a person's character with your Ad Hominem fallacies. All you did was reword one Ad Hominem fallacy and replace it with another Ad Hominem fallacy.

Oz

"The Pope is the anti-Christ" is not an ad hominem fallacy based on biblical eisegesis? Or do you believe this insanity, preached by vicious, under-educated, biblically illiterate bigots'?
Try reading the link with an open mind before making the standard Protestant presupposition that it must be wrong because it's a Catholic site.
Hunting the Whore of Babylon

Some anti-Catholics claim the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon of Revelation 17 and 18. Dave Hunt, in his 1994 book, A Woman Rides the Beast, presents nine arguments to try to prove this. His claims are a useful summary of those commonly used by Fundamentalists, and an examination of them shows why they don’t work.

The book is dismantled, the author is not attacked. Try and tell the difference.

Hunting the Whore of Babylon


satire on the absurdity of sola scriptura

 

[Mungo]

4...Ten horns (Revel. 13:1) This I believe are future, for Revelation declares another 10 kings shall give their power to the final church/state union , the coming NWO. It is a fact that the world is being divided into ten distinct territories at the head of which shall be placed ten leaders, or 'kings'.

Anti-Catholics love this sort of stuff. And when they cannot stretch and fiddle the past they invent a future to fit.

And then they say: "So not only does Papal Rome match perfectly..."

That's hilarious

 

[tom55]

I explained what an Ad Hominem logical fallacy was and how kepha had committed it. I think it's time you learned the nature of logical fallacies. My description of the logical fallacy that kepha used re Dave Hunt was accurate.You are saying that Kepha made a personal attack on the person of Dave Hunt. It seems you are claiming that the personal attack on Dave Hunt nullifies his (Kepha's) position on the subject. That doesn't make sense.

You are saying since Kepha made a personal attack on the person of Dave Hunt his (kepha's) position is nullified. That doesn't make sense.

Just because Kepha might be wrong about Dave Hunt being a "psycho" that doesn't nullify his entire position on the subject. Have you medically diagnosed David Hunt? Is it possible he is a nut job??

The fact is Kepha adopted a position on the subject and backed it up with a link on what he believes. So instead of rebutting Kepha's position you changed the course of the conversation. Why? If you are so confident that Kepha is wrong then you should just tell him he is wrong and show him why. Instead you pulled out the OLD logical fallacy card. I have learned this is your way of ending a discussion when you can't back up with logic OR facts what you believe.

A logical fallacy is an error of reasoning based on a bad piece of reasoning or an unsound argument. The link Kepha provided seemed just as logical and as reasonable to me as the counter argument presented.

 

[tom55]

@heretoeternity
The fact is the RCC doesn't call itself that. We use it to differentiate between the different rites and to prevent the equivocation that comes with calling them simply Catholic.

This is hard for me to say but I agree with StanJ. B) What he said is a factual statement.

 

[tom55]

It happened over three stages.
In Matthew 12 Jesus declared precisely who He was. God's Priest...God's Prophet...and God's King. Greater than the Temple and all that pertains to it....greater than Jonah....greater than Solomon. In the OT through His Spirit in inspiring the prophets and in life He was God's Prophet, in Hebrews it reveals Him as High Priest, in Revelation it reveals Him as the coming King. There was no specific date I can offer...I am sure God knows when the line was crossed...but a slow deterioration in the purity of the early church through lust for power and prestige led the bishops and ruling class of Rome on a steady journey down into apostasy by usurping those above 3 roles that are solely the prerogative of the Son of God. It has been said, and I think wisely, that the Bible must be understood grammatically before it can be understood theologically. Anti– as in antichrist, according to Strong’s concordance, and like other words having the prefix ‘anti’, means at it’s most basic form “in the room of”, “instead of”, or “in the place of”.In other words, ‘antichrist’ stands as a substitute. We all know that Satan works by deception. Yet many claim the ‘antichrist’ will be one who will charge in on a black horse guns blazing with fury and hatred directed at all things Christian and opposing with great force the church. Pray tell me, how will the world be deceived by such a tactic as this?
In 2 Thess. 2:1 we are told that there was to be a falling away first, which will reveal the antichrist, or as Paul describes him, the man of sin or son of perdition. Now falling away in this instance is a falling into apostasy; divorce.
Any divorce necessitates a prior favourable relationship. The only other example of a ‘son of perdition’ is Judas Iscariot. Did Judas openly and with force oppose Christ? Did he attack His teachings and disagree with Jesus claims to divinity? Did he argue and debate everything Jesus stood for and seek the destruction of His followers? No. Not by any means. Judas betrayed Jesus with a kiss. He betrayed Him with an act of apparent love, fellowship, and friendship. He undermined and betrayed Jesus at the same time as claiming Him to be his friend!! This squares perfectly with the meaning of antichrist. He is not an opposer, but a subtle impostor. A counterfeit. An impostor of Jesus Christ. A false copy, or forgery of the true.
Antichrist is therefore a person or power who impersonates the offices of Priesthood, the Prophet or spokesmanship, and the Kingly rule of Christ. The office that ministers for God, speaks for God, and rules for God.
The falling away that Paul spoke indeed did take place just as he said. Jesus’ letter to the church of Ephesus (Revelation 2) reveals the beginning of this process. During the ensuing centuries, political instability within the Roman Empire resulted in Germanic barbarian tribes taking over the former territories of the western portion of the empire. Constantine moved the capital to the east, and Rome was left without a leader. This void was filled by the bishops of Rome, many of whom were more politically minded than religious. Power corrupted them, and by the 6th century the apostasy was well under way, the formation of a church/state union which was the vehicle for the introduction of many pagan superstitions and practices entering the church. Is there a church today who counterfeits the threefold ministry of the true Christ, as Priest, Prophet and King? Is there an entity in the world today who claims to do just this? Is there one like Judas who is betraying the Master with a kiss, all the while claiming to be a friend? Is there in the world today a religious system or religious ruler who claims to be the earthly representative of Christ as His priest, claiming to be a mediator between God and man? Claiming to forgive sin even, which is the sole prerogative of God, and Biblically and in particular applying to Jesus? Does this entity also claim the prerogatives of a prophet? Does it claim to speak for God in spiritual matters? Does it claim to stand as God’s spokesman on earth and claim that only through it’s authority can salvation be found, and that when speaking officially is considered on a par with scripture, that is infallible?
And finally, does this entity also claim to be a king? Does it claim authority as a secular power? Does it exercise authority and power within the auspices of a church/state relationship?
If there is such an entity, then it answers to the criteria demanded of it as to its true identity, Antichrist. Are you familiar with such an organization?

Apostasy: the abandonment or renunciation of a religious belief

It seems you are saying it started right after Jesus died and was "well under way" by the 6th century?

Might you be confusing heresy with apostasy? There is ample documentation for heresies occurring right after the death of Jesus thru today.

There is also ample documentation that the Catholic Church has preserved the truth of the Christian faith since the time of Jesus by identifying those heretics and ex-communicating them.

Since your post is so long and rambling I am not really sure what you are saying or trying to say. Also, I know it is a waste of time to provide any facts to you. In the past I have given you the facts on certain subjects and you disregard them therefor I will not waste my time.

 

[Mungo]

@heretoeternity
The fact is the RCC doesn't call itself that. We use it to differentiate between the different rites and to prevent the equivocation that comes with calling them simply Catholic.

This is hard for me to say but I agree with StanJ. B) What he said is a factual statement.

So when protestants say RCC the only mean a part of the Catholic Church.

That doesn't make sense. :huh:

 

[OzSpen]

heretoeternity.

He keeps calling me pagan and I keep reporting it as a violation of the rules but nothing happens.

So I assume it's OK to call someone pagan. Perhaps that will get some action.

That's why it's best to backquote.

 

[Mungo]

That's why it's best to backquote.

backquote?

wassat?

 

[OzSpen]

backquote?

wassat?

That's what I have done here. Backquote the person to whom I am replying. Use the 'Quote' icon in the bottom right of the post to which you are responding.

 

[tom55]

So when protestants say RCC the only mean a part of the Catholic Church.

That doesn't make sense. :huh:

The RCC does not refer itself to the ROMAN Catholic Church. It refers itself as The Catholic Church with it's head (the Pope) in Rome. Read their documents.

 

[OzSpen]

Or do you believe this insanity, preached by vicious, under-educated, biblically illiterate bigots'?

Here you go again with another Ad Hominem logical fallacy. When will you stop doing it so that we can have a rational, responsible conversation?

When you give up the use of logical fallacies, you can then begin to address the content of the issues. Content! Content! Content! Not avoidance of the issues by using logical fallacies. :wub:

 

[tom55]

Here you go again with another Ad Hominem logical fallacy. When will you stop doing it so that we can have a rational, responsible conversation?

When you give up the use of logical fallacies, you can then begin to address the content of the issues. Content! Content! Content! Not avoidance of the issues by using logical fallacies. :wub:

Here is the content he provided. Or am I missing something here?? <_<

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/hunting-the-whore-of-babylon

 

[OzSpen]

You are saying since Kepha made a personal attack on the person of Dave Hunt his (kepha's) position is nullified. That doesn't make sense.

Just because Kepha might be wrong about Dave Hunt being a "psycho" that doesn't nullify his entire position on the subject. Have you medically diagnosed David Hunt? Is it possible he is a nut job??

The fact is Kepha adopted a position on the subject and backed it up with a link on what he believes. So instead of rebutting Kepha's position you changed the course of the conversation. Why? If you are so confident that Kepha is wrong then you should just tell him he is wrong and show him why. Instead you pulled out the OLD logical fallacy card. I have learned this is your way of ending a discussion when you can't back up with logic OR facts what you believe.

A logical fallacy is an error of reasoning based on a bad piece of reasoning or an unsound argument. The link Kepha provided seemed just as logical and as reasonable to me as the counter argument presented.

Tom,

You also are not understanding the serious nature of what happens when logical fallacies are used in conversation. They involve fallacious/erroneous reasoning. They divert attention away from the content of the conversation.

Attacking Dave Hunt with an Ad Hominem fallacy does not nullify kepha's concern, but it prevents discussion about the content of that concern because of the illogical methodology used.

You ask: 'Have you medically diagnosed David Hunt? Is it possible he is a nut job??' First, you need to understand that Dave Hunt is at home with the Lord. He's in his presence. Dave Hunt has been in my house and I know he is not a nut job. He was a person concerned about what was happening with false doctrine in the churches.

I didn't change the course of the conversation. I exhorted Kepha to stop his changing the course of the conversation by the use of an Ad Hominem logical fallacy. Tom, to say, 'You pulled out the OLD logical fallacy card', is to use a red herring logical fallacy.

My method is not to end a conversation but to show that if anyone uses a logical fallacy it sends a discussion into erroneous reasoning and does not deal with the issues being raised. But you don't get it! :huh:

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Here is the content he provided. Or am I missing something here?? <_<

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/hunting-the-whore-of-babylon

What you are missing is that this is another red herring fallacy. In backquoting my #92 post, you did not answer a thing about what I wrote in #92. Don't you get it that this is erroneous reasoning?

 

[Mungo]

That's what I have done here. Backquote the person to whom I am replying. Use the 'Quote' icon in the bottom right of the post to which you are responding.

Do you mean like I actually did in post #78?

 

[StanJ]

So when protestants say RCC the only mean a part of the Catholic Church.
That doesn't make sense. :huh:

It does if you realize that the Roman Rite are the only people we really debate with but that they tend to use Catholic to try to convey normalcy when it is not. The fact that there are different rites within the CC is never an issue unless those different Catholics debate amongst themselves.

 

[OzSpen]

Do you mean like I actually did in post #78?

Yep! You got it in #78.

 

[brakelite]

Anti-Catholics love this sort of stuff. And when they cannot stretch and fiddle the past they invent a future to fit.

And then they say: "So not only does Papal Rome match perfectly..."

That's hilarious

Seriously? I find it curious that you constantly refer to those who are anti-catholicism as being 'anti-catholics'. I fully understand that Catholics are anti-protestantism, but I don't resort to an attempt to make the discussion personal by saying Catholics are anti-protestants'. Despite the many thousands, if not millions, killed by Catholic armies over many centuries, but that's another conversation.
With regard to 'stretching and fiddling the past'...and 'inventing a future to fit', you seem to be unaware of the counter-reformation work of the Jesuits. Every major reformer pointed their collective fingers at the papal system accusing her of being the Antichrist of scripture. Bear in mind that those who pointed the finger at the Papacy as the great Antichrist were highly educated. Most were experts in Hebrew, Greek and Latin. Many reached their own conclusions independently of others. Their works were saturated with quotations from Daniel 7 (the little horn), Revelation 13 (the beast), Revelation 17 (the harlot), II Thessalonians 2 (the Man of Sin), and Matthew 24 (the Abomination of Desolation). Their testimony was unanimous and covered the entire European Continent.

The Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus (born in the year 37 A. D.), believed that the little horn of Daniel 8 (and perhaps also the little horn of Daniel 7,though we are not sure) was Antiochus Epiphanes, a Seleucid ruler who governed from 174 till 163 B. C. In this, Josephus shared the view of the LXX (I Maccabees 1:10) and many other Jewish scholars of his day.
In the second century A. D., an enemy of Christianity named Porphyry, corresponded with the early church father Tertullian and tried to persuade him that Josephus’ view was correct. Needless to say, Porphyry was unsuccessful. But in the late 16th century the view which Tertullian had rejected became the accepted teaching of the Roman Catholic Church.
Luis de Alcazar, Jesuit from Seville, Spain, picked up on the idea of Josephus and the LXX. From 1569 onward Alcazar worked to counteract the Protestant view of the prophecies. He wrote a 900-page commentary on the book of Revelation titled: Vestigatio Arcani Sensus in Apocalypsi [An Investigation of the Hidden Sense of the Apocalypse]. The book was published posthumously in 1614. In this volume, Alcazar affirmed that Daniel and Revelation were fulfilled in the distant past. His system of prophetic interpretation came to be known as preterism. Alcazar believed that the entire book of Revelation was fulfilled in the first six centuries of the Christian era and that Nero was the predicted Antichrist. By relegating the fulfillment of the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation to the distant past, Alcazar argued that they could not apply to the Papacy in the 16th century. If Alcazar’s view was correct, then the Protestant view was gravely wrong. Alcazar’s alternative method of prophetic interpretation removed the incriminating finger from the papacy and pointed it at Antiochus and Nero!!

Another Jesuit was the scholar Francisco Ribera (1537-1591), from Salamanca, Spain. Ribera was a brilliant student who specialized in Latin, Greek and Hebrew. He received a doctorate in theology from the University of Salamanca and joined the Jesuit Order in 1570 when he was just 33 years old. This Jesuit scholar capitalized on the incomplete views of the early church fathers. In 1590 he published a 500-page commentary on the Apocalypse where he expounded upon the prophecies of Revelation using the literalistic hermeneutic of futurism. The main tenets of Ribera’s eschatology are “ascribed to aliteral three and a half years reign of an infidel Antichrist, who would bitterly oppose and blaspheme the saints just before the second advent. He taught that Antichrist would be a single individual, who would rebuild the temple in Jerusalem, abolish the Christian religion, deny Christ, be received by the Jews, pretend to be God, and conquer the world—and all in this brief space of three and one-half years!”
Ribera was a brilliant researcher and writer but not an outstanding lecturer. Furthermore, his life was cut short when he died at the early age of 54. Ribera’s views therefore needed a shrewd and articulate champion to carry his message beyond the realm of academia. The champion was found and his name was Cardinal Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621). Bellarmines views were picked up by John Darby, carried to the new world, placed into scripture through the notes of Shofield, and the rest, as you say, is history.

Conclusion....if you accuse me of having a splinter in my eye regards prophetic interpretation, and the particular hermenuetic I use, best you take the log out of your church's eyes who has promoted two opposing hermeneutics all with the obvious intent to hide the truth.

 

[brakelite]

Anti-Catholics love this sort of stuff. And when they cannot stretch and fiddle the past they invent a future to fit.

And then they say: "So not only does Papal Rome match perfectly..."

That's hilarious

Anti-Catholics love this sort of stuff. And when they cannot stretch and fiddle the past they invent a future to fit.

And then they say: "So not only does Papal Rome match perfectly..."

That's hilarious

Anti-Catholics love this sort of stuff. And when they cannot stretch and fiddle the past they invent a future to fit.

And then they say: "So not only does Papal Rome match perfectly..."

That's hilarious

Interesting that you don't actually counter any of it. Just express a general ridicule without any real critique. So what hermeneutic would you prefer to use that your church advocates? The futurism of Ribera, or the preterism of Alcazar? You may find it hilarious, yet the facts remain...the papacy DOES fit. And the ONLY way your church was able to counter it was to invent a new way of studying scripture, both ways being deliberately devised to leave out 2000 years of documented history written with the blood of countless martyrs who did not find such accusations hilarious at all.