how do Protestants explain history?

[metis]

I believe one may understand the antipathy when one's adherents are burned at the stake and followers massacred. It surely does no exemplify the love of Christ and breaks the commandment of Jesus for us to love one another.

Yes, but also remember that so many Protestants did much the same, although this certainly doesn't justify in any way what the CC did. It's pretty much only the "peace churches" that can rightfully say "It wasn't us!".

 

[Muffled]

I agree that priesthood authority is needed in Christ's church. That's a basic Mormon belief.

I believe Jesus made it plain that leaders of the church were to serve the church not have power over it the way kings have power over their subjects.

 

[Muffled]

Yes, but also remember that so many Protestants did much the same, although this certainly doesn't justify in any way what the CC did. It's pretty much only the "peace churches" that can rightfully say "It wasn't us!".

I believe one could make a case for Quakers and Buddhists. I attended Friends meetings for a while. There was a Buddhist and a Pagan attending as well. A Christian there got in my face over something I said. Pride has a way of overcoming love it seems. I never got in the face of the Buddhist or Pagan but then they never gave me cause to do so.

 

[siti]

Yes they can, but they were not a by-product of apostolic succession, which was the definitive mark of the apostolic church.

BTW, I had misread what you posted before in that I thought you were saying that the Protestants can be traced back to the early church, so this is where at least one disconnect occurred, and that's my fault. Sorry.

That's quite alright but I think we are still talking about different things...Protestantism is defined (check the Catholic Encyclopedia on this) by its rejection of Roman Catholic doctrine and authority not by its acceptance/rejection of apostolic succession. The topic is about history not about current interpretations of episcopal authority. From that point of view, whether or not a particular denomination today regards their bishops as direct successors of the Apostles (as the Orthodox, Catholic, Anglican and Episcopalian traditions do) is irrelevant to the topic. What is relevant is whether the so-called "protestant" Churches grew out of the Roman Catholic Church that (rightly or wrongly - that too is irrelevant) traces its roots back to the Apostles. It is perfectly obvious that they did and that they therefore "enjoy" the shared history of "the Church" - "warts and all" as far as they ("protestants") are concerned (compare Acts 17:30).

In the end, as far as I can see, there is not really a world of difference (philosophically) between the idea of succession (in the apostolic tradition) by the "laying on of hands" by spirit and revival (of the apostolic tradition) by spirit - which is really the fundamental difference here, however either side dress up their doctrines - both are equally dubious, improbable and unprovable claims. But the "history", accurate or inaccurate, stands for all to see - if only they would.

 

[jaybird]

I think I have the number correct as it's coming from my memory (of dubious quality at my age), but there are roughly 3000 non-canonized books commonly referred to as the "pseudepigrapha", with around 2000 being O.T.-type books and the rest being N.T.-type books, and a very significant portion of them are in the Vatican library. My source for this was the Anglican theologian Sir William Barclay. Yes, there were some books that were destroyed, but I've never seen an estimate on that.

If you have some respectable sources that take off on this, I'd appreciate that as it's been a long time since I read this. BTW, only a few of the books have I read through, but I have done more reading from them being quoted as found in some of the theology books I've read.

the DSS and nag hammidi librqaries are 2 of the biggest spiritual finds ever, we know they were buried to be hid from rome. one before roman Christianity, one after. we also know that after nicaea the works of arius were destroyed along with the sources he used.

 

[metis]

the DSS and nag hammidi librqaries are 2 of the biggest spiritual finds ever, we know they were buried to be hid from rome. one before roman Christianity, one after.

I know of the former since I worked for a short while at a dig west of Jerusalem whereas we were uncovering both Jewish and Roman pottery dating back before Jesus was borne, but I'm not familiar with the latter, so do you have any link to that?

I also visited the DSS area by the Dead Sea and took a tour of the general area, and then went to the Dome of the Book in Jerusalem for further information.

 

[metis]

we also know that after nicaea the works of arius were destroyed along with the sources he used.

BTW, we also know that sometimes Protestants destroyed Catholic and Jewish books/documents: List of book-burning incidents - Wikipedia

Religious tolerance is a recent phenomenon, and I grew up in a time when it was significantly less so, hearing on a regular basis about the "evils of the papists", both from the pulpit at my Protestant church and also from even my own parents. Imagine my parents' chagrin when I married an observant Catholic, but they quickly fell in love with her as I did, and they even significantly moderated their view of the RCC.

When I taught a comparative religions class for a couple of years, the anti-Catholic bigotry coming from so many of my students was astounding. I would tell some of my fellow staff members that I quickly learned that my main objective at the beginning of the course to try and keep the Baptists and Catholics from killing each other, but it's the former of those two who were overwhelming the antagonists.

 

[jaybird]

I know of the former since I worked for a short while at a dig west of Jerusalem whereas we were uncovering both Jewish and Roman pottery dating back before Jesus was borne, but I'm not familiar with the latter, so do you have any link to that?

I also visited the DSS area by the Dead Sea and took a tour of the general area, and then went to the Dome of the Book in Jerusalem for further information.

Nag Hammadi Library Alphabetical Index

that link has some info on nag hammidi. also has a list of books with translation. i dont agree with many of the books but i think its good to have a source that was outside the influence of rome.

 

[jaybird]

BTW, we also know that sometimes Protestants destroyed Catholic and Jewish books/documents: List of book-burning incidents - Wikipedia

Religious tolerance is a recent phenomenon, and I grew up in a time when it was significantly less so, hearing on a regular basis about the "evils of the papists", both from the pulpit at my Protestant church and also from even my own parents. Imagine my parents' chagrin when I married an observant Catholic, but they quickly fell in love with her as I did, and they even significantly moderated their view of the RCC.

When I taught a comparative religions class for a couple of years, the anti-Catholic bigotry coming from so many of my students was astounding. I would tell some of my fellow staff members that I quickly learned that my main objective at the beginning of the course to try and keep the Baptists and Catholics from killing each other, but it's the former of those two who were overwhelming the antagonists.

I grew up in the same atmosphere (baptist), Jews, Catholics were wrong, the enemy and were gonna pay! Lucky for me my family was never into that philosophy to much and it never really sunk in with me. Funny thing was I was only a few generations removed from Catholicism with my Italian background which I didnt know when I was a kid. Im still a member of a baptist church, me and my GF are getting married soon and we are getting married in a Catholic church. Her family is Irish, most are Catholic, my family married out of Catholicism, she married out of it, and we have talked about marring ourselves back into it. Funny how it all works out.

IMO Catholics take things to far one way and protestants take things to far the other. I think Luther was a great man with a good idea, but that good idea became corrupted and they messed up a lot of things. Changing the source text from LXX to mesoretic, dumping the apocrypha, and dumping many of the traditions.

 

[jaybird]

Religious tolerance is a recent phenomenon

i think its recent because it wast to long ago that if you were intolerant to many doctrines and theologies you could be put to death.

 

[metis]

the DSS and nag hammidi librqaries are 2 of the biggest spiritual finds ever, we know they were buried to be hid from rome. one before roman Christianity, one after.

I know of the former since I worked for a short while at a dig west of Jerusalem whereas we were uncovering both Jewish and Roman pottery dating back before Jesus was borne, but I'm not familiar with the latter, so do you have any link to that?

Nag Hammadi Library Alphabetical Index

that link has some info on nag hammidi. also has a list of books with translation. i dont agree with many of the books but i think its good to have a source that was outside the influence of rome.

I appreciate the link but you really didn't answer my question that I underlined above.

 

[metis]

me and my GF are getting married soon

Congrats!!!

Funny how it all works out.

Amen. I wouldn't have a clue that when younger that I would end up converting to Judaism and also be married to a devout Catholic. Funny how life tends to change our plans.

IMO Catholics take things to far one way and protestants take things to far the other.

I agree, but I think you'll agree that Protestants are much more aggressive on things than are Catholics. When I converted to Judaism, those in my wife's Catholic church gave me no flack, and even one of the priests was actually happy that I found a home that I was comfortable with, but I certainly can't say the same with some of our Protestant friends.

I think Luther was a great man with a good idea, but that good idea became corrupted and they messed up a lot of things.

I agree on both, but I certainly was never told anything negative about him while being Lutheran. OTOH, Catholics in the clergy will readily admit that many Catholic leaders, including some of the popes, were morally bankrupt.

Even in regards to the Holocaust, the RCC has not only admitted to its complicity with all too many of the clergy and congregants, but they've taken serious steps to try to make certain that it doesn't happen again, including with any other group. I had a chance to talk with the Polish priest who directly reports to the pope on anti-Semitism when I was in Poland and also when he visited here.

BTW, you're getting married soon, and my wife and I are celebrating our 50th wedding anniversary in March. Imagine her putting up with me for that long!

 

[jaybird]

I appreciate the link but you really didn't answer my question that I underlined above.

i dont understand what your asking?

 

[metis]

i dont understand what your asking?

It's not that important.

 

[jaybird]

I agree, but I think you'll agree that Protestants are much more aggressive on things than are Catholics. When I converted to Judaism, those in my wife's Catholic church gave me no flack, and even one of the priests was actually happy that I found a home that I was comfortable with, but I certainly can't say the same with some of our Protestant friends.

i agree on the protestant aggression, maybe they are at the same stage Catholics were at 500 yrs?
one thing i have learned about religion is the leaders can not speak for the people that make up the faith. you see this a lot when reading the writings of many of the missionaries back in the 1000s-1500s. they were told to go out and convert barberic heathens, yet many times they re discovered Judeo Christianity in a much more pure form. often they were told to destroy all records but not before they documented and preserved everything they saw so future generations would know the truth. i have lots of respect for these missionaries that didnt think twice of living and working side by side with the "heathens" unlike the leaders that sent them there that never left lavish homes, servants and mistresses.

 

[jaybird]

It's not that important.

now your gonna give me a complex trying to figure out what you were talking about?

 

[metis]

now your gonna give me a complex trying to figure out what you were talking about?

Hey, I gotta try and keep you on your toes!

Have a nice weekend as I'm outta here shortly.

 

[Muffled]

That's quite alright but I think we are still talking about different things...Protestantism is defined (check the Catholic Encyclopedia on this) by its rejection of Roman Catholic doctrine and authority not by its acceptance/rejection of apostolic succession. The topic is about history not about current interpretations of episcopal authority. From that point of view, whether or not a particular denomination today regards their bishops as direct successors of the Apostles (as the Orthodox, Catholic, Anglican and Episcopalian traditions do) is irrelevant to the topic. What is relevant is whether the so-called "protestant" Churches grew out of the Roman Catholic Church that (rightly or wrongly - that too is irrelevant) traces its roots back to the Apostles. It is perfectly obvious that they did and that they therefore "enjoy" the shared history of "the Church" - "warts and all" as far as they ("protestants") are concerned (compare Acts 17:30).

In the end, as far as I can see, there is not really a world of difference (philosophically) between the idea of succession (in the apostolic tradition) by the "laying on of hands" by spirit and revival (of the apostolic tradition) by spirit - which is really the fundamental difference here, however either side dress up their doctrines - both are equally dubious, improbable and unprovable claims. But the "history", accurate or inaccurate, stands for all to see - if only they would.

I believe the reality is that this was one of the parts of Roman Catholicism that was rejected. Certainly none of the Protestant writers accepted the Pope's authority.

I believe I am not sure this is the difference between X an Y but if it is then I would say when my spirit was revived by receiving Jesus it was not due to an apostolic succession but from reading the Bible.

I believe this is true to some extent with Luther and Calvin but others went straight to the Bible and completely ignored church teaching. Even with Luther and Calvin what remained from Roman Catholicism may very well be less than what was new.

 

[Muffled]

BTW, we also know that sometimes Protestants destroyed Catholic and Jewish books/documents: List of book-burning incidents - Wikipedia

Religious tolerance is a recent phenomenon, and I grew up in a time when it was significantly less so, hearing on a regular basis about the "evils of the papists", both from the pulpit at my Protestant church and also from even my own parents. Imagine my parents' chagrin when I married an observant Catholic, but they quickly fell in love with her as I did, and they even significantly moderated their view of the RCC.

When I taught a comparative religions class for a couple of years, the anti-Catholic bigotry coming from so many of my students was astounding. I would tell some of my fellow staff members that I quickly learned that my main objective at the beginning of the course to try and keep the Baptists and Catholics from killing each other, but it's the former of those two who were overwhelming the antagonists.

I believe I am a Baptist so I looked up the origin in Wikipedia. An Anglican pastor named John Smythe is credited with starting the denomination. He was ordained in the Anglican Church so he must have had some religious training. However it was reading the Bible that led to his belief in believers baptism that characterizes the denomination. I haven't had a run in with a Catholic about this but I made a Congregationalist neighbor very angry by espousing it.

 

[Muffled]

I grew up in the same atmosphere (baptist), Jews, Catholics were wrong, the enemy and were gonna pay! Lucky for me my family was never into that philosophy to much and it never really sunk in with me. Funny thing was I was only a few generations removed from Catholicism with my Italian background which I didnt know when I was a kid. Im still a member of a baptist church, me and my GF are getting married soon and we are getting married in a Catholic church. Her family is Irish, most are Catholic, my family married out of Catholicism, she married out of it, and we have talked about marring ourselves back into it. Funny how it all works out.

IMO Catholics take things to far one way and protestants take things to far the other. I think Luther was a great man with a good idea, but that good idea became corrupted and they messed up a lot of things. Changing the source text from LXX to mesoretic, dumping the apocrypha, and dumping many of the traditions.

I beleive the question is whether you will be a Catholic with Catholic beliefs or one with Baptist beliefs. At least I don't think they are burning heretics at the stake anymore and I even doubt whether they pay any attention to what parishioners believe.