The foundation of modern christianity

[Dr Strangelove]

Re: Re: The foundation of modern christianity

Originally posted by Verto


The LDS do not consider themselves descended from or linked to the Catholic Church. Therefore, no.

Wasn't the founder of the LDS originally a Presbyrtarian?

[Jon Miller]

I beleive that we have had this discussion before

(I know I have several times)

has someone just read the Da Vinci Code?

Jon Miller

[Pax]

Any knowledge the LDS has of Jesus or god comes from RC. The concept of saints comes from RC. The only way the LDS could have no affiliation with Catholicism is if they are worshipping aliens they met in the american desert.

[Boris Godunov]

The LDS believes their own scripture which is about Jesus was handed down to them through a new revelation. If they're true, then they can indeed legitimately claim not to be descended from Catholicism, as they have their own revelation.

But that's a reeeeeeeeeeeally big "if."

[Alexander's Horse]

Re: The foundation of modern christianity

Originally posted by Pax Africanus
The rise of Christianity is directly linked to Emperor Constantine converson to Christianity and formation of the Roman Catholic Church.

Not true. Constantine certainly helped by making christianity officially acceptable but he was really only accepting the political and social reality of his time, which was that christianity had established itself as a dominant religious force in the empire. The catholic church traces back to Saint Peter and survived centuries of Roman persecution.

All Christian sects are offshoots of the Catholic church.

Not true. The many Eastern rites were separately established and remain independent to this day. It's only the protestant churches that spring from Western catholicism.

The trouble is did Constantine really convert to christian or did he simply convert christianity to pagan worship in the form of saints.

Constantine had a bet each way on this and did not convert to christianity until his death bed. He was quite a shrewd operator, whilst promoting christianity he remained devoted to Appollo. He named "Sunday" but whether that refers to Jesus or Apollo he never clarified. he let people believe it was referring to Jesus if they wanted to, it was politically popular.

There are saints that correspond to the greek and roman lesser gods.

Actually you can find correlations between christian saints, Jesus and the whole christian panoply with many ancient religions, not just the Greco Roman Gods. But this was not a sinister process. Sailors for example wanted to someone to protect them on the sea so the qualities of those pagan Gods were passed on to christian saints, or Jesus or Mary or whoever. If a site was holy before christianity, it remained so after. It was natural for them to acribe those powers to figures in the new religion. It is part of the conversion process which continues today. Christmas day is not Jesus birthday but the date of an important pagan fertility rite.

People pray to saints as they would a lesser god.

Partly true - Saints have alway had a cultish element but that said, actually people pray through saints to God, not to the saints. You need to understand the concept of the communion of saints. For catholics the dead are still alive and can help us in this life. They want to help us. That goes for all dead believers not just the saints. So for example if member of your family dies, they are still a real part of your family, just in a different place. You talk to a saint the way you would talk to a living person.

My question is would'nt this pervision of christianity make all christian religions corrupt and false religions?

No. It's a natural process. Christianity did not overthrow what existed before, it absorbed it.

But it is to say that the bible and chrisitianity have probably undergone pagan tampering.

Depends if you believe all pagan beliefs were completely bad or evil. If not, then it's not a problem. The aboriginal people of Australia have very strong spiritual beliefs which are being integrated into their christian worship. There isn't a conflict. Their holy places are still holy when they become christian.

[Giant_Squid]

The Bible hasn't undergone tampering, at least not in the add-pagan-elements way. Copies of our current Bible check out pretty well with Jewish scriptures from before Jesus like the Dead Sea Scrolls and pre-Constantine copies of the Gospels. The only real political influence was deciding which Gospels to approve and which not to, and I would hardly say the Gospels that made it are in any way more pagan than those that didn't.

The holidays, ceremonies, saints, etc, are, of course, horribly pagan, and everyone admits that.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Giant_Squid


The holidays, ceremonies, saints, etc, are, of course, horribly pagan, and everyone admits that.

Are they "horribly pagan" or do they speak to us of universal truths which are deeply meaningful and important to people regardless of what religious "badge" you put on them? Don't people celebrate spring or the harvest or the summer solstice or the new moon in every culture? Why shouldn't christians do that?

[Verto]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Where do your sacred texts come from then, if not from the early Christian (=Catholic) priesthood? I suppose you do have gospels that are supposed to be the testimonies of Jesus' followers?

The Catholic Church does not equal the early church established by Christ.

Wasn't the founder of the LDS originally a Presbyrtarian?

I don't know if it was Presybterian or Methodist or some other, but I do believe Joseph possibly joined, but certainly attended, other churches - mostly for his mother. He was trying to ascertain which one was the true church, since they preached contradictory doctrine.

The LDS believes their own scripture which is about Jesus was handed down to them through a new revelation. If they're true, then they can indeed legitimately claim not to be descended from Catholicism, as they have their own revelation.

That is in addition to the Bible.

Any knowledge the LDS has of Jesus or god comes from RC. The concept of saints comes from RC. The only way the LDS could have no affiliation with Catholicism is if they are worshipping aliens they met in the american desert.

Any knowledge of Christ comes from the Old and New Testament. We do not believe in 'Saints', in the sense that the Catholics do.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse


Are they "horribly pagan" or do they speak to us of universal truths which are deeply meaningful and important to people regardless of what religious "badge" you put on them? Don't people celebrate spring or the harvest or the summer solstice or the new moon in every culture? Why shouldn't christians do that?

Whether anyone wants to put a "pagan" label on it is beside the point. As far as I'm concerned, rituals are spiritually meaningless. God cares about our desire to know him, not whether we pranced about naked or took communion last sunday.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Caligastia


Whether anyone wants to put a "pagan" label on it is beside the point. As far as I'm concerned, rituals are spiritually meaningless. God cares about our desire to know him, not whether we pranced about naked or took communion last sunday.

A view which ultimately boils down to not a lot i.e. you can do whatever you damn well like in the belief that you are personally "inspired" by God. I find it so egotistical to think like that, like, you have all the answers, don't need to be taught, don't need to respect tradition, can work it all out for yourself. Might as well not have religion. Trash all the great religious thinkers and teachers of history.

It was a big problem in the 16th century as the protestant movement splintered and fractured. A process that continues to this day. It's a very common view in the unchurched Western society of today. But ultimately selfish and infantile in my view, leads to a very soft, worthless kind of christianity.

The mainstream view is a christian can only exist in community, someone who calls themselves christian but is not part of a community is not a christian. Saint Paul had a lot to say about the subject - It's part of his faith without works is dead preaching.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse


A view which ultimately boils down to not a lot i.e. you can do whatever you damn well like in the belief that you are personally "inspired" by God. I find it so egotistical to think like that, like, you have all the answers, don't need to be taught, don't need to respect tradition, can work it all out for yourself.

I think you misunderstand. I'm not saying I have all the answers, I just don't see how an omnipotent being such as God would be concerned with petty rituals. It stands to reason.

Might as well not have religion. Trash all the great religious thinkers and teachers of history.

It was a big problem in the 16th century as the protestant movement splintered and fractured. A process that continues to this day. It's a very common view in the unchurched Western society of today. But ultimately selfish and infantile in my view, leads to a very soft, worthless kind of christianity.

The mainstream view is a christian can only exist in community, someone who calls themselves christian but is not part of a community is not a christian. Saint Paul had a lot to say about the subject - It's part of his faith without works is dead preaching.

I don't see how ritual can be compared with good works or associated with great religoius thought.

[Alexander's Horse]

My point was not directed at you personally.

[Pax]

Alexander-
Of course christianity exsted prior to constantine but he established the roman catholic church thereby taking control of its direction. Most of your argument actually supports my point that Constantine was really a pagan and the influence of his government on christianity introduced paganism into it. Thus the tampering as in your example of Sunday.

If the mormons are worshipping the same Jesus of nazareth that was in the bible. If the mormons believe in the bible as a religous text then they are an offshoot of roman catholicism.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Pax Africanus
Alexander-
Of course christianity exsted prior to constantine but he established the roman catholic church thereby taking control of its direction. Most of your argument actually supports my point that Constantine was really a pagan and the influence of his government on christianity introduced paganism into it. Thus the tampering as in your example of Sunday.

Where we differ is Constantine did not "establish" the Roman Catholic church unless you mean in the sense that he made it officially acceptable. It existed before he came to power.

If the mormons are worshipping the same Jesus of nazareth that was in the bible. If the mormons believe in the bible as a religous text then they are an offshoot of roman catholicism.

I'm not sure about where the mormons place themselves. I'm not sure they consider themselves a protestant church.

[Aeson]

Mormons aren't an offshoot of Roman Catholicism. It's one of the main reasons that most Christians don't accept Mormons as a Christian sect in fact.

The Bible is a holy book to Mormons, but through revelation to Joseph Smith was 'retranslated' (not exactly a translation but a correction of improper translation) to circumvent the apostasy that they believe Christianity in general went through after the death of the Apostles. In their view, the Book of Mormon is also a Testament of Jesus, of his appearance to peoples in the New World after his resurrection.

The Book of Mormon is certainly not a product of Roman Catholicism. Neither is the Joseph Smith translation of the Bible, as it is meant to recapture the original intent of the work before it was corrupted (by Roman Catholicism among other things).

They aren't products of Roman Catholicism any more than your posts are. In both cases there may be influence by or reference to Roman Catholicism, but that is not the same as being based off of or even agreeing with.