OLDE ENGLISH BIBLES

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

This is a Queasiton fo history.

I spoke with a friend of mine, about a project I am doing, which, to sumerise, is to colelct all available Bible tranlaitons posisble, tis for a Library site I intend to launch in a few eyars.

Likewise, I like havignthem on my PC for personal research.

I started withhte wycliffe, which is th earliest english translaton ot he entire Bible, takenform the Vulgate.

However, my friend disagreed, claimign Wtcliffe was a Heretic and it is an anti-Cahtolic lie to say his was the firts english Bible, an other, Catholci Chruch Approved Bibles in english existed prior to Wycliffe.

I am awae of limited translaitons, uch as the now lost Bede transaltio of the Gospel of John, and Caedmon's tranaltions of variosu portiosn of sciroue ( rrlaly poetry inspied by the stoies of the Bible).

However, I cannot find any ealrier english Bibles than wyfcliffe, or any that post-Date wycliffe in wnglish til yndale, and no Cahtolic oens till the Rheims Newe teftament of the late 1500's.

so, I am askign here, what Early english Catholic Bibels existed prior to John Wycliffe? Compelte Bibles. ( r at leat some, byt prefer compelte.)

sorry or the toruble, its a researh queation.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 20, 2005

Answers

This is a Queasiton fo history.

I spoke with a friend of mine, about a project I am doing, which, to sumerise, is to colelct all available Bible tranlaitons posisble, tis for a Library site I intend to launch in a few eyars.

Likewise, I like havignthem on my PC for personal research.

I started withhte wycliffe, which is th earliest english translaton ot he entire Bible, takenform the Vulgate.

However, my friend disagreed, claimign Wtcliffe was a Heretic and it is an anti-Cahtolic lie to say his was the firts english Bible, an other, Catholci Chruch Approved Bibles in english existed prior to Wycliffe.

I am awae of limited translaitons, uch as the now lost Bede transaltio of the Gospel of John, and Caedmon's tranaltions of variosu portiosn of sciroue ( rrlaly poetry inspied by the stoies of the Bible).

However, I cannot find any ealrier english Bibles than wyfcliffe, or any that post-Date wycliffe in wnglish til yndale, and no Cahtolic oens till the Rheims Newe teftament of the late 1500's.

so, I am askign here, what Early english Catholic Bibels existed prior to John Wycliffe? Compelte Bibles. ( r at leat some, byt prefer compelte.)

sorry or the toruble, its a researh queation.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 20, 2005.


You would prefer to hear about only "complete," old, Catholic translations in English?

I should have expected "completeness" to be irrelevant to you, since you buy into protestantism, which is incomplete in doctrine and incomplete in its scripture. All protestants wrongly claim that only 66 books were revealed by God, and most prot Bibles lack the text of 7 God-given books. Since your canon of scripture is not "complete," your proposed site ought to welcome EVERY "incomplete" translation of scripture, even those done by Catholics.

The following is from a 1999 article by L. Alekna.

Nor is it at all true, as some mistakenly think, that the Catholic Church was opposed to the printing and distribution of Bible translations in "native" languages. Part of the problem was that Bibles were not widely circulated. They were written by hand, and very, very expensive. Many of the common folk couldn't read, either. Bibles, and books in general did not become widely used by the general population until after the invention of the printing press.

John Wycliffe with his 1382 version of the Bible was not the first person to give English speaking people the Bible in their own tongue, as a popular misguided myth would have it. We have copies of the work of Caedmon from the 7th century, and that of the Venerable Bede, Eadhelm, Guthlac, and Egbert from the 8th (all in Saxon, the prevalent language at that time). From the 9th and 10th centuries come the translations of King Alfred the Great and Aelfric, Archbishop of Canterbury. Early English versions include that of Orm around 1150, the Salus Animae (1250), and the translations of William Shoreham, Richard Rolle (d.1349), and John Trevisa (c.1360).

Other languages are also represented in the list of "vernacular" Catholic Bibles. We can find a translation of the Bible from 1290, written in French, a translation into Dutch (about 1270), and a translation into German (about 1350). Between 1466 and the onset of the Protestant [D]eformation in 1517, at least fourteen editions appeared in High German, and five in Low German. From 1450 to 1550, for example, there appeared (with express permission from Rome) more than 40 Italian editions or translations of the Bible and eighteen French editions, as well as others in Bohemian, Belgian, Russian, Danish, Norwegian, Polish, and Hungarian. Spain published editions in Spanish starting in 1478.

It is important to remember, that ALL of these vernacular Bibles were "Catholic" Bibles. Remember, the [D]eformation had not yet occurred. The key issue for the Church was NOT translating the Bible into vernacular languages, as some say, but simply insuring that the translations were accurate translations.

-- C.P. (cpetersen@bigbay.com), February 20, 2005.


You would prefer to hear about only "complete," old, Catholic translations in English?

{Yes, this si what I ask for.}-Zarove I should have expected "completeness" to be irrelevant to you, since you buy into protestantism, {Actually im Churhc of chrust, so I odnt buy into protestantism. I know, others, especially paul M, will say its protestant regardless, but lets for this thread rspect that their are some diffeences in approach.}-Zarove which is incomplete in doctrine and incomplete in its scripture. {Can we not take digs at Protestantism. ( Which you inacuraltey find me a mwmber of, ) as it serves no real purpose. Least of all ince I seek pre-1380 Bibles.}-Zarove All protestants wrongly claim that only 66 books were revealed by God, and most prot Bibles lack the text of 7 God-given books. {And orthodox claim yo ar misisng the 151 Psalm and a coipe ofbooks, I do not think proclaiming the Cannon used by Protestants worng magiclaly makes the objectiosn to the contested boosk go away, nor is it relevant here.}-Zarove Since your canon of scripture is not "complete," your proposed site ought to welcome EVERY "incomplete" translation of scripture, even those done by Catholics. {Let me say this. 1: I tehcniclaly am not protestant. That is a misocnpetion. 2: I seek a cmplete Bible, not fragments. If a compelte Bible is not found, then fragments, doen ny anyone, are irrelevant.}-Zarove

The following is from a 1999 article by L. Alekna.

Nor is it at all true, as some mistakenly think, that the Catholic Church was opposed to the printing and distribution of Bible translations in "native" languages. {Printing wa simposisble to the 1400's with Guternberge. Again im lookign for compelte Bibels before Wycliffe.}-Zarove Part of the problem was that Bibles were not widely circulated. They were written by hand, and very, very expensive. Many of the common folk couldn't read, either. Bibles, and books in general did not become widely used by the general population until after the invention of the printing press.

{Correct.}-Zarove John Wycliffe with his 1382 version of the Bible was not the first person to give English speaking people the Bible in their own tongue, as a popular misguided myth would have it. We have copies of the work of Caedmon from the 7th century, and that of the Venerable Bede, Eadhelm, Guthlac, and Egbert from the 8th (all in Saxon, the prevalent language at that time). {two problems hee. 1: They arnt comlete Bibles.Caedmon for instan eonly did soem potiosn of the Old Testament, not the whoel Bible. I alreayd have the works of Caedmon. 2: They arent english. Im lookign for ENGLISH Bibles. ENFGLISH, notSaxon, not Gelic, not German, ENGLISH. Anothe issue, Bede's Tranlaiton of John is lost.I cant colect it. It's imposisble. }-Zarove From the 9th and 10th centuries come the translations of King Alfred the Great and Aelfric, Archbishop of Canterbury. Early English versions include that of Orm around 1150, the Salus Animae (1250), and the translations of William Shoreham, Richard Rolle (d.1349), and John Trevisa (c.1360).

{Are these texts avaialnle onine anywhere? Or can i purchase hard copies? Are they complete Bibles?}-Zarove Other languages are also represented in the list of "vernacular" Catholic Bibles. We can find a translation of the Bible from 1290, written in French, a translation into Dutch (about 1270), and a translation into German (about 1350). Between 1466 and the onset of the Protestant [D]eformation in 1517, at least fourteen editions appeared in High German, and five in Low German. From 1450 to 1550, for example, there appeared (with express permission from Rome) more than 40 Italian editions or translations of the Bible and eighteen French editions, as well as others in Bohemian, Belgian, Russian, Danish, Norwegian, Polish, and Hungarian. Spain published editions in Spanish starting in 1478.

{Nice to know, but Im lookin for ENGLISH right now...}-Zarove It is important to remember, that ALL of these vernacular Bibles were "Catholic" Bibles. {Why? The only one makign an isuse of any of this is you.}-Zarove Remember, the [D]eformation had not yet occurred. {And I said it had?}-Zarove The key issue for the Church was NOT translating the Bible into vernacular languages, as some say, but simply insuring that the translations were accurate translations. { that is vert well nd good for you to say, bu yo didnt answer my real quieatsion here. Where can I find earlier compelte Bibles prior to Wycliffe?}-Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 20, 2005.


I tehcniclaly am not protestant. That is a misocnpetion.

Only you are suffering from a "misconception," ma'am. And there's nothing "technical" about it.

It's a plain fact, accepted by almost all people on the old Globe, that a person can be one of four things, (1) a non-Christian, (2) a Christian who belongs to the Catholic Church, (3) a Christian who belongs to a schismatic Eastern church (i.e., mainly the Orthodox), or (4) a Christian who is Protestant.

We Catholics who engage in apologetics are well aware of, and reject, the fictions that your "Church [sic] of Christ" denomination is non- Protestant and non-denominational. Its 19th-century founders were Protestants who fell away from multiple denominations and tried to invent something to which they would try to apply a veneer of respectability by pretending that it is not Protestant and not denominational. God gave most of us enough brains not to fall for that foolish ruse.

-- C.P. (cpetersen@bigbay.com), February 21, 2005.


I tehcniclaly am not protestant. That is a misocnpetion.

Only you are suffering from a "misconception," ma'am. And there's nothing "technical" about it.

On the contrary. I suffer no such thing, but you, eprsonally, suffer a lack of charity. what is this facination with berating me anyway? It's a plain fact, accepted by almost all people on the old Globe, that a person can be one of four things, (1) a non-Christian, (2) a Christian who belongs to the Catholic Church, (3) a Christian who belongs to a schismatic Eastern church (i.e., mainly the Orthodox), or (4) a Christian who is Protestant.

This may well be so, but it is not true. Many Christaisn arent in the above four categories. Mormons, for instance. ( and before we say they are Protestant, they are nt, neither are they Non-Christain.) The chruch of christ owes its origins less ot Luther and Calvin and mro to the Rstoraiton mvoement which took off in the 19th Century,and abandined Protestantism. Regardless of your pwrsonal approval, we arent protestant. We Catholics who engage in apologetics are well aware of, and reject, the fictions that your "Church [sic] of Christ" denomination is non- Protestant and non-denominational. I htink you engag ein apologetics too often, and need to instead ingage in learnign the disiplines christ taught mankind. One of these is Charity. Likewise, the Chruhc of churst can rightly be called Non-Protestant, sicne its origins are neither in direct Protest to rome, nor is it origionated form an offshoot of those that where. It is an independant movement. Likewies, it cannot be logiclaly claled a Denominaiton, icne it is nto a division. Sayign this si ficitonal is liek you clalign me an idiot and you sayign the KJv is vastly infirior to the SV and is error laden. you dont bother supportign these claims, you merley think that the proclamation is enough... So, please stop insuling me, claimign things hat sont agree wih you are de facto wrong, and cease answerign my threads unles you have soemtign more productive to say on them. I tire of your onstant attakcsz. You want to call me anti-Cahtolci for Not bowign before your clims, fine, but atleats don bother respondign to me. Its 19th-century founders were Protestants who fell away from multiple denominations and tried to invent something to which they would try to apply a veneer of respectability by pretending that it is not Protestant and not denominational. At leats in your corrupted, narrow midned, bigoted, dhallow rendition of the Hisotry which is mired by sectarian oncerns. To you, the above is truth, to me, tis just basic slander that yo have beocme adpet at. The foundaiton f the theology of the hcurhc of christ and any restoraiton cruch is base dupon rejecting reform thought, and contians no real Protestant element in its theologucal background. Likewise, ti is ofensive to call the churhc of chirst a denomination and Protestant, not that yo care. Offendign me is OK, btu if I offend you its terrible. Be more charitable in the future.Likewise, instead of seekign arguments to discrdit soemthign and support Cahtolisism, try lookign atth facts more objectivley in the future, as this will win you mor intelelctusl advancement, becaue as it stands no your just liek most apologists and the reason why I left apologetics is manifest. They start withhteir conclusion, then seek to rationlise it. Your conclusion is that the Cahtolic hcurhc is the one and only true hcurh and the HCuh of chist is a protestant enominaiton rater they like it or not. rathe than listen to why the CHurhc of Churst dosn think otsself a Protestant eominaiton, tis neogu for yo rto declare it is one, and move on, if anyone disagreesm theyr liars and decievers. Be realistic. And try ti look at htings form others perspectuve and get the real facts. what is truely interestin is that yo htink they only claim not to be Protrstant as to add a veneer of respectability to the claims of the hcurh, yet in the 19th Cenury America, anti-Cahtolsiism was so high that it was an Honour to be called Protestant. if you cannot even ge thtis fact straight in our head, why shodl we beleive the rest? God gave most of us enough brains not to fall for that foolish ruse. This is like you clalign nme na idiot for not bowign down and obeying you when you claimed the KJV was error laden. This is like you further delcarign the KJV is fleld with errors. You clal it apologetics, evedryone else calls it bad manners. You do een support yor claim with anyhting, you just make pronounements. if I where in apologetics and your oponant I widl make mencemeat out of you, becaue your claism arent supported. as it sands nwo though, i woidl rathe you just stopposting. The thread is about my Historical research. I am seeking Bible's from the past, earlier english translaitosn than qycliffe's. If you cannot help me find earlier english Bels than wycliffe, and will only denegrate me by saign my Bible is oncomplete and Im protestant and a deominaiton and an idiot and so fourth, please refrain form this thread, as it holds absolutley no benefit to me at all to hear this, and doesnt further my research. Now, I heard that their where Cahtolci english Bibels prior to Wycliffe, I have been unsuccessful in inign any, either tell me where to find them, or leace me alone and allow others to aid me. Is this radiclaly too Dificult for you to do? However,to add assurance to my success, I am contactign the Moderator, as I weary of your games, your porclimatiosn of truth which arent suppoorted by one single fact, and your useless aim in drivign me off the forum.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 21, 2005.



OFF

Now, can we drp ypur personal ventta againt me and your "defences" of the Cathilic HCurhc and actually discus the valid topic of this thread?

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 21, 2005.


Many Christaisn arent in the above four categories. Mormons, for instance. ( and before we say they are Protestant, they are nt, neither are they Non-Christain.)

Mormons are non-Christian. They are non-Trinitarian (as understood by real Christians), and they lack a valid Baptism (so the Holy See has declared). As usual, you lack the facts, my Campbellite Protestant friend.

-- C.P. (cpetersen@bigbay.com), February 21, 2005.


Forgot to mention that I don't have a "personal vendetta" against you. My efforts are against the bad STUFF that you keep posting. My efforts are never against people, but FOR people. My efforts are FOR Catholics, lest they fall for your errors. My efforts are FOR you, to help you sweep the cobwebs out of your brain and become a Catholic yourself. Your resistance is very pleasing to the demons and very displeasing to Our Lord.

-- C.P. (cpetersen@bigbay.com), February 21, 2005.

Many Christaisn arent in the above four categories. Mormons, for instance. ( and before we say they are Protestant, they are nt, neither are they Non-Christain.)

Mormons are non-Christian. They are non-Trinitarian (as understood by real Christians), and they lack a valid Baptism (so the Holy See has declared). As usual, you lack the facts, my Campbellite Protestant friend. 1: Mormosn proffess beelif in Chirst. Though their beleifs are strange, they are Christain in soem sence. 2: I have asked you not to do this in the past, and you continue. Please do nto clal me a Protestant. I know, I know, its what I rellay am and your just showing all the love you can by this, but to everyoen else you just coem off as a massive rude , arrogent, self servign jerk. You may want to think of the HCurh of chirst as Protestant, btu its not only not protestant, in theology or form, but to call it this is considered an insult. KNOWING htis is an insult doesnt even phase you though, since your INTENTION is toeithe force me to agree with you, or else to insult me and force toyw will by runnign me off. You dilibertely insult me, for the sole putpose of forcign your agenda. Do you rellay think this is what Chist woidl have you do? Did not Christ say this., to show love in all your comunicaitons? Is htis love? You may say itis, but to go out of your way to insult a poster who has never shown ill will is not love. Please stop calign me a Protestant. I knwso you wan tot continue in it and callin ghte chuhc of chirst's claim nto to be fictitious, but in so dping you act exaclty liek he Bogot and narrow minded fool you claim I am. I have spoken no ill agaisnt your Church, and defended it agaisnt the errors leveled agaisnt it by others, yet this is how I am repaid, beign claled anto-Cahtolic and protestant rather I like it or not. Suhc vemhom form you is unbecomign of anyone and utter unnessisary. You have ruined this thread with your hateful incitements, and now you insist to persecute me and conrinue an obvious vendetta, regardless of yor claims otherwise. Forgot to mention that I don't have a "personal vendetta" against you. Your actiosn spea otherwise. Clalign me protestant dispite knowng this is offnsive is vendetta. Saying it is ficiton to sya otherwise and not even bohering to undertsand the reason why htis is arrogance and bogotry. Activ.ley seekign to demean my intelelgenc eon the other thread and insulting the Bibel I use with no arugment to supporot you, thn comign to an unrelated thread to continue yor harrasemen, fte haivng made similar claism agaisnt me in the past, reveal the pposite of this proffession of innocence. You diliberatley insitled me on this thread, and diliberaley sidetracked it form English Bile translatosn before Wyclife to basiclaly say that what I be;eive is irrlevant and I have to go by yor lable. All this to firther your own goal to eliminate me. This is personal vendetta. My efforts are against the bad STUFF that you keep posting. I am not th eone misrepresentign peopels beleifs, you on the other hand are oen who diliberaley ifgnroes them so you can clign to stupid apologetics argiemtns you barey understand and only repeat the conclusions to while enforcign them on this boad for the promotion of your own ego. My stuff isnt bad, you just disagree with it. That dosnt mean you have to stalk me form thread to thread in order to try to make me ot to be anti-Cahtlic and ourself a hero for defeatig me. Thsi thread alone became about Me and my beelifs becuase you personally attakced me in your very first post, and hus destoryed he use this thread has to me. Do you even relaise how this will make peopel see less the Cahtolci churhc as loving? Of coruse not, you think its most fitting to excersise bad manners, insult people, and ignore the way het see things in order to force hem into your perspective. Thsi to you is fair because unless htey agre with you they must be defeated. Again I all you arrogant. My efforts are never against people, but FOR people. They serve only to bolster your own egotism within the confiens of yor own pathetic mind. You did not enter his discussion to assist me, btu to berate me, and you continually do so regardless of how I repsind. You don care abotu facs or people, just your own selfish agenda. My efforts are FOR Catholics, lest they fall for your errors. What error? I asked the peopel on this baord, many of them well learned inthis area, if heir wher any compelte Bibles before Wycliffe. This is a matter of hisotry and an Inquery I posted. Not even related to theology. There wa sno posibility that any Cahtolci woidl fall into any error here regarding anyhtign since all I was lookign for was early English Bible translations. You transformed he thread into theological attacks agaisnt my beleifs. This dosnt speak to yor claim of beign for cahtolics leas they flal into my errors,a nd rather confirm my tatements that this is perosnal vendeta dsigned to bolster your egotism. My efforts are FOR you, to help you sweep the cobwebs out of your brain and become a Catholic yourself. To be blunt, with you as a witness of the Catholic Faith, it is enough to make me a Beleiver in Jack Chicks lciams hat it is run by Satan, for surley no Chruch of Christ woidl advocate such hatred as you display. It is my happy fortune t kwo other Cahtolics, lest you be the basi of my understandign of Catholisism. Conversion howeve is less atracticve to me knowjn you are Catholci, prcicely because of your hateful manner. Consider that witness you project, and do as Paul insturcted, and be known by yor good works, not by a vile tounge. Your resistance is very pleasing to the demons and very displeasing to Our Lord. I shall take no heed to your claism on what is and i not pleasng to the Lord, sine you most assuredly are displeasign him in this very act of vanity that you foist as aid to others, btu whihc is rlaly an attack on a fellow Christian. If one of us serves Satan, it is you , as evidence I show your lack of Love and readiness to attack others for no reason.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 21, 2005.


Many Christaisn arent in the above four categories. Mormons, for instance. ( and before we say they are Protestant, they are nt, neither are they Non-Christain.)

Mormons are non-Christian. They are non-Trinitarian (as understood by real Christians), and they lack a valid Baptism (so the Holy See has declared). As usual, you lack the facts, my Campbellite Protestant friend. 1: Mormosn proffess beelif in Chirst. Though their beleifs are strange, they are Christain in soem sence. 2: I have asked you not to do this in the past, and you continue. Please do nto clal me a Protestant. I know, I know, its what I rellay am and your just showing all the love you can by this, but to everyoen else you just coem off as a massive rude , arrogent, self servign jerk. You may want to think of the HCurh of chirst as Protestant, btu its not only not protestant, in theology or form, but to call it this is considered an insult. KNOWING htis is an insult doesnt even phase you though, since your INTENTION is toeithe force me to agree with you, or else to insult me and force toyw will by runnign me off. You dilibertely insult me, for the sole putpose of forcign your agenda. Do you rellay think this is what Chist woidl have you do? Did not Christ say this., to show love in all your comunicaitons? Is htis love? You may say itis, but to go out of your way to insult a poster who has never shown ill will is not love. Please stop calign me a Protestant. I knwso you wan tot continue in it and callin ghte chuhc of chirst's claim nto to be fictitious, but in so dping you act exaclty liek he Bogot and narrow minded fool you claim I am. I have spoken no ill agaisnt your Church, and defended it agaisnt the errors leveled agaisnt it by others, yet this is how I am repaid, beign claled anto-Cahtolic and protestant rather I like it or not. Suhc vemhom form you is unbecomign of anyone and utter unnessisary. You have ruined this thread with your hateful incitements, and now you insist to persecute me and conrinue an obvious vendetta, regardless of yor claims otherwise. Forgot to mention that I don't have a "personal vendetta" against you. Your actiosn spea otherwise. Clalign me protestant dispite knowng this is offnsive is vendetta. Saying it is ficiton to sya otherwise and not even bohering to undertsand the reason why htis is arrogance and bogotry. Activ.ley seekign to demean my intelelgenc eon the other thread and insulting the Bibel I use with no arugment to supporot you, thn comign to an unrelated thread to continue yor harrasemen, fte haivng made similar claism agaisnt me in the past, reveal the pposite of this proffession of innocence. You diliberatley insitled me on this thread, and diliberaley sidetracked it form English Bile translatosn before Wyclife to basiclaly say that what I be;eive is irrlevant and I have to go by yor lable. All this to firther your own goal to eliminate me. This is personal vendetta. My efforts are against the bad STUFF that you keep posting. I am not th eone misrepresentign peopels beleifs, you on the other hand are oen who diliberaley ifgnroes them so you can clign to stupid apologetics argiemtns you barey understand and only repeat the conclusions to while enforcign them on this boad for the promotion of your own ego. My stuff isnt bad, you just disagree with it. That dosnt mean you have to stalk me form thread to thread in order to try to make me ot to be anti-Cahtlic and ourself a hero for defeatig me. Thsi thread alone became about Me and my beelifs becuase you personally attakced me in your very first post, and hus destoryed he use this thread has to me. Do you even relaise how this will make peopel see less the Cahtolci churhc as loving? Of coruse not, you think its most fitting to excersise bad manners, insult people, and ignore the way het see things in order to force hem into your perspective. Thsi to you is fair because unless htey agre with you they must be defeated. Again I all you arrogant. My efforts are never against people, but FOR people. They serve only to bolster your own egotism within the confiens of yor own pathetic mind. You did not enter his discussion to assist me, btu to berate me, and you continually do so regardless of how I repsind. You don care abotu facs or people, just your own selfish agenda. My efforts are FOR Catholics, lest they fall for your errors. What error? I asked the peopel on this baord, many of them well learned inthis area, if heir wher any compelte Bibles before Wycliffe. This is a matter of hisotry and an Inquery I posted. Not even related to theology. There wa sno posibility that any Cahtolci woidl fall into any error here regarding anyhtign since all I was lookign for was early English Bible translations. You transformed he thread into theological attacks agaisnt my beleifs. This dosnt speak to yor claim of beign for cahtolics leas they flal into my errors,a nd rather confirm my tatements that this is perosnal vendeta dsigned to bolster your egotism. My efforts are FOR you, to help you sweep the cobwebs out of your brain and become a Catholic yourself. To be blunt, with you as a witness of the Catholic Faith, it is enough to make me a Beleiver in Jack Chicks lciams hat it is run by Satan, for surley no Chruch of Christ woidl advocate such hatred as you display. It is my happy fortune t kwo other Cahtolics, lest you be the basi of my understandign of Catholisism. Conversion howeve is less atracticve to me knowjn you are Catholci, prcicely because of your hateful manner. Consider that witness you project, and do as Paul insturcted, and be known by yor good works, not by a vile tounge. Your resistance is very pleasing to the demons and very displeasing to Our Lord. I shall take no heed to your claism on what is and i not pleasng to the Lord, sine you most assuredly are displeasign him in this very act of vanity that you foist as aid to others, btu whihc is rlaly an attack on a fellow Christian. If one of us serves Satan, it is you , as evidence I show your lack of Love and readiness to attack others for no reason.



-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 21, 2005.



1: Mormosn proffess beelif in Chirst. Though their beleifs are strange, they are Christain in soem sence.

They are Christians in the same sense that Jews and Muslims are Christians. They all believe in God. Mormons do NOT believe in the Trinity and believe that a married Mormon will at the end of our universe become equal to God and have a universe of their own to rule AS GOD. Furthermore, while there is currently one God *for us* there may be millions of Gods out there right now. Zarove, that is in NO WAY Christian to a Catholic, but OTOH, if you think their beliefs are as Christian as yours, that's different.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), February 21, 2005.


Frank, unless you think degradign peoe wins favurs an converts, I suggest you re-think this.

I am for understandign others eleifs and rpresentign hem firly.

Also, Mormosn do not think they will get hei own Universe, but planet...

Difference.

Now, by insulting Mormons, you win no favour form them. By listenig and understanding, you gain them for Christ.

And look at htis thread? it is nothign btu insul to me , personally. Is this turely an atmet to convert me to Catholisism? Or an atmeot to berate me?

Think this issue hrough Frank.

This thread was about History, and I was seekign old Bile tranlaitosn before Wycliffe.

Pelligario coms along and ruins the threa dby makign cheap personal attakcs agaisnt me an laimign tis for my benefi and others. ( To keep Cahtolci form fallign into my error of doign Historical researhc and askigj fi any extant Bible tralatiosn before wtcliffe exsted an survive...)

Is this charitable at all? Is this goign to win me over to Catholiism?

How does this appear t a Non-Cahtolic? And how does htis rpesent the CHruch?

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 21, 2005.


'unless you think degradign peoe wins favurs an converts, I suggest you re-think this'

Its NOTING wrong with calling a spade a spade. Mormans are following some cult like garbage and arn't Christians

-- Ed (Didn't @king james.killCatholics), February 21, 2005.


And th word cult is used.

You know, many peopel use the same word, "Cult" to disribe Cathlci beleifs an teachings.

I dislike mokcign others.Mormonism is nt a Cult, it is a strange branch of christendome, but they do proffess faith in Jesus, and axcknowldge his attoenment on the Cross.

Is this relaly th ebest you can do though, mokc others?

Look at yourselves? An email of "Didnt King James Kill Catholcis"... we arne even discussing King Jmes, who, at hte times I wanted to discuss, wast even Born yet.

Not only am I denegrated and my real beleifs ignroed so a distorted view can eb leveled againt me, eprsonally, but we also have ot take potshots a the Mormosn for no real reason.

lay off them and me, and try to think of any valid poitns ot makde. But this thread, now nothign btu a ahte thread leveled agaisnt me and others, is nothign btu a tool of Satan for further division.

What proft do you relay hope to gian by such hatefulness?

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 21, 2005.


'to everyoen else you just coem off as a massive rude , arrogent, self servign jerk'

You need to apologise to CP, Zarove. You turned this into a hate thread with insults like that.

You give a bad example for a protestant.

-- Ed (Didn't @kingjames.killcatholics), February 21, 2005.



as usual zarove, you missed the forest straining at the trees. Mormons aren't Christians in that they don't believe the things that anyone else who calls themselves Christians do. It's fine to talk about tolerance, but you have to draw the line somewhere. If you don't, before you know it you'll be in the group that Christ says to, "I never knew you". And quit being so quick to complain about rudeness, you are pretty rude yourself.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), February 22, 2005.


also Zarove, you realize that Mormons consider our God the Father to have once been a mortal man, just like you and me who was elevated to Godhood over us, and with his wife produced us. If we are good Mormons we can be the same as him and become equivalent Gods ourselves. Do you REALLY, and I mean REALLY think this is Christian?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), February 22, 2005.


Well, in rereading, I'd better be clearer. He wasn't a mortal in our universe, but was one in some time before our time began. after his mortal death and elevation at some point, he began populating his universe (I've never heard it restricted to one planet, just like our God isn't restricted to one planet) causing us. We are supposed to do the same at the end of our lives -- go on to become Gods someday equivalent to our God. Again, do you believe this is Christian?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), February 22, 2005.


'to everyoen else you just coem off as a massive rude , arrogent, self servign jerk' You need to apologise to CP, Zarove. You turned this into a hate thread with insults like that. You give a bad example for a protestant.

1: I cannot give a bad exampel for a protestant, as I am not Protestant. And I rellay dotn care that you say I am regardless of my "Fictitious claim" otherwise, diliberately sayign this to insult is rude.

However, nohtign I said on this thread is rude.

2: CP actullt entere this thread for the sole putpose of making personal attacks agaisnt my charecter, that is self serving and arogant.

He caism he is an apologitst, defiending he Cahtolci faiht.

But what attakc was launched? The thread is about Bible translatons, NOT the Cahtolci Faith per sey.

as a reuslt if his, and your, attacks, I have notified the Modeator.

I havent been rude o htis thread, hwoever, others who enter it to attack me for no end other than to attakc me ( And who keep up he " Your protestnt ND IT DOESNT MATTER IF YOU SAY OTHERWISE" ANGLE JUST TO ABUSE ME) are deservent of beign called on, and I can defend myself agaisnt his unkind atacks.

To you, I shodil just sit here ant take his slander.

If I defend myself., I am rde.

You said callign a sade a sade isnt wrong, then wy isnt it wrong to poitn out his hatred and egotism, which is aparent?

Frank... I have explaiend before.

1: Mormosn do not say " Hd wa sa Mortal man in another Universe". speakign of other"Universes" didnt start till the 20th Century.

Mormosn beleive God the father was a man only in the LDS, not RLDS line.

The RLDS beleive much the same way as most cristains do.

The lDS line that does hold this view does not sya he wa sa Mortal Man in another Universe, byt who lived on another planet, an althogh Gd can create many worlds, and is not resircted to one world, he is, noetheless, form our Universe.

The term Universe, in fact, is a nessisary Singular. It means " One truth". Due to Sci fi we have butchered this concept, btu in the 19th century, there was no way God the Father cidl have been form another Universe as there is only oen Universe.

Anothe palnet. fine, btu another Uiverse is Oxymoronic.

And I do know what mormons beleive, but the definition fo Christiain is " One who follows Christ". This they do. They ar emsitaken in some facts abot him, but they do follow him.

Indeed, as for the rudeness and arogance on this thread, cosider this.

I started his thread. its topic was ibel translaitosn before wycliffe. it is not abtu mocking me, clalign me Pfrotestant and a liar, and makign fun of Mormons.

I gained nohtign form it.

Nor do any of you.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 22, 2005.


Zarove,

Mormosn beleive God the father was a man only in the LDS, not RLDS line

The LDS branch of Mormonism claims 11,000,000+ members, the RLDS branch claims 250,000. Clearly the VAST MAJORITY of people who call themselves Mormons believe along the lines of the LDS church, and not of the RLDS church. There's something in you that wants to take every splinter group of anything and say that's just as good as anything else. This doesn't make sense.

1: Mormosn do not say " Hd wa sa Mortal man in another Universe". speakign of other"Universes" didnt start till the 20th Century

Quit trying to start debate where there is none. I was not trying to explain Mormon cosmology in the same way as it's original proponents, but giving a rough example of Mormon belief to non-Mormons using our current terminology. Unless there is something WRONG with my definition, move on and don't waste time.

The term Universe, in fact, is a nessisary Singular. It means " One truth".

LOL, by your definition maybe. "GOD" is by definition singular -- except to Mormons who believe there may be very very many Gods of equivalent powers out there, each ruling their own realm. How is that not multiple universes, as we understand the term today?

I gained nohtign form it

That's too bad. If you are taking the time to post here but learning NOTHING, you should give up posting and go on to some productive hobby. How are you going to explain the waste of your life to God?

Nor do any of you

In answer to your last part, in a very small way, I have learned something new here, like I usually do on threads I post to, which makes it not a waste of my time.

And I do know what mormons beleive, but the definition fo Christiain is " One who follows Christ". This they do. They ar emsitaken in some facts abot him, but they do follow him.

Your definition of Christianity is not rigid enough. Even Islam believes Christ was a prophet, are you saying that you believe Muslims are Chrsitians too? You have to make some kind of stand between Truth and untruth Zarove, if you don't, what is the value of believing anything?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), February 22, 2005.


Z,

Church of Christ is a protestant denomination. If it's not, then Liechtenstein is not part of Europe.

-- Kev (fnatc@c.c), February 22, 2005.


Kev, the CHURHC OF CHIST ISNT A pROTESTANT DENOMINATION, DISPITE THE FAC TTHAT YOU AND OTHERS CLAIM IT IS. i WOIDL ELABORATE, BTU WHY BOTHER? i CILD WRITE A 90 PAGE THESIS AND IT WOIDL BE DISMISSED BY "iTS pROTRSTANT, DEAL WITH IT."

fACTS ARE IRRLEVANT, ONLY FURTHER ISULT.

fRNAK, i STAND FOR TRUTH IN AN ABSOLTUE FORM, CLAIMIGN i AM PRO- RELITAVISM IGNORES BACLALY EEYHTIGN i SAID.

hOWEVER, it is NOT true to call the Mormons a cult, least of al is it tasteful to do so since the Cahtolci Chruch is called a cult for he same reaossn.

It is nto true to lable the chruch of Chrust Protestant, sicne its restorationist and abandoend all reformed and evangelical theology and is an indepenant movement.

It is likewise not objective truth to say that the peoep ehre are simpley refuting my errors. Indeed, this whole thread shodiltn be aoehthe Hurh of hcust or Mormons, but Bibles, CP and then his follwoers , inludign you Frank, jujst want ot get off on felign powerful by basign someone around.

This is remarkabely anti-Christain behaviour, and true evidenc of whom you serve.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 22, 2005.


Heck, I can answer for Zarove,

Liechtenstein is NOT a part of Europe! Liechtenstein is a principality, whereas "Europe" implies a larger structure of which there are many components. Since Liechtenstein is a prinicpality, it CANNOT be part of Europe and so is not a part of Europe.

Furthermore, the people in Liechtenstein didn't originate there, no one claims that the Garden of Eden was in Liechtenstein, so in that sense if you go back far enough there IS NO Liechtenstein, and so it can't be part of Europe, because at one point it didn't even exist!

See, it's Simple, Liechtenstein is not a part of Europe.

Toss in the absence of any correct spelling whatsoever, and no-one would know the difference.

Frank

P.S. Take it lightly Zarove, LEARN from things!

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), February 22, 2005.


Why don't you admit when you are wrong, Zarove, it's much easier than acting out.

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), February 22, 2005.

Heck, I can answer for Zarove, Liechtenstein is NOT a part of Europe! Liechtenstein is a principality, whereas "Europe" implies a larger structure of which there are many components. Since Liechtenstein is a prinicpality, it CANNOT be part of Europe and so is not a part of Europe. Furthermore, the people in Liechtenstein didn't originate there, no one claims that the Garden of Eden was in Liechtenstein, so in that sense if you go back far enough there IS NO Liechtenstein, and so it can't be part of Europe, because at one point it didn't even exist! See, it's Simple, Liechtenstein is not a part of Europe. Toss in the absence of any correct spelling whatsoever, and no-one would know the difference. Frank P.S. Take it lightly Zarove, LEARN from things!

It is comments liek the above, hich make ignorant jest at my charecter, based on eh claim that I do not beleive in absolute truth, that render you ofneive, bigoted, and unworthy of the title Christain.

Again Frank, this i no the type of argumet I woidl make, and mokcing my dyslexia is a cheap shot.

Do you relaly take the sacraments? How can you beleive in them, while partakign of them with such venhom?

And he reasom I dotn admit I am wrogn is becase Im not.

You dotn even know WHY the Chruch of CHirst claism no to be protestant, tis enoguh for you to say " Its protestant" and make jokes about others saying otherwise withotu undestandign the rason behind this claim.

You are wrong, and very muhc so.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 22, 2005.


I'm sorry Zarove, but you've really become a caricature of yourself. It's rather hard NOT to see the humorous side of you when the honest side seems so far away.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), February 22, 2005.


More personal insults aimed at me do not prove you valid.Nor does it show you to be truthful, and me not.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 22, 2005.

Right Frank, Mt. Everest is in Kansas.

Z, FYI, Church of Christ is the 40,007th protestant denomination.

-- Kev (fnatc@k.w), February 22, 2005.


1: There arent even 40'000 Oroitestant denominaitons. Actual statistics limi it to between 4000 and 8000. The 40'000 numbr is inflated.

2: sine the cHURC OF CHRIST IS FRM THE 19TH CENURY, EVEN IF IT WAS A pROTESTANT dENOMINAITON, IT WODLT BE THE 40'007TH.

3: Only an idiot woidl persst in claiming tis protestant and thik that this settles the matter, an he only reaosn you are dgn so is to be offensive.

4: To answer CP on another thread, aparently someoen did answer my othe thread. You shoultn speak too soon.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 22, 2005.


Only an idiot woidl persst in claiming tis protestant and thik that ***

Knock it off. Mormans are following a evil, man made cult. The only "idiot" around here is you

-- Ed ((Didn't @king james.killCatholics),), February 22, 2005.


Zarove,

2: sine the cHURC OF CHRIST IS FRM THE 19TH CENURY, EVEN IF IT WAS A pROTESTANT dENOMINAITON, IT WODLT BE THE 40'007TH.

Now there's an eye-opener. The last time I tried to pin down the origins of the COC in the 19th century you refused to admit it WAS started then. Care to state for once and all when you believe it started? I doubt it, and expect more backpeddling and double talk about how it really existed far earlier. Let's hear you commit to SOMETHING Zarove, when did the COC start, and what country did it start in?

Z,

Mt. Everest really is in Kansas you know...

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), February 22, 2005.


I was answerign acocrdign to yor estimates.

Noetheless, I expec this to b seen as backpedlding. After all, everyhtign outside of " Gee gpl;y you is right, I Is a protestant, and shodik be Cahtolci" willeb accepted.

Realisticlaly toguht, you peopel arent placign much import on the need for facts or tryign to understand the approach of anyhting other than your own.

Chruch fo Chrust is Restoration, not Protestant, in nature, and diverges radiclaly in thelogy form Protestant theolgy on many key issues.

Callign it protestant, however, is not because you isncerley eelive it is protstant, btu used here on thsi thread to merley insult an force the veiw that unelss its Cahtlic, tis protestant as it protests Rome.

My arugmens are usually far better constructed, bu why bother, sicne you don wan tot lsten wto what others beleive, ony their acknoeeldgements of error while they bow to you.

This si abotu yor ego, not anyhtign else.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 22, 2005.


And as expected, suddenly the COC was NOT created in the 19th century.

Say what you like about me Zarove, I do understand you.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), February 22, 2005.


No frank, you do not understand me.

If you did, you woidl remember I offered three explanaitosn tot he origin of the Chruch of Christ, and that was to give you knolee as to how to approach people form it. You ignored the informaiton and contineud to distort,much lke you do now...

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 22, 2005.


Chruch fo Chrust is Restoration, not Protestant, in nature, and diverges radiclaly in thelogy form Protestant theolgy on many key issues.

There is no such thing as "Protestant theology," since there are thousands of different "protestant theologies." The theology of the "church [sic] of Christ" is merely one of those thousands, each of which differs somewhat from the others.

It is nto true to lable the chruch of Chrust Protestant, sicne its restorationist and abandoend all reformed and evangelical theology and is an indepenant movement.

Some of us have known for years (in my case, almost twenty years) that the "church [sic] of Christ" calls itself "restorationist" (a recent attempt to revive what was thought to be the 1st-Century Church) and thus not a breakaway from any of the "mainline" non- Catholic Christian denominations. But the fact that it is an attempt at "restoration" does not absolve it from the error of being "protestant," because the protestant founders of the "church [sic] of Christ" chose not to become Catholic. They protested against Catholic theology, just as Zarove does today, and were therefore PROTESTANTS, just as Zarove is today.

Contrary to the insistence of Zarove, in modern English, the term "Protestant" no longer retains its original, 16th-century meaning, but is used to encompass ALL Christians who are not members of ancient apostolic churches (i.e., Catholics, Orthodox, and a few other small Eastern churches). The term "protestant" is now thus broadly used (in encyclopedias, in the media, etc., not just by Catholics) because it is so obvious that all Protestants (including coC-men like Zarove) openly reject ("protest against") at least some facets of the ancient apostolic faith held by Catholics.

-- C.P. (cpetersen@bigbay.com), February 23, 2005.


Chruch fo Chrust is Restoration, not Protestant, in nature, and diverges radiclaly in thelogy form Protestant theolgy on many key issues.

There is no such thing as "Protestant theology," since there are thousands of different "protestant theologies." The theology of the "church [sic] of Christ" is merely one of those thousands, each of which differs somewhat from the others. This is just an oversimplification. Mst Protestant churches in genral agree on a wide range of beleifs, oweing to their common origin. The claim that the chuches muct be radiclaly divergent in thelogical teachigns is based on a poorly consturcted Catholci apologetics arugments desigend to confuse matters rather than clarify them. All Protestant Chruches, for instance, beelive in Salvation by Frac alone, by Faith alone, and this beign the whole matter of true salvation.Thus a proffesion of faith and true beelif results in the "Born again" exeprjnce. Baptists, Meathodists, Pentacostals, Prespetyrians, ect, all beelive this. Likewise, they all accept variosu other things in acord oen with another. They arnt as diverse as you pretend them to be, and cliaming this is merley a smoekescreen designed to further your own ends. You hae, to date, never even admited your erorr in syaing I was not a native english Speaker, and yet persist in this merley to justify your position. a position you now attmeot to justify after ruinign a thread designed for legitimate history.

It is nto true to lable the chruch of Chrust Protestant, sicne its restorationist and abandoend all reformed and evangelical theology and is an indepenant movement.

Some of us have known for years (in my case, almost twenty years) that the "church [sic] of Christ" calls itself "restorationist" (a recent attempt to revive what was thought to be the 1st-Century Church) and thus not a breakaway from any of the "mainline" non- Catholic Christian denominations. If you have known this for years, and know that Chruh of chirst dosnt liek beign called Protestant, then why insist on calling it thus? and why insist that I be called Protestant? It seems less than you do this for anyones edificaiton, and more base dupn tryign to force yor views on others. Liekwise, you call em Protestant now just as a mean of harrassment, not as a mean of enlightenment. But the fact that it is an attempt at "restoration" does not absolve it from the error of being "protestant," No, but the fact that it is a seperate movment with dfferign foudnatiosn and seperated form Protestants by divergent theology ( and Protestant hteology can be isolated to a few baic concepts) is. As anyone who studies theology can attest. Not that study is improtant to you. You do not care abotu facts and truth, nly vendicatign your claism so you can persist in your harrassment of me. Afer all,thsi is rlaly about you wantign a target to bully. because the protestant founders of the "church [sic] of Christ" 1: The churc of Hcirst has no set foudners. 2: Those men whom pepel liek you claim a its central cunderns, Stoen and Cambel and Cambel, had renounced Protestantism, and where thus no longer Protestant. You may wish to insit theyw here, btu if you do, then we can clal all Protestants Catholci, as Martian Luther was catholic. Suhc woidl be idiocy, btu I expect this lien of logic to be used. The men started protestant thus where protestant. Martian Luther started Cahtlci but the Protestant Curhcs arent Cahtolci becaue he left. Doubel standard wil win the day here, and yor view is right, no need to look at others or even amdit the posisbility tha your wrong, just ontinue to harass posters and insult people, that makes you look powerful... chose not to become Catholic. And if all the cahtolics they met acted liek you, can you blame them? They protested against Catholic theology, just as Zarove does today, and were therefore PROTESTANTS, No, they did not. Nor do I portestn Cahtolci theology. I simpley do not hodl to every beleif Catholcis do, tu I think you will find in my posts my repsinces are more in line with Cahtolic than Protestant ideals, as has been poined out numerous times. I do not protest Catholisism, I merley am not Catolic. The men whom orginised the forntier chruches didnt protest Cahtolsiism, they merley engaged in their own belifs. Liekwise, the hcurhc of hcifrst owes its existance ot several generatisn of develop,ent, and lacks founders at a certian point, not that you wll be bothered ot listen tot hat angle either... just as Zarove is today.

I protest nohtign fo the sort, or else I woidl not be here. You claim me divisive and anti-Catholic, but certianly I am suppotive of Catholics in their worship, as I vew them as Bretheren within the Followign of Chirst. Contrary to the insistence of Zarove, in modern English, the term "Protestant" no longer retains its original, 16th-century meaning, but is used to encompass ALL Christians who are not members of ancient apostolic churches (i.e., Catholics, Orthodox, and a few other small Eastern churches). No, it does not. IE, Mormons, wich ou cliam I am ignorant of and arent rellay Christain, proffess Chrisain beleifs noentheless,a nd a dicitonary lables them as Christain. They ar enot Protestant. Beside them, their are other Non-Protestant movements besides restoraitonism,though ou wil ignroe them. Likewise, restorationism is a seperate mvoement with its own origins and hilosophy, and divegent theological tendancies to Proestantism. Your false claim aside that there is no such thing as Protestant thelogy in toyr attmet to us he doctorinal Caos nonsence tha is so often touted only serves to show yor own bidn ignorance of the realities invovled. and your insistanc eon vendicatign the term Proterstant with me, and thus insistnace on clalig me htis for the sole putpose of insulting me, whike tryognt o make it papear that you are vlaidly cllign me what I am and meanign no insult dispite the obvis fac tthat you are beign insultign and rude, will win you no real favour, and wl onl further damage yur cause. You claim that you are for people is proven false. You arent tryign to protect Cahtolci formmy errors, sicne this thread was not origionall abotu me at all ut english Binle tranlaitons. You interfered to make perosnal attacks on my charecter. You arent tryign o vonvert me, byt run me off the board,a s to said, its ime for me to leave this forum. Yoru rude manner only preswnts Cahtolisksm in a bad light, and no one wol convet after the level of abuse you have leveles aagsint them. You are her enly to impose tor vews and controle eople. Not to protect the faith form me. The term "protestant" is now thus broadly used (in encyclopedias, in the media, etc., not just by Catholics) because it is so obvious that all Protestants (including coC-men like Zarove) openly reject ("protest against") at least some facets of the ancient apostolic faith held by Catholics. Except that yo ignroe all of the above. 1: The HCurhc of Hrst doen tlie beign claled Protestant, and it is thus rude to insist on it. 2: In m own theology classes, which ar secular, the term "restorationist' is seen as seperate form the protestant mvoement. And not seen a the same. 3: Not all Chrisaisn who are not Catholic or rothdox are called Potestant eve by the Media. I am afaid this si anothe instanc whr you ar ewillfully ignorant and worng, and shant admit error, and will instead insist on clalign me protestant for the sole pupose of insultign me. Inddeed the lien yo typd above, "The term "protestant" is now thus broadly used (in encyclopedias, in the media, etc., not just by Catholics) because it is so obvious that all Protestants (including coC-men like Zarove) openly reject ("protest against") at least some facets of the ancient apostolic faith held by Catholics." where you identufy me by name and clal em Protestnst, exists only to rub my nose in the " You ar ea Protestnaft" idea,a nd was uttelry superfluous and swerved no real end. If it wher ento in tyor post, the messgae woidl have been still the same, and it only exists in tjepsot to further the outrage you intend to promote here. This si the lvoe of CHirst, I ask ? Can you see Jeus himself spewign foruth such rage? But his is what you prefer, vilence of otunge an crude speach, insult offereddiliberatlry and no love at all. You lack a cheritable spirit, and possess only the ability to attack and demean, a trait you pick up and tat serves not he body of christ, but form your father, wom it is obviosu who is not of Heaven. I ask you again to renounce your anger and oppressive attitude,and embrace the charit of God and his Churhc which demands you love eeben yor enemeis. I suggest you learn also how to listen to othes and learn where they stnd, and how to communicate ith othwrs, an what they tryely belive. You are too long in Cahtolci apologetics I fear, for thoguh you are terrible at presenting logical argumets, you certianl can repeat oft- uces canards and obbtuse comments that certianly rpevent you rform observing the realities intricated by the study of religion. Your actiosn ehre dishonour the Catoli chruch, and Christainity as a whole, becaue you brign division, for thoguh you claim this is m end, that I brign division, what Unity have you broguth to this baord by your attacks?

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 23, 2005.


Chruch fo Chrust is Restoration, not Protestant, in nature, and diverges radiclaly in thelogy form Protestant theolgy on many key issues.

There is no such thing as "Protestant theology," since there are thousands of different "protestant theologies." The theology of the "church [sic] of Christ" is merely one of those thousands, each of which differs somewhat from the others. This is just an oversimplification. Mst Protestant churches in genral agree on a wide range of beleifs, oweing to their common origin. The claim that the chuches muct be radiclaly divergent in thelogical teachigns is based on a poorly consturcted Catholci apologetics arugments desigend to confuse matters rather than clarify them. All Protestant Chruches, for instance, beelive in Salvation by Frac alone, by Faith alone, and this beign the whole matter of true salvation.Thus a proffesion of faith and true beelif results in the "Born again" exeprjnce. Baptists, Meathodists, Pentacostals, Prespetyrians, ect, all beelive this. Likewise, they all accept variosu other things in acord oen with another. They arnt as diverse as you pretend them to be, and cliaming this is merley a smoekescreen designed to further your own ends. You hae, to date, never even admited your erorr in syaing I was not a native english Speaker, and yet persist in this merley to justify your position. a position you now attmeot to justify after ruinign a thread designed for legitimate history.

It is nto true to lable the chruch of Chrust Protestant, sicne its restorationist and abandoend all reformed and evangelical theology and is an indepenant movement.

Some of us have known for years (in my case, almost twenty years) that the "church [sic] of Christ" calls itself "restorationist" (a recent attempt to revive what was thought to be the 1st-Century Church) and thus not a breakaway from any of the "mainline" non- Catholic Christian denominations. If you have known this for years, and know that Chruh of chirst dosnt liek beign called Protestant, then why insist on calling it thus? and why insist that I be called Protestant? It seems less than you do this for anyones edificaiton, and more base dupn tryign to force yor views on others. Liekwise, you call em Protestant now just as a mean of harrassment, not as a mean of enlightenment. But the fact that it is an attempt at "restoration" does not absolve it from the error of being "protestant," No, but the fact that it is a seperate movment with dfferign foudnatiosn and seperated form Protestants by divergent theology ( and Protestant hteology can be isolated to a few baic concepts) is. As anyone who studies theology can attest. Not that study is improtant to you. You do not care abotu facts and truth, nly vendicatign your claism so you can persist in your harrassment of me. Afer all,thsi is rlaly about you wantign a target to bully. because the protestant founders of the "church [sic] of Christ" 1: The churc of Hcirst has no set foudners. 2: Those men whom pepel liek you claim a its central cunderns, Stoen and Cambel and Cambel, had renounced Protestantism, and where thus no longer Protestant. You may wish to insit theyw here, btu if you do, then we can clal all Protestants Catholci, as Martian Luther was catholic. Suhc woidl be idiocy, btu I expect this lien of logic to be used. The men started protestant thus where protestant. Martian Luther started Cahtlci but the Protestant Curhcs arent Cahtolci becaue he left. Doubel standard wil win the day here, and yor view is right, no need to look at others or even amdit the posisbility tha your wrong, just ontinue to harass posters and insult people, that makes you look powerful... chose not to become Catholic. And if all the cahtolics they met acted liek you, can you blame them? They protested against Catholic theology, just as Zarove does today, and were therefore PROTESTANTS, No, they did not. Nor do I portestn Cahtolci theology. I simpley do not hodl to every beleif Catholcis do, tu I think you will find in my posts my repsinces are more in line with Cahtolic than Protestant ideals, as has been poined out numerous times. I do not protest Catholisism, I merley am not Catolic. The men whom orginised the forntier chruches didnt protest Cahtolsiism, they merley engaged in their own belifs. Liekwise, the hcurhc of hcifrst owes its existance ot several generatisn of develop,ent, and lacks founders at a certian point, not that you wll be bothered ot listen tot hat angle either... just as Zarove is today.

I protest nohtign fo the sort, or else I woidl not be here. You claim me divisive and anti-Catholic, but certianly I am suppotive of Catholics in their worship, as I vew them as Bretheren within the Followign of Chirst. Contrary to the insistence of Zarove, in modern English, the term "Protestant" no longer retains its original, 16th-century meaning, but is used to encompass ALL Christians who are not members of ancient apostolic churches (i.e., Catholics, Orthodox, and a few other small Eastern churches). No, it does not. IE, Mormons, wich ou cliam I am ignorant of and arent rellay Christain, proffess Chrisain beleifs noentheless,a nd a dicitonary lables them as Christain. They ar enot Protestant. Beside them, their are other Non-Protestant movements besides restoraitonism,though ou wil ignroe them. Likewise, restorationism is a seperate mvoement with its own origins and hilosophy, and divegent theological tendancies to Proestantism. Your false claim aside that there is no such thing as Protestant thelogy in toyr attmet to us he doctorinal Caos nonsence tha is so often touted only serves to show yor own bidn ignorance of the realities invovled. and your insistanc eon vendicatign the term Proterstant with me, and thus insistnace on clalig me htis for the sole putpose of insulting me, whike tryognt o make it papear that you are vlaidly cllign me what I am and meanign no insult dispite the obvis fac tthat you are beign insultign and rude, will win you no real favour, and wl onl further damage yur cause. You claim that you are for people is proven false. You arent tryign to protect Cahtolci formmy errors, sicne this thread was not origionall abotu me at all ut english Binle tranlaitons. You interfered to make perosnal attacks on my charecter. You arent tryign o vonvert me, byt run me off the board,a s to said, its ime for me to leave this forum. Yoru rude manner only preswnts Cahtolisksm in a bad light, and no one wol convet after the level of abuse you have leveles aagsint them. You are her enly to impose tor vews and controle eople. Not to protect the faith form me. The term "protestant" is now thus broadly used (in encyclopedias, in the media, etc., not just by Catholics) because it is so obvious that all Protestants (including coC-men like Zarove) openly reject ("protest against") at least some facets of the ancient apostolic faith held by Catholics. Except that yo ignroe all of the above. 1: The HCurhc of Hrst doen tlie beign claled Protestant, and it is thus rude to insist on it. 2: In m own theology classes, which ar secular, the term "restorationist' is seen as seperate form the protestant mvoement. And not seen a the same. 3: Not all Chrisaisn who are not Catholic or rothdox are called Potestant eve by the Media. I am afaid this si anothe instanc whr you ar ewillfully ignorant and worng, and shant admit error, and will instead insist on clalign me protestant for the sole pupose of insultign me. Inddeed the lien yo typd above, "The term "protestant" is now thus broadly used (in encyclopedias, in the media, etc., not just by Catholics) because it is so obvious that all Protestants (including coC-men like Zarove) openly reject ("protest against") at least some facets of the ancient apostolic faith held by Catholics." where you identufy me by name and clal em Protestnst, exists only to rub my nose in the " You ar ea Protestnaft" idea,a nd was uttelry superfluous and swerved no real end. If it wher ento in tyor post, the messgae woidl have been still the same, and it only exists in tjepsot to further the outrage you intend to promote here. This si the lvoe of CHirst, I ask ? Can you see Jeus himself spewign foruth such rage? But his is what you prefer, vilence of otunge an crude speach, insult offereddiliberatlry and no love at all. You lack a cheritable spirit, and possess only the ability to attack and demean, a trait you pick up and tat serves not he body of christ, but form your father, wom it is obviosu who is not of Heaven. I ask you again to renounce your anger and oppressive attitude,and embrace the charit of God and his Churhc which demands you love eeben yor enemeis. I suggest you learn also how to listen to othes and learn where they stnd, and how to communicate ith othwrs, an what they tryely belive. You are too long in Cahtolci apologetics I fear, for thoguh you are terrible at presenting logical argumets, you certianl can repeat oft- uces canards and obbtuse comments that certianly rpevent you rform observing the realities intricated by the study of religion. Your actiosn ehre dishonour the Catoli chruch, and Christainity as a whole, becaue you brign division, for thoguh you claim this is m end, that I brign division, what Unity have you broguth to this baord by your attacks?

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 23, 2005.


AS an interestign side. I use the erm "restorationist" precicely because of my theological classes. The Churhc of Chirst dos nto call itsself restorationist.

Rather, it claims to be the origional cruch and thus not a restoration.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 23, 2005.


The COC is just another bogus 19th century invention. All restorationists are protestants.

-- Kev (fnatc@c.c), February 23, 2005.

Can you see Jeus himself spewign foruth such rage? But his is what you prefer, vilence of otunge an crude speach, insult offereddiliberatlry and no love at all. You lack a cheritable spirit, and possess only the ability to attack and demean, a trait you pick up and tat serves not he body of christ, but form your father, wom it is obviosu who is not of Heaven. I ask you again to renounce your anger and oppressive attitude

This is sheer and utter nonsense, Zarove. Any normal person who read my previous posts would not detect even a glimmer of "rage" or "violence of tougue" or "crude speech" or "insult" or "lack of charitable spirit" or a desire to "attack and demean" or "anger" or "oppressive attitude." When I wrote the above messages, I possessed (and still possess, as I write this rebuttal) NONE of that ridiculous litany of charges that I just quoted from your last post. I have been writing these messages with a smile on my face and in my heart. Through argumentation, not insult, I have been trying to convince you that you are wrong. I have not been trying to hurt you.

The mere fact that a person could come up with nine separate erroneous accusations of me shows that he is not "playing with a full deck," but is instead suffering from a severe case of paranoia. Apparently, Zarove, you have been teased a lot during your life (perhaps because of your dyslexia), and your understandable negative reaction to that treatment seems to be causing you to overreact to the mere logical argumentation that is engaged in by Frank Simeon and me.

Take another look at your posts above. Physically, they are sheer disasters. You don't even TRY to spell anything correctly, and you couldn't be bothered to break your message into paragraphs, so that people can read them. Heck, they have become so ugly and cramped that I can't even read them fully any more. In other words, you have let yourself become a slob as a writer, as if being a false accuser was not enough. The third "strike" against you is that you do not accept factual correction (about Mormons being non-Christian, about the "church [sic] of Christ" being Protestant, etc.). Since you have therefore an intellectual, aesthetic, and behavioral flop, your continued appearance here is of so little value that I am very much against it. You need to go away and seek a healing of your paranoia, and you need to learn how to reason logically instead of pounding your head against a brick wall while yelling, "2 + 2 = 5".

-- C.P. (cpetersen@bigbay.com), February 23, 2005.


It is precicely this mean spirited and grotesque style of post presented above that gives credence to my charges,a dn proves true what I said.

You arent using Logic, you merley make accusaiton and insult.

You care for nohtign but to offend,and contnually mock my intelelencebased upon somehtign I cannot change abot myself, btu that dosnt illustrate a lakcof intelelgence.

Your arugmes arent raitonal and logical, they are emre assertion supported by wrath.

Any raitonal person wll se this, and not defects on my end.

You are Hostile, beligerant, and insulting. This is evident.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 23, 2005.


Again I shall ask you to refrin for your evil tounge and repent of your evils, for thgth you deny these thgins are evil or vule speech, they clealry are, even to you, mere insult for the sake of insult.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COMZ), February 23, 2005.

Zarvoe,

Just a question, would you prefer that instead of calling non- Catholic Christians Protestants that people referred to them as heretics?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), February 23, 2005.


Even tghe Ancient Heresies whee seperated by frm, this you fail to do when you lump all Non-Catholcis into the same group.This also prevents you form relaly dialouging with variosu groups, as ou will be too slopy and htink one gorup is pretty well the same as the other.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 23, 2005.

Zarove,

I'm sorry, I must not have asked that question correctly. Since you do not like the term Protestant, would you prefer to have non- Catholic Christians like yourself referred to as heretics?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), February 23, 2005.


In other words, you are still beign a pain...

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 23, 2005.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ