Catholicism versus Protestantism down the centuries

When I first looked for the book I found it at Amazon for over $200 so no I haven't read it. I see it's now available elsewhere, I suppose a reprint of some sort, for a reasonable price, but right now my book budget is shot.The talk by Stringer on my blog is based on that book and he makes good points about original sources. Since I haven't read it I can't judge it with any finality but it sounds like it has a solid basis in original documents and I would like to read it.ABE: Forgive me if I must add that since James was at loggerheads with the Pope, and the papacy and the Jesuits are known for their attempts to destroy Protestants one way or another, I'm rather predisposed toward the possibility that they are behind the smear campaign against him. If you read what I quoted above about why he was in favor of the Divine Right of Kings, and put it together with his writings against the papacy, plus the fact that there was a Catholic conspiracy to murder him and blow up the English Parliament, I dunno, looks to me like there's a Jesuitical rat in there somewhere. Coston is an Anglo-Catholic, a position way too pro-Catholic for me, but if he wrote the truth about James, more power to him -- or at least to his work. /ABEEdited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yes, but no justification of the tortures is present, but a disproportionate amount of energy on defending against charges of homosexuality. I can tell your priorities! I don't care about claims of his poor gait, bad eating habits or homosexual exploits. He's not on 'trial' here for any of that. I wouldn't consider any of that slander since it does not affect his reputation in my view. The accusation is that he tortured people. The evidence: his own testimony. He thought he could rule supreme over Parliament, and dissolved Parliament, making him a dictator and was quoted as saying, I am surprised that my ancestors should have permitted such an institution to come into existence. I'll let you judge for yourself, in James' own words:

quote:

---

Kings are iustly called Gods, for that they exercise a manner or resemblance of Diuine power vpon earth: For if you wil consider the Attributes to God, you shall see how they agree in the person of a King.

---

Well Catholics were forced to betray their understanding of God's Law, so you can understand why they were pissed off right? {Act of Supremacy 1558}

quote:

---

I, A. B., do utterly testify and declare in my conscience that the Queen's Highness is the only supreme governor of this realm, and of all other her Highness's dominions and countries, as well in all spiritual or ecclesiastical things or causes, as temporal, and that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence or authority ecclesiastical or spiritual within this realm; and therefore I do utterly renounce and forsake all foreign jurisdictions, powers, superiorities and authorities...So help me God and by the contents of this Book.

---

Anybody in public office, religious office, or attending university had to essentially renounce the Pope. It was a criminal offence to refuse. There were resignations. Many Catholics lost their lands and properties. What do you think American Protestants would do if Obama treated them in a comparable fashion? Are you sticking to moral relativism in your defence of this claim? You've accused me of slandering James, but haven't proven anything I have said about him false. Instead you keep referencing people that defend him against charges of homosexuality. Which is worse according to God's law? Torture or gay sex?

Actually I haven't found anything about his torturing anybody. Perhaps I'm preoccupied and missed it. So would you be so kind as to point me directly to what you are talking about? Thank you.I guess you're in favor of the Pope running the world? Would like to see the Holy Roman Empire reinstated and all the nations of the world made subservient to him? That's what the flap between Protestantism and Catholicism is all about at root. If the Jesuits weren't out to undermine Protestant nations in order to reestablish the rule of the Pope over them all, we could live quite peaceably with them. But it was their determination to exterminate Protestantism that brought them under the severe laws of England. Bloody Mary had been a last straw, then the Protestants cracked down. But the Jesuits know how to bide their time and work behind the scenes. So now the UK has liberalized some of those old laws. They must think the wolf has changed his ways and now eats grass instead of Protestants -- and Jews and sometimes Muslims and others. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Then how can you make that determination that it is credible and is adequately sourced? What were those points he made? I will not be going to your blog or listening to anything "Dr." Phil Stringer has to say.His CV
1975 Bachelor of Science in Bible, Indiana Baptist College
1980 Master of Arts in Christian Education, Freedom University
1997 Doctor of Philosophy in English Bible, Landmark Baptist College
2004 Doctor of Religious Education, American Bible College
He has no real doctorate. Landmark is an an unaccredited school. Religious schools in FL have no government oversight. They can teach anything or nothing. The degrees are not worth the paper they are printed on. American Bible College seems to just be a website. Diploma mill maybe?
Not sure which of them he "attended" but neither seems to be reputable.
American Bible College
American Bible Colleges – Teaching the Practicalities of Christian Ministry
I love the disclaimer.

quote:

---

This institution is not recognized by the Ohio Board of Regents, but is strictly theological in nature. Therefore, no liberal arts are required. Job placement is not guaranteed.

---

Freedom University does not seem to exist.Why would you think he is credible? His education is sketchy at best.I have emailed his church to get some clarification on his degrees and the "schools".

I find his ARGUMENT credible, his REASONING, his reference to what he found in historical documents, what has been said about the book, who cares who he is? If you won't read Stringer's remarks I have no interest in talking to you further.

Well, apparently they did. The British chaplain at Alexandria could find no trace of the supposed "Kallinikos" --- "the Greek monk who takes in the Guardian and the Literary Churchman". (See Prothero, A Memoir of Henry Bradshaw.) He certainly did. Tischendorf had exposed manuscripts forged by Simonides as being forgeries. By continuing to deny this charge, but "admitting" that this one document which Tischendorf upheld was in fact forged by him, he could make out that Tischendorf couldn't tell real from fake documents, and damage Tischendorf's reputation. Could you provide a reference for that? "The Greek original" would have to be the Codex Athous. In what sense did he "have" it?Why would he forge the Shepherd of Hermas anyway? Is this an admission that he was in fact a forger? Not really, no. And if you admit he was a forger, then there are more problems still. Such as, why didn't he sell the Codex?

Do you know anything about the Holy Roman Empire? Do you think the Pope was the head of state of the HRE? You are batshit crazy.

I can't answer all the charges that I've seen answered elsewhere. You are going to go with the popular accounts anyway. The evidence is good for Simonides. The accusation by Tischendorf was exposed as a lie. Why don't you read the whole newspaper exchange. He's quite credible. All the accusations against him are lies. He was no forger, people who should know recognized him as an expert paleographer. But it would take too long to muster all this. Believe what you want. There really is a conspiracy that has the upper hand these days, but you'll never discover it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The Pope had power over the kings.

I ask again do you know anything about the Holy Roman Empire? The Emperors tended to control the popes more than the other way around. It was a very complex and changing relationship. But to assert that Popes had power of the empire(feeble an empire as it was) is plain and simply wrong. Please provide something to back this up rather than just throwing out an assertion.

Sorry I only referenced it in Message 653 and Message 659 and have been discussing and quoting it for some time. Newes From Scotland, printed at the end of Daemonologie

quote:

---

With the true examinations of the saide Doctor and Witches, as they vttered them in the presence of the Scottish King.

​

Discouering how they pretended to bewitch and drowne his Maiestie in the Sea comming from Denmark with such other wonderfull matters as the like hath not been heard of at any time.

---

No thanks. I abhor dictators whatever their religious preferences. Apparently - you don't mind as long as they Protestant dictators. More moral relativism. You really like it don't you? And whaddya know - the severe laws resulted in more Catholic unrest, not less. So James VI's behaviour was justified because of the actions of people that were mostly no longer alive? Either that, or they are not conspiring. Yes, but in so doing resulted in Protestants breaking stuff (Gordon Riots) and general anti-Catholic antipathy for centuries. Until about the middle of the 20th Century. We're still not there yet, there was Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1969 (around when The Troubles started) and Succession to the Crown Act 2013 was the last one I think.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

But Faith, if Simonides was the real deal, then by all means let's forget about the Codex Sinaiticus. But in that case how about we look at all the documents which we must now believe he didn't forge, including: "quantities of Greek manuscripts professing to be of fabulous antiquity — such as a Homer in an almost prehistoric style of writing, a lost Egyptian historian, a copy of St. Matthew's Gospel on papyrus, written fifteen years after the Ascension (!), and other portions of the New Testament dating from the first century." (Lucky man!)If these aren't forgeries, they're the most important documents in the history of Christianity, and Simonides' defenders are, apparently, all studiously ignoring them. So, of course did the writers of the KJV, but then they produced their text before Simonides made his series of wonderful discoveries.You, on the other hand, have no such excuse. If you believe what you say about Simonides, you should be all agog to read these MS with the greatest veneration, and correct your Biblical scholarship in their light. Instead, you relegate them to a footnote while ... uh ... (1) defending the honor of Simonides (2) in order to deprecate the Codex Sinaiticus (3) in order to deprecate the entire Alexandrian text type (4) in order to elevate the Byzantine text type (5) in order to elevate the Textus Receptus (6) in order to elevate the King James Version of the Bible, a 17th century English translation.Why, then, are the defenders of Simonides not instead momentarily abandoning their obsession with the King James Version to spend at least a few minutes running about shouting "Wow, look, a copy of the Gospel of Matthew from A.D. 48!!!!!"To this the only reply I can think of is the dictum of George Santayana: "A fanatic is one who redoubles his effort when he has forgotten his aim."

The reason they aren't excited about new finds with early dates is that there is no way to trust the dates, same as with Geological dating. They're determined by subjective assessment. And even if the dates were accurate, early dates don't prove authenticity, as Burgon argued against Sinaiticus -- apparently not accepting Simonides' claim. I personally find it a tad odd that there are all these new finds cropping up everywhere these days, meaning I think they could very well -- all or some -- be forgeries. But there is no evidence of that of course.I do realize I have to get off the internet and start collecting evidence for a great variety of things. Wish I felt up to it.

And you decided that without a single glance at the basis of Simonides' claims. Well done! Some Christians would have at least taken an interest in an unimpeachably truthful man, and an "expert paleographer" to boot, claiming to have 1st century copies of the Gospels, but not you, you're above such things.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Sorry, I missed that you said they belonged to him. I didn't know he claimed to possess gospel fragments. But apparently he was exonerated of Tischendorf's charge, which I think was about the Shepherd of Hermas, by a reputable collector. But if he was that clever a forger that's what needs to be proved. So he'd claim in public to have made Sinaiticus, why? To get back at Tischendorf?
Never mind, I need to start writing down the evidence I hear.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.