Mostly I would like to tease apart the embedded layers of assumptions contained in your various posts, and in particular your tendency towards reification.
With respect to Wheless, I would be more interested in his background. What do we know about this guy? What barrows did he have to push? In other words, what vested interests would push him to adopting a particular ideology?
I have gone back and reread the introduction to his book, Forgery in Christianity. It seems to me that his purpose is to demolish religion as being nothing more than a superstition, and used to enslave people. In particular, he seeks to demolish Christianity by showing any form of scripture to be a fabrication. This seems to be a reasonable position to take, especially if informed by a materialist perspective. You probably should note that he talks about the “Christian Church” and takes the “Catholic Church” to be the Christian church for its first 1500 years. I am not sure how the orthodox group would take that, nor the Copts or Ethiopians. By my view, our acceptance of the scriptures as having any meaning relative to religion is entirely a faith based decision.
I don’t have the time, resources or energy to carry out a critique of Wheless. In so far as he is aligned with mainstream “higher criticism” I would agree with him. It may be that he distorts sources and the like to prove his point. I found this website that makes that charge. By the context, I don’t think the author had a particular political barrow to push but was more concerned about people using Wheless as a secondary source for quotations from various writers. He seems to conclude that the guy is unreliable.
In terms of argument, selective quotation or “cherry picking” seems a poor strategy. If you are going to adopt Wheless, then do so and reject the bible as nothing more than the writings of men, set out to mislead others. If you are going to reject him then do that. Alternatively, work out yourself where your own line is with regard to the bible and consider how reasonable that may be.
What is “simply history”? Do you mean the events that may have occurred eg someone picked up a pencil and wrote words, or an interpretation eg he wrote a forgery, or framing a theme eg he forged a document so that…? They are three quite separate things, with in my view the first being of the form of data and the others being theories. It should also be noted that unlike the physical sciences, historical theories are not subject to falsification by experiment, noting of course that if new texts were turned up they may falsify theories.
Where and by whom is the presence of forgery accepted, and in particular how did anyone gain advantage? Your statements are unreferenced and hence uncheckable. You need to be careful about distinguishing between poor translation, rewriting to clarify according to the writers theology, and forgery carried out for cynical and nefarious reasons. For example, I would argue that Calvin and Zwingli did the second with respect to the real presence in the eucharist but some may argue that they did the third, that is blatantly and cynically misrepresented to further their own position and control.
Your list of “Some Catholic Forgeries” by centuries is astounding in the lack of understanding shown. There were a wide range of books and the like extant in the early church. Some were included in the canon, presumably using criteria such as apostolic authorship and adherence to a dominant orthodoxy. This hardly means the balances are forgeries. They may well be what they say they are such as the writing of so and so. Alternatively they may have been written to progress a view such as Gnosticism.
Your reference to Sinaiticus for example, is, rather than being a “forgery”, simply showing that whoever assembled the codex treated Barnabas and Hermas as canonical books. The book itself was written in Greek around the fourth century. I don’t think anyone knows where it was written, it seems a long bow to assert it was written by the Catholic Church.
On that theme, you might like to unpack your assumption of a monolithic catholic church. To me this is a clear and evident reification, particularly in so far as you accuse the catholic church of forgery. Do you mean for example the pope carried out the forgeries or directed them, that people associated with the catholic church carried out the forgeries, or that people construed as catholic, carried out the forgeries? Such a view would be tantamount to saying that Australians are criminals because Australians have been found guilty of crimes and sentenced.
So I might, if I can find the week or two required, review your list of forgeries. Prior to doing that, you need to define the various words used so glibly by yourself. What do you mean by historical? What do you mean by a forgery? What do you mean by the Catholic Church? How can what is best represented as a corporate entity, forge anything?
With respect to your next post, I am not sure how documents that appear to have been refuted by the catholic church are forgeries of that church? I think that what is being discussed here is the tendency of people to create documents for whatever purpose and the use of criticism to determine whether that is true or not. An example, drawing on the protestant tradition, might be the rejection of certain books by luther and calvin as apocryphal. My recollection (I haven’t researched this) is that the exclusion was based on the Hebrew text of the old testament and the inclusion was based on the Greek text. Luther et al thought the Hebrew was a better source, however later scholarship has shown the Greek to be older and perhaps closer to the source.
Your discussion of “bible based churches” and “the truth delivered by scripture” similarly contains embedded layers of assumptions. What do you believe is the source of firstly the books of the bible, and second of the canon that we construe as the bible? Are you aware of the ongoing historical debate, and various councils held in the early church, to decide what was in the canon and what was out? Are you aware that the various books of the bible show a long history of copying and emendation?
You seem particularly strong on rejecting non-scriptural ideas. I would be interested in your views on both the real presence in the eucharist and on baptism and how you reconcile them with the new testament if your views are different from orthodox catholic belief.
Your last point is important but needs to be taken in a more universal way. Simply, we are all affected by history and by ideology. Might I suggest that for you personally, it would be of merit to have a look at the history and ideology inherent in your own positions? I am not attacking them or arguing, it is more a case of it being as important to critically understand your own position as to criticise your opponents position.
What do you define as the “Word of God”? The glib way in which you use and capitalise this phrase suggests to me that it is a mantra or faith statement, and most likely unexamined. You might find that a number of protestant beliefs are effectively tradition, and based on theological, historical or political reasons, rather than on rediscovering some form of primitive Christianity through an examination of the biblical texts.
Your final unctuous exhortation is particularly irritating. How do you know you are right and know that god is on your side? How do you know that you are not just the dupe of some 16 century heresy or rewriting of Christianity? If you respond to this, keep in mind that the key word is “know”. I am not suggesting that Protestantism is heresy or rewriting however such an argument can be made.
Sorry for my delay, John Charles Storer, but I will answer some of your points in your last points.
Please excuse me if my complete knowledge is lacking. I have concentrated for the past 22 years to simply understand scripture, and to attempt to live up to it. I don’t particularly like the thing I call “Religiousosity”, but prefer a simpler personal relationship with God through His son Jesus Christ.
I have gone back and reread the introduction to his book, Forgery in Christianity. It seems to me that his purpose is to demolish religion as being nothing more than a superstition, and used to enslave people. In particular, he seeks to demolish Christianity by showing any form of scripture to be a fabrication.
I do agree that he seems to have a bias against Christianity in general, and I dismiss his reasoning that the New Testament is a forgery. But I was interested in what he had to say about the history of the Roman religion after Constantine.
You probably should note that he talks about the “Christian Church” and takes the “Catholic Church” to be the Christian church for its first 1500 years. I am not sure how the orthodox group would take that, nor the Copts or Ethiopians. By my view, our acceptance of the scriptures as having any meaning relative to religion is entirely a faith based decision.
I guess the Catholic Church made itself the dominant church in the years from the 3rd century up to the Renaissance/Reformation. I did read some reference to the other religions in his treatise. I think we accept God on faith, but that faith must be based on accepting His Word by His help via the Holy Spirit. Having faith in something that is not true is the problem. If I had faith I could fly and tried it and plunged to the ground, what good would such faith be? I have faith in Jesus Christ and Him only.
What is “simply history”? Do you mean the events that may have occurred eg someone picked up a pencil and wrote words, or an interpretation eg he wrote a forgery, or framing a theme eg he forged a document so that…? They are three quite separate things, with in my view the first being of the form of data and the others being theories. It should also be noted that unlike the physical sciences, historical theories are not subject to falsification by experiment, noting of course that if new texts were turned up they may falsify theories.
I think the words of this treatise also rely on the quotes of other people regarded as historians also. History is somewhat selective at the best of times. But I believe the New Testament gospels are the closest thing to history that we have, because of the number of witnesses, at a time very close to the event. this is the type of history that leads me in my life - I trust Jesus based on experience and revelaton.
I think that history depends on looking at events and their repercussions. For example the forging of the lettes of Constantine, which even Catholic scholars say happened, resulted in great power going to the Roman Church. Which history shows resulted in abuses that resulted in revolts against it. I am not just speaking about Luther onwards. Catholic free thinkers who questioned the power of the Middle Age Roman Church were often persecuted and executed prior to the Reformation. We need to look at people who are concerned with events and trends that happened in Europe at that time, and who are not defenders of any particular side in the disputes.
Where and by whom is the presence of forgery accepted, and in particular how did anyone gain advantage?
I can only say the Rome benefitted by getting other powers and peoples to submit to their rule.
I can get some historical records on the web that speak about events which have Emperors kissing the feet of Popes in complete submission, after contradicting them beforehand. i gave a list of forgeries which you may seperately dispute.
For example, I would argue that Calvin and Zwingli did the second with respect to the real presence in the eucharist but some may argue that they did the third, that is blatantly and cynically misrepresented to further their own position and control.
I think that the question of the real presence and transubstantiation were found by Calvin and Zwingli (and other reformers prior to the Resaissance and after it) to be unscriptual. Their only aim was to present the truth of scripture, and not like Rome, who only seemed interested in having complete Political control, and would not recant errors. That is the present situation with some Catholics today, and Bible based Christians look to Scripture for the answers about God and what He planned and set out by the Word.
On that theme, you might like to unpack your assumption of a monolithic catholic church. To me this is a clear and evident reification, particularly in so far as you accuse the catholic church of forgery. Do you mean for example the pope carried out the forgeries or directed them, that people associated with the catholic church carried out the forgeries, or that people construed as catholic, carried out the forgeries? Such a view would be tantamount to saying that Australians are criminals because Australians have been found guilty of crimes and sentenced.
From other readings I find that the forgeries were not actually carried out by the Pope, but by other clergy. But the Pope didnt object to them, and He and his Church benefitted by them. I cannot speak for every forgery though.
What do you define as the “Word of God”? The glib way in which you use and capitalise this phrase suggests to me that it is a mantra or faith statement, and most likely unexamined. You might find that a number of protestant beliefs are effectively tradition, and based on theological, historical or political reasons, rather than on rediscovering some form of primitive Christianity through an examination of the biblical texts.
All I can say is that the Scriptures are a very clear form of the Word of God. Jesus himself is the Word of God. I am not into Anglican tradition, or any Church traditions except the traditions of scripture. I am sure you know what these are, if you have accepted the same Scripture that I have.
PS: I am not saying that the Catholic Church has done everything wrong in the Middle Ages. Some of the Popes made very good reforms, and kept a form of Christianity going, when it may have disappeared.
If Charles Martel did not defeat the Arabs in France in the 7th century, all of Europe may have become Muslim. Luckily Charles Martel and his progeny looked to Christianity as their faith.
But as is mentioned there were very bad Popes, and some were assassinated.
There were 2 Popes for 40 years, in France and Italy.
Which one was Peter’s successor?
The Borgias were surely not in Peter’s mould. So many questions?
John, I must add that your criticism of the link written by Wheless is mainly on the grounds of not liking what he has to say, or a criticism of the writer himself because of his viewpoint. I notice that you don’t actually refute many of the stated historical events in the piece. You don’t actually answer his argument, but simply attack his stance or persona. It would be useful to see argument against his version of events more to the fore. It is the argumentum ad hominem method really.
The Donation of Constantine, that document now accepted to be a forgery. It was alleged that when Constantine was baptised by Pope Sylvester in 324, he presented him wth the Lateran Palace, and all the insignia of the Western Empire, wth the whole of Italy, and other provinces of the Roman Empire.
The falsity of this appears at once, for Constantine was not baptised by Sylvester at all, but by Eusibius of Nicomedia, and Arian bishop, and in 237, not 324.
The aim of the forgery was to antedate by about five hundred yearsthe pope’s temporal power which, we may see was actually granted by Pepin and Charlemagne.
Papal succession from Peter the apostle?
Speaking of bad Popes, John, what about the list of Popes following the deposition of Charles the Fat, the last emporer of the Carolingian house, in 887?
the Church suffered severely in the prevailing disorder. According to Phillip Schaff Medieval Christianity),
the papacy becamethe prey of avarice, violence and intrigue, a veritable synagogue of Satan. Pope followed Pope in rapid succession, and most of them ended their career in deposition, prison and murder. The rich and powerful marquises of Tuscany and the Counts of Tusculum acquired control of Rome and the papacy for more than half a century.
During this time three strong-minded women of high rank, but of very low morals, dominated the papacy. Theodora the elder, and her two daughters, Marozia and Theodora, filled the papacy with their paramours and illegitimate children. They were beautiful but utterly unscrupulous women, and the vile tale of their imoralities with popes and nobles is shocking to the last degree.
The facts have been frankly recognized, and not without indignation, by Roman Catholic historians of high standing, like Baronius and Luitprand.
In your second paragraph, how can my statement of my position be wrong? It is my position.
If I believe that the world is flat, am I wrong? On your logic I can’t be wrong, it is my position. I was objecting to your claim that a supernatural reading of the text is devoid of any linguistic constraints (which is essentially what you have to argue). In this your position can be wrong.
John Charles Storer - 07 October 2008 07:54 PM
There seem to be three similar kinds of supernatural action in the new testament to me, these are baptism, the real presence in the eucharist and the visitation of the holy spirit at pentecost.
The first two are begging the question: you assume what we’re debating. The third is entirely dissimilar in that the coming of the Spirit at Pentecost is accompanied by physical manifestations. And what about Jesus walking on water, calming the storm, healing the sick, raising the dead? Are these not supernatural in any way?
John Charles Storer - 07 October 2008 07:54 PM
Furthermore, your statement presupposes that supernatural action has to follow particular rules. It seems to me that the key point of supernatural action is that it is not subject to rules, otherwise it would be ordinary run of the mill stuff like rocks falling and the sky being blue and would not qualify as super natural. So I understand your point but to me it is very weak.
No, my point is that language, not supernatural action, has to operate according to certain rules in order to effectively communicate. Your position amounts to the belief that entirely unfamiliar events can be relayed without the explicit language required to counter natural inferences which would normally count against your interpretation.
John Charles Storer - 07 October 2008 07:54 PM
My point under 6 is not special pleading as you infer. It is external verification of the way in which the words were written and read by early christians.
I see, when I make such an argument it is “special pleading,” but when you do it it becomes “external verification.” Yet when I point to evidence in support of my claims, you ignore it and continue to cry “special pleading.”
John Charles Storer - 07 October 2008 07:54 PM
There may well have been a diversity of opinions but I have not seen any evidence from you to illustrate that. The only evidence you have provided is to exclude the writings of the early christians by an obscure universalist entreaty to judaic culture. My approach would be special pleading if I said that the rule was “don’t appeal to anything outside the text” and then said “except in this case because of ….”
My “obscure universalist entreaty to judaic culture” is founded upon the observation that the historical, geographical, social, and cultural setting of the gospels lies firmly within first-century Palestinian Judaism. Most of the primary characters are Palestinian Jews. Most of the intertextual references are to the Jewish Scriptures (the OT). The text implies that the characters spoke Aramaic. You choose to ignore this and claim that my assertion is arbitrary and then arbitrarily claim that the context you choose for the text is somehow appropriate on the basis, it would seem, that lots of people wrote about what it meant!
John Charles Storer - 07 October 2008 07:54 PM
The identification of metaphor is another matter entirely. You continue to say my invocation of a metaphoric or literal reading is entirely arbitrary but this is incorrect. I set out in point 3 the reasons for deciding on a metaphorical reading against a literal reading. Perhaps your problem lies in some form of absolutism.
No, my problem lies in the fact that your methodology makes it impossible to identify metaphor in Jesus’ words. As I demonstrated, your same argument for understanding Jesus’ words in reference to the Supper “literally” makes any other identification of metaphor in Jesus’ words suspect. Your identification runs contrary to normal literary conventions and is thus entirely arbitrary unless you are consistent and claim Jesus never speaks metaphorically. Even then you would need to demonstrate that the audience was aware that Jesus’ words do not operate according to normal linguistic conventions and thus claim a sort of gnostic secret which must be revealed in order to arrive at the otherwise counterintuitive understanding of Jesus’ words.
John Charles Storer - 07 October 2008 07:54 PM
In your next paragraph you again retreat to the straw man although I suspect your intention is to demonstrate the absurd conclusions that are reached by adopting my point of view. I do not believe Jesus is made of wood. I take this view from the reactions of those around him and of the early church and from the context of the words. If however there was an early church tradition or discussion in Paul and John of people worshipping grape vines, then I would say at a minimum that early christians did in fact take those words literally. The next question would be whether Jesus meant them literally. This would only be a matter for conjecture as the hypothesis is not testable. The best you can say is that his audience heard them literally.
At last an answer to a question! Let’s take a closer look at your argument here. You identify metaphor based on (1) the reaction of those around him, and (2) the interpretation of the early church.
So to point (1), your claim seems to be that if people are astonished at Jesus’ claim then it must be “literal” because otherwise they’d simply write his words off as metaphor, and no-one is ever astonished or offended by metaphors, are they? Well, if they are then you’re argument is in trouble. Do you suppose the Pharisees were offended when Jesus described them as a “brood of vipers”? I guess if they were then they must literally have been the offspring of snakes, mustn’t they? Or what of the converse: when people are not offended by Jesus’ words or don’t react to them, is he then invariably speaking metaphorically?
What of (2)? First, you continue to appeal to Paul and John which are, once again, part of the point being disputed and so in appealing to them you’re begging the question. So the valid portion of (2) must be reduced to the interpretation of the early church fathers. Then you choose to ignore indications of a shift in paradigm of the fathers away from the NT in precisely the manner which provided them with the metaphysical foundations required to infer a “literal” (that’s literal in the same way a red car is literally blue) reading of the NT texts relating to a “real presence.” For without this paradigm, who’d ever have imagined that “this is my body” (in referene to bread) could have meant that, despite all appearances, the bread had mystically transformed into the body of Jesus? This is not inherent in the text and must be inferred, and there is no basis for such an inference in the NT (you have pointed to other miracles, but we’ve seen that they’re categorically different and you’ve failed to answer my question about where we see any equivalent transformation).
Finally, regarding my suggestion that you, to be consistent, need to believe that Jesus is made of wood. This should not be a problem for you, since clearly Jesus’ substance is wood but his accident is flesh.
John Charles Storer - 07 October 2008 07:54 PM
You focus on communication in your next paragraph. That is exactly my point. Any examination of the response of those he communicated to is suggestive that the words were taken literally, at least by Paul, the writer of John and many of the early church fathers. Surely the action of those communicated to should take some weight? For example if someone asked me for a drink of water and I said “go for your life”, if they took off running you might think the words were meant literally and they had reason to fear, but if they helped themselves to a drink you might think the words were meant in some colloquial sense.
Here you again make the mistake of believing that metaphor cannot offend. It is clearly a false premise upon which you are building a very elaborate hermeneutical structure all in order to maintain a position which is difficult to read out of the text apart from that structure.
John Charles Storer - 07 October 2008 07:55 PM
A couple of random metaphors to address the test you have put forward. (I commend your use of falsification here).
Matthew 5:13-16 “You are the salt of the earth”. Are we in some sense made into salt, perhaps through transubstantiation? The second sentence, “if salt becomes tasteless...”suggests metaphor as Jesus then talks about salt becoming tasteless, not about men losing their taste. A similar point can be made about the words “you are the light of the world” where light seems to be used as a metaphor for good works. So I say the context shows metaphor.
First thing to note, the fact that people could see that they weren’t made of salt itself plays no part in the identification of metaphor (contrary to your original explanation of the means by which metaphor is identified at the beginning of this thread… it seems as though you are modifying your definition in order to accomodate your reading). That can only be assumed if the people to whom Jesus’ spoke these words were thoroughly comfortable with the idea that appearances could, in this way, be deceptive: if they actually believed that you could actually (or, perhaps better, “substancially") be salt without actually looking, tasting, smelling like salt. In other words, inherent in your approach is the fundamental belief that “religious” language need not operate according to the normal conventions of language, so once again you can ultimately claim whatever you want.
Second, you require that all metaphor must be explained in terms which make it unequivocally clear that the words are metaphorical. That very much limits what can be identified as metaphor to a very small number of examples, and most literary scholars would think such an explanation hopelessly inadequate. So in terms of falsifiability, your hypothesis only stands if all biblical metaphors correspond to the formula you have provided.
John Charles Storer - 07 October 2008 07:55 PM
The essential difference between this and the account of the last supper is the initial statement and then the taking up and working it as a theme, and as an illustrative theme. If Jesus said “this is my body” and then went on along the lines of “in the same way that bread feeds men, my body will feed men through my sacrifice then a metaphorical reading would be favoured. This is similar to the sense in John 6:35, and, if John 6 excluded verses 51-58, I would agree with you that the meaning was metaphorical.
Well, I would argue that there is an outworking of the theme which is indicative of the metaphorical nature of the passage, in addition to meeting the criterion you originally established for metaphor (where Jesus is patently not made of bread or vice-versa), and that is apparent in verses such as John 6:47 where the consequences of eating are exactly the same as those of believing. In other words, the eating is metaphorically equivalent in this passage to believing (compare, for example, 6:47 and the final clause in 6:58).
Furthermore, your approach fails to account for the existence of metaphor where the text doesn’t expand on the initial equation. This is the case frequently in Proverbs, for example. As a teacher, Jesus adopts similar methodologies to those employed in aNE wisdom literature (such as Proverbs, aphorisms, and so on; cf. Matt 7:15; also relevant is this paper). Consequently, since your means for identifying metaphor fails to identify all examples of metaphor, it is clear that there are instances of metaphor beyond the narrow confines you seek to establish.
John Charles Storer - 07 October 2008 07:55 PM
I have reread the accounts of the supper in Matthew, Mark and Luke and cannot discern the words as in any way illustrative of a theme, nor can I detect any form of theme being presented. Mathew contains a foreshadowing of the crucifixion and an acknowledgement of a new covenant, as does Mark, Luke presents the supper as instituting a ritual, “do this in memory of me”. Similarly, Paul in 1 Corinthians 23 describes a ritual rather than illustrating a lesson.
In other words the event is invested with significance which in no way depends upon the supposed need for the elements to be transformed. Jesus takes the Jewish Passover and redirects the focus on himself as the agent of God’s trriumphant act of redemption. There was no hint that the Passover meal involved transformation of the bread or meat that was then consumed.
Furthermore, your claim that Jesus does not speak metaphorically strikes a number of problems aside from the problems raised by your overly restrictive means for identifying metaphor. When Jesus says of the bread “this is my body” we ought to note the following points. (1) he does not say “this is part of my body”; (2) the bread is physically separate from his body; (3) syntactically his words are a textbook metaphor of the most basic type: NP₁ = NP₂ ∀ NP₁ ∩ NP₂ = ∅ (i.e. it is pretty much a textbook metaphor, and all examples of such syntactical structures that I can think of are metaphors, which is why you then need to appeal to your notion of “religious language").
John Charles Storer - 07 October 2008 07:55 PM
I would appreciate you directing me to the “numerous points” that highlight the significant problems in my interpretation of John 6 as a Eucharistic text.
Well, we’ve been over them repeatedly in this thread and moreso in the World Youth Day Sydney 2008 thread. In summary (since I’ve previously written expansively on each point), they include (1) the narrative is historically separate from the Supper; (2) the narrative precedes the Supper and so the Jews within the narrative could not have understood the connection; (3) the fact that it occurs prior to the Supper with Jesus speaking to people who could not have understood the connection to the Supper serves to counter any direct inference the reader would make linking the scene to the Supper; (4) the Supper accounts in the synoptic gospels and Paul all use the same language, but that language is ansent and distinct from the language John uses in chapter 6; (5) Jesus, towards the end of John’s gospel, explicitly comments on his use of figurative and enigmatic language (παροιμία, cf. John 16:25) in his teaching.
Flat Earth Society? An old friend of mine years ago said he was a member of the Flat Earth Society. When asked why, he said because when you read the Bible that is what you get. He knew that science said otherwise, but he also was committed to believing what the Bible said as the Word of God and that it was always TRUE.
John, I must add that your criticism of the link written by Wheless is mainly on the grounds of not liking what he has to say, or a criticism of the writer himself because of his viewpoint. I notice that you don’t actually refute many of the stated historical events in the piece. You don’t actually answer his argument, but simply attack his stance or persona. It would be useful to see argument against his version of events more to the fore. It is the argumentum ad hominem method really.
I don’t like the link either, not on the grounds of what he has to say, but on his lack of good evidence, and, well, it was a tad tedious as well. In fact, I found papers by protestants who criticize him for the same reasons John has.
Papal succession from Peter the apostle?
Speaking of bad Popes....]
Ken, if you are trying to use the argument that papal infallibility and papal succession is a false doctrine, and proved so by ‘bad popes’, you show that you do not understand the doctrines in the first place. Firstly, papal infallibility does not reflect on the person but on the office. History will tell you that the ‘bad popes’ were too busy being bad to make any infallible statements from the chair of Peter. Secondly, Jesus chose Judas who later betrayed Him. Do we then argue that the role of apostle is tarnished due to Judas’ wrongdoing? No, another was appointed to take his place (after he died). You see, apostolic succession is biblical, with many protestant scholars recognising it as I pointed out previously.
Regards
Donna
Ken
Be grateful that Catholics generally don’t regurgitate the sins of the fathers of the reformation. There have been plenty of opportunities to do so on these threads and, in my experience, Catholics tend not to do this. Catholics are generally much more charitable in this area.
Regards
Donna
Donna, when I regurgitated the sins and double dealings of Thomas Cranmer...secret wife, double life, oath violation etc..not one Anglican rose to his defence...oh yes one did..and then he vanished!
The opinions expressed in this forum belong to the individual posting the message and may not represent the view of the Sydney Diocese of the Anglican Church. Click here to read the Posting Policy.
Everyone is welcome on our forums, but please keep comments on-topic and civil. Any flaming or general nastiness will be deleted. No unsolicited advertising is allowed. All comments, suggestions, bug reports, etc. related to the forums should be directed to Robert Moller. Click here to read our complete Posting Policy.
report bugs
Get the latest Sydney stories, Culture and Indepth on your mobile device. Visit sydang.mobi