[quote=Cliff T]Ok,… ease up there, brothers. Take a deep breath and relax.
I certainly do not claim to be a scholar of Roman history. I would also never claim to know more than you about the subject. After all, you are a complete stranger to me and I would never make such a bold claim over someone I don’t even know.
You said you have been doing a lot of reqading about Roman Paganism yet so far have not shown an indication you have anything other than a perhperal knowledge of it. In fact your comments are the standard bolier plate comments we see al the time from those who contend the Church embrace Paganism
Of course I’m not trying to say that Roman Catholics created all of it’s traditions directly (and exactly) from Roman Paganism. We all know that there is
But thus far the only "tradition you have tried to link is “Easter”. The interesting part is that the traditions associated with Easter came to the nChurech from the Jews (who had co-opted some of the traditions of the pagan holiday acclaiming Ostra"(scandanavian)** and the Teutonic “Ostern” or *“Eastre” Where your argumwent falls apart is that that Catholic Easter is in no way connnected to the Spring Equinox-it based on the dateof the Passover-picked because SUPRISE *Passover is when Jesus was crucified and rose from the dead. The Church incorporate absolutely none of the other tradition of the Pagan feast-the Rabbits, colored eggs, etc. This are all SECULAR traditions
Much of the traditions of Roman Catholicism were instituted after Constantine and were “inspired” by the culture at that time. (which was strongly Pagan)
**I think you should perhaps read some more than just histories of Paganism. The most important traditions of the Church, the Eucharist, the Papacy, etc were adopted LONG before Constantine came along. **
Can we not agree on this? (I guess not)
Maybe I’m totally wrong. Maybe the Pontifex Maximus was not the title of the Pagan chairman of the college of the pontifices. Maybe you are right. It is quite possible that when the Roman Catholic church chose that name for the head of the Church, they had no idea that it had anything to do with a Paganistic religion. Would any of us here go so far to as to say that Roman Catholicism has “nothing” to do in any way shape or form with Roman Paganism of it’s day? Nothing whatsoever? You would not even concede,…a “slight bit”? Look at “Easter”… we named our most sacred holy day’s (holiday) after a Pagan Goddess. (although I believe “Saxon”, not Roman)
Ponitfex Maximus was not so much a “Title” as it was a description-that being it decribed the perosn holding that position as head of the Church. Following your logic we would have to assume that the Uniteds States Senate and the Plebes at West Point are also Pagan in origin
Hold on,…does anybody find these words “shocking” or thoroughly absurd?..or bizarre?..like waaaayay out in outer space?..like I just suddenly made all this up on my own?
Do you not know that these concepts are as old as dirt and have been debated among Christians of all types for a billion years? (not literally of course,…although someone out there, I’m sure, took it literally for a split second)
Actually they have been debated for about 500 years as part of the Protestant effort to delegitimize the One True Church
This is a legitimate (and very old) debate among Bible scholars all over the world. Including internal debates within the Roman Catholic church. We all have heard this before, right?
NO-but I am sure you can link us to some ancient doscuments that prove this-anything after 1,500 doesnt count
“…So, in answer to your question, “would it be wrong for me to consider Roman Catholicism to be a “Roman Pagan-style” of worshiping God?”—yes, unless you want to be regarded as simply another wacked-out ignorant buffoon with an axe to grind…”
YES-I I dont think you are a buffoon-but you are not the first Protestant to come to these groups and make the these arguments. Even your clam that you came upon this by “studying” Roman Paganism is not unique.
I guess so,…If someone doesn’t agree with your point of view, it certainly MUST be assumed that they are a “wacked-out ignorant buffoon…”
No-I just think anyone who can not back up his point of view without regurgiating the usual unsourced Protestant talking points has very little credibiltiy.
Quite a brilliant thought there, brother.
I enjoy a lively debate like everyone else here. I simply tossed up an old debate ito the air to see what would be fired at it.
You tossed nothing in the air-you made a series of unsubstatiated, unsourced, incorrect and poorly researched points and now seem upset that we didnt swallow them hook line and sinker.