Fuck the Catholic Church and anyone that supports them.

And people knew about it back then?

Look at you go.
If it were $cientology, you wouldn't be throwing yourself on the grenade.

I don't give a shit about Scientology. Where did you get this idea that I attack it?

I didn't say you attack it, I just note that you don't jump in front of a bullet for it the way you do for Catholicism.
Its your Bill Cosby.

A defence of an individual Catholic doesn't equate to the defence of the religion surely?

Indeed! I'm sure the first few decades of christianity were pretty pure because the followers were poor and nobody was making any money off it or improved their positions of power. Fast forward and my-oh-my how things have changed.

You can thank Constantine for turning Christianity into a state sponsored organization. It's grown steadily more bloated and corrupt ever since. Hence all the splintering that has occurred since then.

Can we separate Catholicism from its clerical leadership? Not really. It's an authoritarian organization and has always been.

Eh. Not true post Vatican II.

Before that, yeah, going back to Trent and the Counter-Reformation it could be argued that the Magisterium was the church, but it's been over 50 years since that was the case.

Yeah, same with the Yakuza. In fact, a lot of successful organized crime organizations run a legitimate "front" business.[/quote]

Do you feel that the majority of Catholic Priests, Nuns, Bishops, etc. are in it for the money?

That's not true. The Second Council did not change the fact that Catholicism is centered on one worldly organisation. Hell, it even introduced the concept of Papal infallibility.

Papal infallibility goes back to the middle ages, although it was most clearly laid out in the First Vatican Council (1800s), I'm talking about Second Vatican Council (Vatican II or VII).

In both the Dogmatic Constitution on the Nature of the Church in general and the Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity specifically the importance of the laity as part of the Church was clearly laid out.

So yes, post-VII there is more to Catholicism than just the clerical leadership.

Whatever theoretical changes Vatican II made are irrelevant. There are no elected church leaders, and the only way to change anything is to become a priest and rise through the ranks until you're working in Rome. It's a single-party oligarchy. Rank-and-file parishioners can either stay or leave.

The last paragraph is vague and doesn't contradict the point that you can't be Catholic without belonging to and supporting the Church.

On infallibility, you are confusing the old doctrine, tied to the magisterium, with the much more authoritarian idea tied to the person of the Pope as defined by the Second Council. There is some irony in the fact that this was primarily used to push through a Pope's progressive ideas against a conservative leadership, but it remains what it is: a claim to infallibility ex cathedra.

That's not clear at all. It's quite likely that Peter, James et al initially started their proselytising to make a quick buck, and to gain power.

Evidence for that assertion?

He didn't make an assertion. He speculated. A professional educator should know the difference.

Meaningless. And why do you like to constantly try to insult me as a professional educator? I don't harp on you as a lawyer anymore.

Language is meaningless?

You just insulted yourself with your ignorance. It required no insult from me. I am not responsible for your lack of knowledge.

Oh, and it was you who referred to yourself as professional educator, not me.

They were claiming to having seen a man who had risen from the dead, and advocating that people do what they said based on the authority that that gave them. A close reading of the NT texts betrays the fact that there were in fact rival groups competing for this authority (various apostles, whose identities among "the twelve" fluctuate depending on the source, and Jesus's own family) trying to delegitimise the others.
And they were extracting funds from missionaries (see Paul in Galatians & Simon Magus, whose story in Acts is obviously a propagandised account of someone who purchased influence.)

These were illiterate peasants who came from a background of grinding poverty. Cashing in on the execution of their fallen leader must have been very attractive.

All of this stuff is fairly conjectural, but as I say it's quite likely given the evidence and what we know of fanatical religious movements.

Of course, @Dayton3 isn't interested in learning anything that differs from or goes beyond orthodox Christian views on biblical inerrancy, so not sure why I bother.

Don't you aspire to be a professional educator? I would think you'd see the label as a sign of respect.

Given that the very NT account in question is a variation on the legends of Mithras and Horus, it's hardly revolutionary to imagine a scenario where competing parties took the same basic story, put a spin on it and started competing for power, influence and enrichment. I don't see that @daytons3's claims that there is a magic being in the sky who brought Jesus back to life in three days is in any way more supported by evidence outside the NT than various conjecture rooted in what is said in the versions books of the NT.

If he is willing to accept the idea of the resurrection and the specific details associated with it on blind faith, why can there not be reasoned speculation? I don't get it.

Technically, Dayton isn't a professional anything at the moment...

He's arguably professionally unemployed.

Of course you don't get it. Because you are unwilling to believe. Unwilling to have faith.

And be honest, no amount of actual evidence would ever be enough for you.

A scientist doesn't stop being a scientist just because he is between jobs. A lawyer doesn't stop being a lawyer just because he is between jobs.

So why would a teacher?

Woah, woah, woah! What a ridiculous comment. Why would not amount of evidence be enough when evidence is the very thing I seek?

"Professional" denotes that you do it for a living. You don't. We can call you a former teacher, or an aspiring teacher if you wish.