Is Roman Catholicism a Christian religion? [Archive]

spiff

09-Mar-2005, 08:34 AM

1st Commandment: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me."

Matthew 6:19-21: "Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steel. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also."

Amongst many Roman Catholics the world over the Pope is viewed as a demi-God (though they may not admit/accept it), a direct link to Heaven through which all our prayers must pass, this itself is in contradiction to the 1st Commandment. And I am sure that Jesus never made any mention of us regular folk only being able to talk to God through an intermediary, such as the Pope.

The Roman Catholic church is RICH. Look at how nicely the pope is always dressed, the way they live, again Matthew 6:19-21 says this is wrong, and there is not really any way that one can contradict M 6:19-21, it is a fairly conclusive statement.

Accordingly, it has to be debated whether or not the RC church is Christian at all, because to be Christian surely one must follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, and for the Church to follow the teachings of Christ then it must not store up worldly goods, nor must it teach that the lay people can only communicate with God through the Pope, indeed, the very existence of the Pope could be considered blasphemous (or should that be heretical?) purely because of that pesky 1st commandment.

Even if you disagree that the Pope breaks the 1st Commandment the RC Church still doesn't follow the general teachings of Christ. So would that make them nothing more than glorified Messianic Jews? And for that matter, what about the gospels that were left out of the Bible? The Bible wasn't compiled until 300AD. Indeed, not much was written of Jesus until a long time after his death, primarily because the first generation of Christians didn't see any need for a permanent written record of the sayings and stories of Jesus. Jesus' return and the restoration of the Kingdom of God on earth were imminent and why bother preserving stories if the world was about to end?
And then the RC Church went and tagged on Revelations in order to scare people into believing.

So has the RC church somehow been given immunity by God (if you don't believe in him then just imagine, for arguments sake) from following His teachings? Or are they not Christian at all?

Eero

09-Mar-2005, 10:26 AM

1. Pope is not viewed as a God.

There is nothing in Catholic dogma that contradicts the first commandment. Common practice is always a different thing though. If you want to find something of this nature from Catholic church maybe you could look at the way the Saints are workshipped. With many laymen there is not really difference between the worship of Saints and the worship of God.

2. Many religious organizations are rich. You can't blame the Catholic church for it if you ignore other organizations with loads of money. The teachings of Jesus Christ are at times mysterious. If you think one should obey them all every Christian should basically follow the way of ascetism.

Gyaku

09-Mar-2005, 10:33 AM

I thought it was the other way around. Non-Catholic churchs are non-christian? Was RC the first, and original church? Didn't they actually write the bible?

Eero

09-Mar-2005, 10:49 AM

I thought it was the other way around. Non-Catholic churchs are non-christian? Was RC the first, and original church? Didn't they actually write the bible?

Bible is written within a long period. The oldest books were written before Jesus was born. Youngest of them are maybe from the fourth century. (Maybe someone knows better.) They didn't write Bible but they are sure a big influence on how the texts have been interpreted. Greek Catholic and Roman Catholic churches parted their ways in the year 1056. Please correct me if I remember the date wrong. It's many years since I haerd it so I can't guarantee it's the right year.

Strafio

09-Mar-2005, 10:58 AM

The Catholic Church was the original but did get kind of corrupted.
Witch hunts? Spannish Inquisition?

By the dark ages, I think that the Church was VERY corrupt.
Having said that, I think it's graudually calmed down.
Somethings I can answer for, like this whole "Saint Worship" thing, I don't think it's worship, just asking Saints to pray (to God) for them.

As to the riches put into decorations and stuff.
On the one hand it's nice to have the art (I mean some Churches have been beautifylly decorated indeed) but I think they'd do better to put the money where it's REALLY needed, to help people who are suffering.

Still, I think that the vast majority of Catholic churches aren't filled with money. The Dominican one I went to did have the odd "decorations", statues and stainglass windows, but there didn't seem to be a huge emphasis on them, and seemed to be a nice "hobby" of the congragation to decorate their place of worship rather than priests using "the wrath of God" to guilt people into paying for it.

What did interest me was the claim about Revelation.
Where did that come from?
Is there evidence that the Roman authorities had that bit tagged on as a form of control? (after all, if they presented the main story correctly then people (who'd heard the story by word of mouth) were likely to assume that the bits they hadn't heard before were merely bits they hadn't heard before, rather than made up).

Tell me more. :)

spiff

09-Mar-2005, 11:54 AM

When putting together the bible the RC church had a lot of decisions to make. The problem they faced was that a lot of the gospels tended to disagree with each other, and some were also more reliable in their accounts than others, due mainly to having been written down earlier.
The church couldn't go printing a bible full of contradictions (i don't mean the minor contradictions it has at the moment, I'm talking full blown ideological differences) so they had to decide what books to include and what one's not leave out, but how could they decide which were closer to the real message that Jesus had been trying to get across, after all he'd been dead a few hundred years. The RC church wasn't stupid, they stil aren't, so they settled on the idea that they'd fuse the gospels that most closely matched the message that they wanted to get across. Thankfully, at that time the RC church was pretty good, certainly it paid much closer attention to it's own beliefs than it does now. I think if the bible had only been compiled now then the only book in it would be revelations.

There are many apocalyptic stories, and like most mythology/ritual they have a common origin.
The Greek name for Revelations literally means "The Apocolypse of John" and it was written sometime around 96AD, it is, in fact, one of the older books to make up the new testament. So all is well and good with it, then?
No, there is considerable evidence that John did not write the book of revelations because he had a vision, not even because he had a twisted imagination. Rather, to start tracing the roots we have to go back to 586BC (I WILL NOT USE BCE, bloody new fangled nonsense!) and the destruction of Jerusalem and Solomon's Temple by the Babylonians. Before 585BC prophesies were never to do with the future, only the present, a prophesy was merely someone letting known to others God's will. But something changed after the destruction of Jerusalem. The Jews started to become more forward thinking. And who can blame them, they'd just lost their homes and everything they knew, and all of a sudden the oracles were telling new prophesies, telling people to stay put, saying the nation would be restored and their enemies vanquished by God.
Indeed, the switch from present to future prophesies can be seen in the books from the end of the prophetic tradition.
Of course, we're still not quite at the book of revelations, there's not yet a battle between good and evil, and no 666 or beast or anything, that came later, mainly from the Greek and Persian religions during the period 500-200BC.
The Book Of Revelations contains a lot of duality: the despair over the present evil in the world and the hope in the eternal power of god; the battle between good and evil and specifically time and history - the evil present age will give way to a glorious new age, the break between the two usually being called "the end" (Greek: Eschaton) which meant "the end" of the present evil age. This stuff was generally influenced by Persian Zoroastrianism in which duality was always very important.
Apocalyptic literature then usually mentions some sort of saviour, such as the messiah. However, not all scenarios insist upon having a saviour, and in some there are, in fact, several messiahs (e.g Essenes of the Dead Sea Scrolls).
Between 200BC and 200AD Apocalyptic thinking was very influential to Jewish tradition, though a couple of failed revolts against Rome as a result of this Apocalyptic thinking forced the tradition to undergo some changes.

If you would like to check out some the "proto-apocalyptic" literature then may i recommend reading Isaiah (chapters 56-66, i think) and Ezekiel (the whole thing, he was a bit of a loony).
So John was merely following a tradition, and for someone who had grown up as a Jew during the first century AD Apocalyptic thinking would have been something he'd have been exposed to from childhood, all it take's is some elaboration on his part to make it more interesting. The 666 stuff is probably a take on the holy trinity - 3 is a very important number to a surprising number of religions, both ancient and modern, and in the respect Christianity is no different. So could 666 just be a take on that, an attempt to take this holy number and turn it into something else?
When the Church was compiling the Bible the world was still a barbaric place, sure the Roman Empire was around but it was busy collapsing under it's own size and the constant attacks from the Germanic tribes, the only way for the Church to survive the Empire's collapse was to convert the invading barbarians. The Goths etc. did not care much for such girly stuff as peace and love that made up the rest of the New Testament, what they respected was blood and gore, and revelations gave them just what they wanted from a religion. Ultimately the inclusion of a book that runs completely against the grain of the rest of the New Testament was a very succesful attempt to save the religion, because by the time of the compilation the Apocalyptic tradition had passed, and Revelations had been largely forgotten. Hats off to the Church on that one, they were a lot smarter than most give them credit.

adouglasmhor

09-Mar-2005, 12:29 PM

I thought it was the other way around. Non-Catholic churchs are non-christian? Was RC the first, and original church? Didn't they actually write the bible?
The Copts founded by Saint Mark are an Older Christian Church than Roman Catholisism by several years.

Kwajman

09-Mar-2005, 02:11 PM

Beats me, I know very little about the catholic church. Although one of my complaints is that here in Wisconsin ( a VERY catholic state) all the catholic churches are pleading poverty with all the pedophile lawsuits. I thought the catholic church was like super super rich???

AZeitung

09-Mar-2005, 05:39 PM

Amongst many Roman Catholics the world over the Pope is viewed as a demi-God (though they may not admit/accept it),

No. . .

a direct link to Heaven through which all our prayers must pass,

Wrong again.

More later. I have a thermodynamics midterm tomorrow, so I have to study.

BTW more than half the world's Christians are Catholic, and all protestant churches are offshoots of the Catholic church, or other protestant churches, which can ultimately be traced back to the catholic church.

What did interest me was the claim about Revelation.
Where did that come from?
Is there evidence that the Roman authorities had that bit tagged on as a form of control?

No. Show me a protestant bible that doesn't contain the book of Revelations.

Strafio

09-Mar-2005, 11:07 PM

Infrazael

09-Mar-2005, 11:19 PM

IMO, the funny thig is that the Roman Catholic Church was in effect long before any Protestant Churches.

So, from a fanatical religious dogmatic non-tolerant point of view, it should be the Roman Catholics calling Protestants false Christians, not the other way around lol.

But really, WHY do we need to call everyone else's religion false?

There is no truth, only results to be obtained.

Kinjiro Tsukasa

09-Mar-2005, 11:36 PM

If you want to find something of this nature from Catholic church maybe you could look at the way the Saints are workshipped. With many laymen there is not really difference between the worship of Saints and the worship of God.
I know this was several posts back, but I just noticed it. Catholics don't worship saints; they honor them, same way you honor your mother or father. Only God is worshipped.

AZeitung

09-Mar-2005, 11:39 PM

Also, we believe that people in heaven can pray for us to God just like people living on earth. So, it's only natural to ask the saints in heaven to pray for us.

You missed what he said.

No, I didn't miss what he said. I was just pointing out that this can't be used as an argument against Catholocism more than any other Christian relgion.

JTiedes

09-Mar-2005, 11:48 PM

dictionary.com defines christian as

Chris·tian Audio pronunciation of "christian" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (krschn)
adj.

1. Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
2. Relating to or derived from Jesus or Jesus's teachings.
3. Manifesting the qualities or spirit of Jesus; Christlike.
4. Relating to or characteristic of Christianity or its adherents.
5. Showing a loving concern for others; humane.

it would seem to me that RC gets most of those. My question is why does it matter? IMO we are all the children of god, he will accept anyone who accepts him. just because the names of things are different doesnt mean that its a different god.
in summary to qoute tommy sands
"War won't divide us, we will always be as one.
For the land our fathers plow in, the soil it is the same.
And the places where we say our prayers have just got different
names."

Kinjiro Tsukasa

10-Mar-2005, 12:00 AM

it would seem to me that RC gets most of those. My question is why does it matter? IMO we are all the children of god, he will accept anyone who accepts him. just because the names of things are different doesnt mean that its a different god.
in summary to qoute tommy sands
"War won't divide us, we will always be as one.
For the land our fathers plow in, the soil it is the same.
And the places where we say our prayers have just got different
names."
It's in the Bible, too, in Mark 9:38-40:

John said to him, "Teacher, we saw someone driving out demons in your name, and we tried to prevent him because he does not follow us."
Jesus replied, "Do not prevent him. There is no one who performs a mighty deed in my name who can at the same time speak ill of me.
For whoever is not against us is for us.

shinbushi

10-Mar-2005, 01:20 AM

You missed what he said.

The Catholic Church compiled the original Bible.
When protestant sects started springing out, they used the same Bible (although I think they were the first ones to use English rather than Latin). So protestant churches using Revelations would be a continuation of the corruption, IF revelations really IS out of place. :)
I think you could say it is the Greek Orthodox Church's biblenot the RC. As a good chunk of the NT was written in Greek. 1st the Romans steal the Greek gods then Christianity. :love: ;)

Eero

10-Mar-2005, 07:55 AM

I know this was several posts back, but I just noticed it. Catholics don't worship saints; they honor them, same way you honor your mother or father. Only God is worshipped.

Forgive me if I used a wrong word. (I'm not a native speaker.) Still I'm not the only one to say this. Many researchers have pointed out these similarities with the Saints and some polytheistic traditions. Uneducated simple folk have not always been able to really make the difference between the worship of God and the Saints. My point is that even though the official dogma does not see Saints as god like figures that has not always been the case with ordinary Christians who can not always understand all the important aspects of theology. Southern Italy has been said to be an example of this.

Strafio

10-Mar-2005, 09:09 AM

No, I didn't miss what he said. I was just pointing out that this can't be used as an argument against Catholocism more than any other Christian relgion.

Still kind of missed it...
He wasn't saying that the Catholic Church IS wrong because it has Revelations, he's just annoyed that they ever put it in in the first place (supposedly for political reasons) so once people had it compiled in the Bible then they took it as so ever since.

So he's saying that if non-Catholics are corrupted by Revelations, it's all the stupid Catholic Church's fault! :)

But your point stands as well as it says that the current Catholic church uses the same Bible as the other sects so this whole "Revelations conspiracy" can't be used against current Catholics.

Strafio

10-Mar-2005, 09:12 AM

I think you could say it is the Greek Orthodox Church's biblenot the RC. As a good chunk of the NT was written in Greek. 1st the Romans steal the Greek gods then Christianity. :love: ;)

And they went and changed their names.
Zeus became Jupiter, Aphrodite became Venus, Ares became Mars... it makes you wonder what Jesus' real name was...

I think someone once told me that it was Joshua.

choconutjoe

10-Mar-2005, 10:03 AM

it makes you wonder what Jesus' real name was... Terry. Taz to his mates.

megk

10-Mar-2005, 04:47 PM

Yes, absolutely Catholics are Christians, if they accept and submit to the authority of Christ as God in and over their lives. Same goes for any "Christian" religion.

The origional Biblical documents were not written in Latin, they were written in Greek, and Hebrew. The letters were written just a decade or so after the death of Christ. The Gospels a few decades after that. The old testement was already in existance prior to the death of Christ. If you do any kind of study relating the NT to the OT, you would see that the Character of God is not distorted in the NT. The Roman Catholic church could not have contrived a Bible that fit their political and economic needs. Although it does make good fodder for the anti Christian conspiracy junkies.

spiff

10-Mar-2005, 04:48 PM

My point is that even though the official dogma does not see Saints as god like figures that has not always been the case with ordinary Christians who can not always understand all the important aspects of theology. Southern Italy has been said to be an example of this.

Yes, that was what I was refering to. I have not been to Southern Italy but I did travel South America and it was like that there, people honestly seemed to worship the saints and the pope.

Still kind of missed it...
He wasn't saying that the Catholic Church IS wrong because it has Revelations, he's just annoyed that they ever put it in in the first place (supposedly for political reasons) so once people had it compiled in the Bible then they took it as so ever since.

So he's saying that if non-Catholics are corrupted by Revelations, it's all the stupid Catholic Church's fault!

But your point stands as well as it says that the current Catholic church uses the same Bible as the other sects so this whole "Revelations conspiracy" can't be used against current Catholics.

arrrggghhh, it's like you're in my head!! Wow, you really understood what I was trying to get at, and then explained it a lot better than me. I'm not schizophrenic and you one of my other personalities, am i?

Yes, absolutely Catholics are Christians, if they accept and submit to the authority of Christ as God in and over their lives. Same goes for any "Christian" religion.

I agree with you on that, but what happens when a branch of the Christian religion is always more willing to accept something that was written in the OT as taking precedence of the NT. Are they still Christian is the think of the OT as being more important (I am referring mainly to a lot of these televangelists who never seem to mention the NT, but are always mentioning the more brimstoney parts of the OT

The Roman Catholic church could not have contrived a Bible that fit their political and economic needs.

I'm not saying the whole Bible, but certainly the inclusion of revelations (imo) was for that very reason.

aikiMac

10-Mar-2005, 05:17 PM

I'm not saying the whole Bible, but certainly the inclusion of revelations (imo) was for that very reason.
Have you read Revelation?
What part(s) of it cause you to hold this opinion? I am baffled.

spiff

10-Mar-2005, 05:24 PM

megk

10-Mar-2005, 05:42 PM

have you ever read revelations? the whole thing is pretty much about how those who are bad will be condemned and the only the good will survive. so not exactly trying to scare people into believing in jesus, is it? because after all, someone can be good and not believe.
BUT when you consider that for many years during the dark/middle ages the church taught that if you didn't believe then that made you bad, it takes on a slightly different significance, and it does become a way of scaring people into the bible.
what would you rather be? one of the condemned or one of the saved?

Isn't that more of an argument against Christianity as a whole and not just the Roman Catholic church?

Again, Revelations was written in Greek, by John, when impereal Rome was the dominating Bad guy. Rome was the beast that had "authority over every tribe and people and tongue and nation" Rev 13:7
The danger or reading scripture and only applying it to the modern times is exactly what you are claiming. That some how the book of Revelations was used to scare people into believing. Scripture has to be read in context. Besides, there are many other passages in the Bible that should scare you into believing. Jesus' own teachings were'nt exactly all flowers and roses.

spiff

10-Mar-2005, 06:02 PM

Isn't that more of an argument against Christianity as a whole and not just the Roman Catholic church?

Again, Revelations was written in Greek, by John, when impereal Rome was the dominating Bad guy. Rome was the beast that had "authority over every tribe and people and tongue and nation" Rev 13:7
The danger or reading scripture and only applying it to the modern times is exactly what you are claiming. That some how the book of Revelations was used to scare people into believing. Scripture has to be read in context. Besides, there are many other passages in the Bible that should scare you into believing. Jesus' own teachings were'nt exactly all flowers and roses.

yes, it is wrong to apply what was written then to modern times, but that is exactly what people do. that's why i have a creationist i work with who is convinced that everything in the book of revelations is about to come true.
of course jesus said things that could be considered "scary" but to use a modern analogy Jesus's scare stuff was more a psychological thriller, whereas Revelations is more of a less-subtle Steven King. and which of them scares children more? and yes, we can think of the people who lived during the dark/middle ages as children because that is really all they were, they had less education that most modern 4 year olds.

aikiMac

10-Mar-2005, 06:13 PM

spiff

10-Mar-2005, 06:22 PM

I have no idea where you got that from. Are we talking about the same Revelation?

Martin Luther did not teach that in Revelation only the "good" survive. He taught that only those who trust in Jesus survive. And Martin Luther most definitely did read the book.

"The Bible Answer Man" Hank Hannegraaf does not teach that Revelation says only the "good" survive. He teaches that the book say that only those who trust in Jesus survive. And he most definitely did read the book.

And on and on and on for other scholars. I've never heard of what you're saying.

i don't see how interpretative differences on who will survive have any bearing, indeed if those scholars insist that it IS about only those with faith in Jesus who will survive then aren't you just proving my point that it is about scaring people into believing?

megk

10-Mar-2005, 06:24 PM

And another point is that Revelations is more about the final judgement of Christ. There is not a whole lot about good people vs. bad people. Again, go back to the rest of the Bible for teachings about good people vs. bad people. Also, the passages I believe you are refering to are actually about the seven churches, and how they had dissapointed Jesus, and in what ways. This is simply a great model for the modern churches to not duplicate. Ex. "you have foresaken your first love" this is implying that the church had forgotten to have their lives be all about Jesus. Perhaps you need to do some more study. By any chance are your convivtions about this issue based on "The Divinci Code"?

aikiMac

10-Mar-2005, 06:30 PM

i don't see how interpretative differences on who will survive have any bearing, indeed if those scholars insist that it IS about only those with faith in Jesus who will survive then aren't you just proving my point that it is about scaring people into believing?
The scholars don't insist that that is all that it's about.

And anyway, no, it's not about scaring people into believing. Being that you read it you know that Revelation was written to give comfort to Christians in trying times. It was written to comfort, not to scare. And this holds true whether a person believes in no-trib/amil, or pre-trib, or mid-trib, or pre-wrath, or post-trib eschatology.

spiff

10-Mar-2005, 07:28 PM

Indeed, Revelations was written to comfort Christians in trying times, just as the whole Apocalyptic tradition had originated to get Jews through trying times. I shall never dispute that.
But what I am saying is that for a period during the growth and consolidation of the Christian Church it was used for other purposes. The Christian religion itself is not at fault for that, only the Church, which is not a surprise giving that the Church was created by imperfect humans, whereas the religion itself was created by a perfect God.

I have never read the DaVinci code, and I can't truly say I intent to waste the time it would take to read. I did read the Bible Code (which apparently is a similar sort of thing) and feel I it caused me to lose brain cells. If it wasn't so straight-faced it'd be funny.

LilBunnyRabbit

10-Mar-2005, 08:18 PM

Catholics don't worship saints; they honor them, same way you honor your mother or father. Only God is worshipped.
We must've met different Catholics. Either that or you have a different definition of idolatory than me. I mean, having seen Catholics kneeling and praying to statues I'd have to say that's what I'd call idolatory. Yet somehow it seems to be a neatly avoided subject.

I did read the Bible Code (which apparently is a similar sort of thing) and feel I it caused me to lose brain cells. If it wasn't so straight-faced it'd be funny.
Given that the Bible Code is essentially yet another Nostradamous, I'd have my doubts about it being similar to the Da Vinci code, which is actually supposed to be quite good.

Kinjiro Tsukasa

10-Mar-2005, 08:21 PM

We must've met different Catholics. Either that or you have a different definition of idolatory than me. I mean, having seen Catholics kneeling and praying to statues I'd have to say that's what I'd call idolatory. Yet somehow it seems to be a neatly avoided subject.
They're not praying to the statues. I mean, if you kneel down by your bed to pray, does that mean you're praying to the bed? :rolleyes:

AZeitung

11-Mar-2005, 05:47 AM

You mean you don't pray to your bed? You're not worried that one night it might just try to snuff you out while you're sleeping?

TheSanSooStorm

11-Mar-2005, 06:35 AM

d

it would seem to me that RC gets most of those. My question is why does it matter? IMO we are all the children of god, he will accept anyone who accepts him. just because the names of things are different doesnt mean that its a different god.
in summary to qoute tommy sands
"War won't divide us, we will always be as one.
For the land our fathers plow in, the soil it is the same.
And the places where we say our prayers have just got different
names."

actually the bible never said we are all children of God, it is said that when we are born of the world we are the children of this world (King Of the world is? Satan) and when we come to Jesus and are saved we become God`s children instead. (I`m not trying to spit on you.) Lots of people take the bible OUT OF context, for instance people say all the time "Money is the root of all evil" no thats NOT what it says. it says "The love for money is the root of all evil." OK another thing is in Israel is where the OLD TESTAMENT was written by there Prophets (you`ll remember before they asked for a huamn king, first being Saul that God was there king.) and there after Jesus the New Testament was written.. Also what has kinda made me uneasy is how everyone is making the bible out to this scheme of the catholic church. its funny if someone said something simulare to that about the Koran I`m sure we`d be "Insensitive" for it.

Realise something, the first CHRISTIAN churches in Rome were CALLED Roman Catholic. something like "Virginia`s Baptists Church".

In the bible it speaks of an "Invisible church" or thorought the world, all of us who are saved makes up and invisible church, as time went on the Catholic Church began viewing themselves as THEE invisible church. Taking a mediphore and making it into a materialistic thing. So you got people standing around saying "WOah.....these changes being made.....screw that" so they leave and become the Prodestants, because they dident want to CHANGE there teachings to the ever evolving catholic church that is comparable to Corinthians (church in Corinth). But because the prodestants seperated from a group of people and buildings of worship called the Catholic Church and that same church at a time made Bibles illegal to be possessed by civilians and if you were caught having one u were burned as a heretic that means they are the ones flawed? Oh yes let us all bow to the catholic church, for surely God didn`t want his people to own his word, give me a break.

Also heres alittle incite on your 666 incident. The words on the popes hat (which is the same for ever pope) mean literally "Son Of God" And they teach that Jesus lives inside of the Pope. One more thing, you know how the romans had a number for the letters? If you add up the numbers on the popes title on his hat it equals "666" so man.....quite the coincidence there. The catholic church has done its share of good, but the leaders of it are just as corrupt as the rest of us, and the second they start realising that mabye we can all where Big Hats. lol well that was a weird post on a martial arts site.

Eero

11-Mar-2005, 08:33 AM

Martin Luther did not teach that in Revelation only the "good" survive. He taught that only those who trust in Jesus survive. And Martin Luther most definitely did read the book.

"The Bible Answer Man" Hank Hannegraaf does not teach that Revelation says only the "good" survive. He teaches that the book say that only those who trust in Jesus survive. And he most definitely did read the book.

Exactly the reason why I left the Church. Lutheran dogma insists that basically only Christians go to heaven. There is a muslim theologian living in Finland who keeps Bible next to his Koran. Thinking about that sick idea that only those who win in a lottery and happen to be Christians don't suffer eternally I'd rather be a muslim.

LilBunnyRabbit

11-Mar-2005, 01:58 PM

They're not praying to the statues. I mean, if you kneel down by your bed to pray, does that mean you're praying to the bed?
My bed isn't an idol, and I don't address it by name when I'm praying, if I were to pray at all I mean. I've seen plenty of Catholics, and heard them, addressing their prayers directly not to the triumvirate but to the Virgin Mary, or various saints, usually while praying in front of a statue of said representative.

Interestingly Muslims pray only to their god, never to a representative, and will not have idols of any kind, or even decorations other than symbols and patterns, associated with their religion.

snailfist

11-Mar-2005, 02:33 PM

The scariest stuff about the Catholic church is, I think, often the stuff that barely impinges upon the consciousness of non-Catholics- I've made my views upon issues such as vessels of communion having to be made of precious metals known before now.
By contrast, a lot of what people don't like the church for is often misunderstood. Papal infalliability, for example. People (including the vast majority of Catholics) have an image of it meaning that the Pope is always right- in fact it's only ever employed in solemn pronouncements, and I don't think you'd run out of fingers counting how many have been made. The church is also, contary to popular belief, in debt. The idea of statues comes from the days of latin masses, when visual aids were used to teach people their faith and there was a percieved need for the common text to be universal.

Kinjiro Tsukasa

11-Mar-2005, 03:43 PM

By contrast, a lot of what people don't like the church for is often misunderstood.
Good point. People often knock what they don't understand, especially when their knowledge is, let's say, less than adequate (or just plain full of lies and misconceptions).

The idea of statues comes from the days of latin masses, when visual aids were used to teach people their faith and there was a percieved need for the common text to be universal.
Another good point. The Catholic Church has been around a very long time, and dates back to an era when few people could read. All the statues and paintings, etc., were traditionally a teaching aid for those who didn't have the option of reading the Bible (because they couldn't read, or they couldn't afford to purchase what was then a very expensive tome, not because the Church banned Bible reading, which is just one more ridiculous misconception -- I can link to an article on this, if anyone is interested, and if I can find it again. ;) ).

In my church, for example, if you look at the statues, the stained glass, and the painted walls and ceiling, you'll see a good chunk of the Bible. And we don't pray to that stuff; sheesh, they're aids to devotion, not objects of worship. :rolleyes:

AZeitung

11-Mar-2005, 04:29 PM

People (including the vast majority of Catholics) have an image of it meaning that the Pope is always right- in fact it's only ever employed in solemn pronouncements, and I don't think you'd run out of fingers counting how many have been made.

Indeed. In order for it to apply, he has to be speaking on a matter of faith and morals, speaking as the head of the church, giving an official pronnouncement. If any one of these things isn't true, it doesn't apply.

spiff

11-Mar-2005, 05:19 PM

aikiMac

11-Mar-2005, 05:26 PM

I'm sorry, but on the statue front all I'll post is:

"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:" Exodus 20:4

Whatever way you want to look at statues of anykind are against God's will. So the only people who've actually got it right on that count are the Muslims.
I'm sorry, but you're wrong. By this reasoning, my daughter ought not have drawn with crayon any of those nice pictures that we stuck on our fridge. And all the paintings and pictures of nature that fill museums are also acts of sin. But actually, I do believe that that Exodus section is a prohibition of creating an image of a diety which you then worship. If you're not worshipping the image or statue that you have created, then you're not violating this commandment. I'm not sure how Catholics number the Ten Commandments, but Protestants usually list this one here as the 2nd Commandment.

Kinjiro Tsukasa

11-Mar-2005, 05:37 PM

What aikiMac said ^^^; I think he's exactly correct.

Keep reading in the Old Testament, and you will find passages where God actually commanded the making of certain images, such as the bronze serpent, the ark of the covenant, and the cherubim.

Making them is OK, looking at them is OK, using them to put you in mind of the real thing is OK, worshiping them is not. And I'll beat the dead horse one more time, and say that "worshiping statues" is NOT authentic Catholic belief. :bang:

aikiMac

11-Mar-2005, 05:51 PM

... "worshiping statues" is NOT authentic Catholic belief.
I won't doubt you, but that puts a question in my head: Is praying to Saints (Peter, Mary, Jude, whoever) part of authentic Catholic belief and practice?

AZeitung

11-Mar-2005, 06:11 PM

Yes. When you pray to a saint, you ask him to pray to God for you, since we believe that the saints in heaven are capable of praying for us just like living people on earth. And I always end up finding stuff when I pray to Saint Anthony :)

Praying is different from worshipping.

aikiMac

11-Mar-2005, 06:14 PM

Yes. When you pray to a saint, you ask him to pray to God for you, since we believe that the saints in heaven are capable of praying for us just like living people on earth.
What is the basis for this belief?

Kinjiro Tsukasa

11-Mar-2005, 06:18 PM

I won't doubt you, but that puts a question in my head: Is praying to Saints (Peter, Mary, Jude, whoever) part of authentic Catholic belief and practice?

Yes, but only as intercessory prayer -- exactly the same as if you were to say to a friend "Please say a prayer for me". That is what "praying to the saints" is. It is not correct to worship a saint, and pray to that saint as if he/she were God -- after all, Jesus is the only mediator between us and God. That doesn't mean, however, that we can't ask our fellows to pray with us and for us (see 1 Tim 2:1-4 and Jas 5:16).

Examples of intercessory prayer are sprinkled throughout the Bible, so it's nothing new.

Here's a passage from the Catechism of the Catholic Church; sheds a little more light on it:

2635 Since Abraham, intercession - asking on behalf of another has been characteristic of a heart attuned to God's mercy. In the age of the Church, Christian intercession participates in Christ's, as an expression of the communion of saints. In intercession, he who prays looks "not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others," even to the point of praying for those who do him harm.

So just as we can ask our friends here on Earth to pray for us, we ask our friends in Heaven to pray for us, as well. And we can always pray directly to God (in any of the three persons).

aikiMac

11-Mar-2005, 06:32 PM

Examples of intercessory prayer are sprinkled throughout the Bible, so it's nothing new.
As for living people, yes. But as for dead people, can you suggest a passage or two or three in the Bible? This is a new concept for me.

Kinjiro Tsukasa

11-Mar-2005, 06:56 PM

As for living people, yes. But as for dead people, can you suggest a passage or two or three in the Bible? This is a new concept for me.
Some you can start with are Heb 12:22-24, Rev 5:8, and Rev 8:3-4. What it really comes down to, though, is that Catholics believe that the saints are still members of the Body of Christ -- this is what we call the Communion of Saints. Their flesh-and-blood bodies may be dead, but their souls have eternal life. They are not "dead" to Christ, and are still able to pray for us.

Chris_sirhC

11-Mar-2005, 07:02 PM

Its all one big huge hypocrisy... organized religion makes me very angry *lol*.

Kinjiro Tsukasa

11-Mar-2005, 07:04 PM

Its all one big huge hypocrisy... organized religion makes me very angry *lol*.
Then I would advise you to stay away from threads like this. :D

polecat63

14-Mar-2005, 02:21 AM

As much as I loathe to get involved in religeous discussion I want to chime in. I was raised Catholic, my family has been Catholic for generations. Having said that, the Catholic Church does many things it should not. It DOES give the saints status above us mere mortals. You can say it doesn't all you want, but it does. It DOES teach that you muct confess your sins to a preist. Quite frankly, the bible does not support this. The bible refers to all believers as saints, and teaches that God hears all our confessions of sin. No stand-in necessary.

And as far as the saints being in heaven......

John 3:13
No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven–the Son of Man.

wayofthedragon

14-Mar-2005, 02:35 AM

Ohhh, this thread is so tempting....I must resist..........
my belief is that RC is not really true christianity, however is masked as such
There are a lot of things in RC that is not in tune with the bible. I have to visit this thread again later
I tried to resist....I really did:D

aikiMac

14-Mar-2005, 03:05 AM

It DOES teach that you muct confess your sins to a preist. Quite frankly, the bible does not support this.
Sure it does. There's an admonition to confess sins to one another. I could look it up later if you really need it.

And as far as the saints being in heaven......
John 3:13
No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven–the Son of Man.
So then, Peter and Paul and John and Andrew and Stephen and Barnabas and all the rest are not in heaven? And Abraham, not in heaven? And Enoch and Elijah, who went to be with God without even dying, they're not in heaven? They're somewhere else with God?

Honestly, I think they're all in heaven.

-----------

But Kinjiro, back to you for a moment. Those verses you provided don't quite hit the issue. I'll readily agree that dead Christians are part of the "body of Christ." But the issue is, why does the Catholic church teach that dead people hear our prayers? I think it's eminently reasonable to say that the prayers being poured out in those Revelation passages are prayers to God, and not prayers to dead humans. Now sure, maybe, maybe, those prayers in Revelation include prayers to saints. Buy why should I even entertain that thought?? This I do not know.

LilBunnyRabbit

14-Mar-2005, 09:15 AM

So then, Peter and Paul and John and Andrew and Stephen and Barnabas and all the rest are not in heaven? And Abraham, not in heaven? And Enoch and Elijah, who went to be with God without even dying, they're not in heaven? They're somewhere else with God?
Aren't they meant to be waiting for the day of judgment when it will finally be decided which of us poor mortals will be permitted to share heaven with them?

polecat63

14-Mar-2005, 11:29 AM

So then, Peter and Paul and John and Andrew and Stephen and Barnabas and all the rest are not in heaven? And Abraham, not in heaven? And Enoch and Elijah, who went to be with God without even dying, they're not in heaven? They're somewhere else with God?

Not according to scripture, you know, the word of God.
Sure it does. There's an admonition to confess sins to one another. I could look it up later if you really need it.

No need to look it up, that is what it says. But that doesn't change what I said. In fact, it only reinforces it. All believers are called "saints" in the bible. And confessing sins to one another does not absolve you of haveing to confess your sins to God. Confessing your sins to a priest, or even to another Christian, is NOT the same as confessing to God. Confessing ONLY to a priest and NOT to God goes against biblical teachings.

The Bible, both old and new testament, is filled with people confessing directly to God. They didn't have to wait till a priest went inside a little booth to confess. If you can find scripture that says it's necessary to have this intermediary I'd like to read that. Not trying to dis the Catholics here. They have free will just like everyone else does, and most can probably read the bible for themselves. It's there choice to allow a Church that rose to power during the dark ages to kepp them in the dark ages.

megk

14-Mar-2005, 02:58 PM

There are several doctrinal differences in Catholicism that I do not understand. Confession to a Priest is one of them. I agree, we are told in the Bible to confess our sins to God, not a Priest. Another is the idea od pergatory. A place where an unbeliever can actually be prayed out of by living family members. Another is the Worship of Mary. Another is praying to the saints. And, who decides who is a saint and who is not. Who are we to think that we can pick who is to be sainted, we are not the judges. Anyone who believes is a saint. Salvation through infant Baptism. Priests having to be unmarried and celebate (sp). I could go on and on.

Here's how I look at it. A bunch of well meaning men got together and started muddying the waters with there own ideas. They continue to do so. The amount of books required by catholics to read other then the Bible is a red flag for me.

I still believe that there are many Christians or true believers that are Catholic. I just think that men have made it harder for Catholics to find a true relationship with God.

aikiMac

14-Mar-2005, 03:54 PM

Not according to scripture, you know, the word of God.
Where are they, then?

Confessing your sins to a priest, or even to another Christian, is NOT the same as confessing to God. Confessing ONLY to a priest and NOT to God goes against biblical teachings.
Yes. Confessing to a priest, or any other person, is not itself un-biblical, but I agree with what you said here.

Kinjiro Tsukasa

14-Mar-2005, 08:02 PM

Lots of issues brought up since I was last online; I'll address some of them here (not all; as much as I'd like to make this a full-time job, I do have to work ;) ).

Confession -- Jesus' words to the apostles in John 20:22-23. The apostles would need to know what the sins were in order to "forgive" or "retain" them. How could they announce that some sins would be forgiven and others retained if they didn't know what they were? Some Christian churches use altar calls or spontaneous testimony in a prayer circle as a method of announcing forgiveness, and those specific customs have no biblical mandate, so I don't really see why anyone makes an issue of this, anyway. The actual forgiveness comes from God, by the way, regardless of how you confess.

It DOES give the saints status above us mere mortals. You can say it doesn't all you want, but it does.
Hmmmm, well, if they're already in heaven, I guess their status would be a little higher than ours, dontcha think? ;)

About saints -- is this a term for believing Christians on Earth? Perhaps, but why should it be confined to people living on Earth? If a saint on Earth dies in Christ, and enters God's presence in Heaven, then why would that person cease to be a saint? If the prayers mentioned in Rev 5:8 are being offered directly to God, it seems that the saints are nonetheless aware of them! The saints offer our prayers to God under the form of "golden bowls of incense" (Rev 5:8) -- prayers aren't material objects, and can't be offered physically; hence the offering is intercessory.

Mary -- Catholics do NOT worship Mary, or anyone else other than God. Sorry, but if someone has told you this, then you have been fed a LIE. You can believe it all you want, but it is not true. If you have actually seen a Catholic worshiping Mary, then that Catholic doesn't know his/her own faith. Should this be so surprising? No group is perfect -- there are bad (in terms of religious practice) Catholics, just as there are bad Protestants, bad Jews, bad Hindus, and bad Buddhists. I'd even be willing to bet there are some bad atheists. ;)

Infant baptism -- Some of the differences in opinion on infant baptism come from the fact that Catholics have a different view of what baptism accomplishes (a sacrament which remits sin and conveys God's grace) than certain Protestant groups (I won't go into this now, not enough time). If the Bible doesn't mention infant baptism, well, it doesn't mention children raised in believing households reaching the age of reason and then being baptized, either. The only explicit mentions of baptism in the Bible involve converts from Judaism or paganism. There is no mention of the baptism of children of believers, regardless of age. We generally consider Acts 2:38 and 1 Peter 3:21 as supporting infant baptism. The early church regarded infant baptism as apostolic. The only controversy was a third century debate on whether to delay baptism until the eighth day of birth.

Celibate priesthood -- This is not a dogma or a doctrine of the Catholic Church. It is a cultural tradition that could, theoretically, be changed. Even today, not all Catholic priests are unmarried/celibate -- Eastern Rite Catholics have married priests (again, if you've been taught otherwise, you've been fed a lie, or at least a misunderstanding -- sorry).

Purgatory -- See 1 Cor 3:15, for example -- speaks of a judgment after death which will not be entirely pleasant even for the saved. Even though Jesus paid the price for man's sins once and for all, removing the prospect of eternal damnation for the repentant believer, the possibility of temporal punishment still remains -- if it doesn't, then why (to give just one example) do women still experience pain in childbirth? People, even believers, still sin, but nothing unclean can enter Heaven (Rev 21:27) -- souls in purgatory are not experiencing additional cleansing, but only the final effects of the one cleansing in the blood of Christ. Those who are being purified beyond death are not the unrepentant, but those who have already been justified by grace.

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree, but one thing to keep in mind (and a key point) is that Catholics don't follow the "sola scriptura" theory anyway -- we accept Church tradition, as well. After all, how did the faith get transmitted all those years before there was any such thing as a printed Bible, or before most people could read? Where in the Bible does it say that the Bible is the only source of Church teaching? (Nope, not 1 Cor 4:6; that is a misuse of that scripture. Not 2 Tim 3:16-17, either; that's not what it says). Check out 1 Cor 11:2, 2 Thess 2:15, and 2 Tim 2:2 instead. Everything that Jesus did is not even mentioned in the Bible (John 21:25) Sola scriptura is a theory that pretty much depends on the printing press for its validity, and the printing press wasn't around at the time of Jesus and the apostles, nor for many centuries after.

Back to work, now, peace and love to all. :)

Oh, just one question for megk, what are all these books (besides the Bible) that you think Catholics are required to read? I'm not being sarcastic, I really don't know what you're referring to, and I'm curious.

AZeitung

14-Mar-2005, 08:41 PM

Another thing about saint - canonization of saints by the church isn't by any means an official in that the person actually has to be in heaven. The church says that based on this person's life we assume that he is in heaven, but it is possible for this judgement to be wrong. And the church doesn't try to canonize *everyone* in heaven either - just the ones where it is believed there is little room for doubt and who were well known enough to catch the church's attention.

Kinjiro Tsukasa

14-Mar-2005, 09:01 PM

Another thing about saint - canonization of saints by the church isn't by any means an official in that the person actually has to be in heaven.
:confused: Actually, it is official -- canonized saints are in Heaven. Though, there are probably very many additional saints in Heaven who have not been canonized. The canonization process doesn't "put" a person in Heaven; but it declares that a person is there.

shinbushi

14-Mar-2005, 09:10 PM

gaz shaw

14-Mar-2005, 09:29 PM

hey, i did this in R.S. today and the answer is yes.

AZeitung

14-Mar-2005, 10:31 PM

:confused: Actually, it is official -- canonized saints are in Heaven. Though, there are probably very many additional saints in Heaven who have not been canonized. The canonization process doesn't "put" a person in Heaven; but it declares that a person is there.

I had read that it wasn't, since some of the canonized saints may not have even been real people (e.g. Saint Veronica, who put a cloth to Jesus' face when he was carrying the cross).

edit: at the very least, it seems that there is some uncertainty as to whether canonization meanst that the person actually *is* in heaven, or that he practiced Christian values to a heroic degree in life, according to the catholic encyclopedia article at newadvent.org.

polecat63

15-Mar-2005, 11:25 AM

Confession -- Jesus' words to the apostles in John 20:22-23. The apostles would need to know what the sins were in order to "forgive" or "retain" them. How could they announce that some sins would be forgiven and others retained if they didn't know what they were? Some Christian churches use altar calls or spontaneous testimony in a prayer circle as a method of announcing forgiveness, and those specific customs have no biblical mandate, so I don't really see why anyone makes an issue of this, anyway. The actual forgiveness comes from God, by the way, regardless of how you confess.

I think the point if contention s tha the church requires it.

Hmmmm, well, if they're already in heaven, I guess their status would be a little higher than ours, dontcha think? ;)

Even if that is true, that is worship. The church has given them elevated status over the living, and they assume they have the final word on who is even in heaven. They assume that since they went through all the trouble to cannonize someone that they get a special pass through the pearly gate even if they were secretly an axe murderer, or Jack the Ripper. I'm sorry, but that just is not supported in the teaching of Jesus or the word of God.

About saints -- is this a term for believing Christians on Earth? Perhaps, but why should it be confined to people living on Earth? If a saint on Earth dies in Christ, and enters God's presence in Heaven, then why would that person cease to be a saint? If the prayers mentioned in Rev 5:8 are being offered directly to God, it seems that the saints are nonetheless aware of them! The saints offer our prayers to God under the form of "golden bowls of incense" (Rev 5:8) -- prayers aren't material objects, and can't be offered physically; hence the offering is intercessory.

Rev 5:8 And when he had taken it, the four living creatures and the twentyfour elders fell down before the Lamb. Each one had a harp and they were holding golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints.

It appears that the twenty four elders and the four living creatures offer our prayers, not the saints, since we are the saints. God cannot both hear our prayes as say them AND require an intercessory. That a contradiction, and despit populae belief, they're are no contradictions in the bible.

Infant baptism -- Some of the differences in opinion on infant baptism come from the fact that Catholics have a different view of what baptism accomplishes (a sacrament which remits sin and conveys God's grace) than certain Protestant groups (I won't go into this now, not enough time). If the Bible doesn't mention infant baptism, well, it doesn't mention children raised in believing households reaching the age of reason and then being baptized, either. The only explicit mentions of baptism in the Bible involve converts from Judaism or paganism. There is no mention of the baptism of children of believers, regardless of age. We generally consider Acts 2:38 and 1 Peter 3:21 as supporting infant baptism. The early church regarded infant baptism as apostolic. The only controversy was a third century debate on whether to delay baptism until the eighth day of birth.

Uh...okay. No referrence is made to age other then the fact that both passages mention no children and are adult only conversation. The prevailing thought is that accepting Jesus should be a choice and that splashing water on a childs head does not FORCE the Holy Spirit into it. It seem odd that God would go out of his way to give us free will, and then command The Church to take that away. I assume it was started because of high infabt motallity rates, and families wanted reassurance that the little ones went to heaven.

Purgatory -- See 1 Cor 3:15, for example -- speaks of a judgment after death which will not be entirely pleasant even for the saved. Even though Jesus paid the price for man's sins once and for all, removing the prospect of eternal damnation for the repentant believer, the possibility of temporal punishment still remains -- if it doesn't, then why (to give just one example) do women still experience pain in childbirth? People, even believers, still sin, but nothing unclean can enter Heaven (Rev 21:27) -- souls in purgatory are not experiencing additional cleansing, but only the final effects of the one cleansing in the blood of Christ. Those who are being purified beyond death are not the unrepentant, but those who have already been justified by grace.

The RC Churrch recently did away with purgatory. Or at least they gave that impression. Kinda like they thinned out some of the saints a few years back.

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree, but one thing to keep in mind (and a key point) is that Catholics don't follow the "sola scriptura" theory anyway -- we accept Church tradition, as well. After all, how did the faith get transmitted all those years before there was any such thing as a printed Bible, or before most people could read? Where in the Bible does it say that the Bible is the only source of Church teaching? (Nope, not 1 Cor 4:6; that is a misuse of that scripture. Not 2 Tim 3:16-17, either; that's not what it says). Check out 1 Cor 11:2, 2 Thess 2:15, and 2 Tim 2:2 instead. Everything that Jesus did is not even mentioned in the Bible (John 21:25) Sola scriptura is a theory that pretty much depends on the printing press for its validity, and the printing press wasn't around at the time of Jesus and the apostles, nor for many centuries after.

Yes. I'm not trying to make any converts. I deal with dozens of Catholics every time I go home, so I know it's useless to argue, but sometimes I can't resist. ANd unlike my family, everone her has been extremely civil and downright respectful. I don't wish to offend anyone. These are just my opinion, afterall.

Oh, just one question for megk, what are all these books (besides the Bible) that you think Catholics are required to read? I'm not being sarcastic, I really don't know what you're referring to, and I'm curious.
He must be thinking of some catechism (sp?) book or something. Which is just scriptures.

Peace!
P

megk

15-Mar-2005, 03:34 PM

chungmoomonkey

15-Mar-2005, 03:43 PM

I stopped reading your post as soon as you said that they believe that the pope is is a demi god evn tho they dont admit it so wat your saying is they believe this even tho they don't believe this its kinda silly
all i really have to say is that christeanity is the beliefe in Jesus so since catholics do they are the end oh and dont forget what teh very first Christian religion was...catholacism

megk

15-Mar-2005, 04:00 PM

The first Christians were not Catholic. The first Christian religion could be called 'The Way' that is how Paul refered to it. If you want to see how the church was organized read from Acts on. Acts was the birth of Christianty.

Kinjiro Tsukasa

15-Mar-2005, 04:18 PM

Even if that is true, that is worship.
The one thing doesn't follow the other. The President of the United States has an elevated status over me, but I don't worship him! The British queen has an elevated status over me; I don't worship her, either! :D

It appears that the twenty four elders and the four living creatures offer our prayers, not the saints, since we are the saints.
You don't think those elders are saints? :confused:

God cannot both hear our prayes as say them AND require an intercessory.
God doesn't require an intercessor. He doesn't forbid it, either. Asking a person to pray for you doesn't violate Christ’s unique role as mediator between God and man. Do you really think it is wrong to say to a friend or relative "Please say a prayer for me"? The saints in heaven are our friends, as alive in Christ as anyone on Earth.

The prevailing thought is that accepting Jesus should be a choice and that splashing water on a childs head does not FORCE the Holy Spirit into it. It seem odd that God would go out of his way to give us free will, and then command The Church to take that away.
Like I said, there are some differences in what Catholics and Protestants believe is happening in Baptism. Catholics believe that baptism is a lot more than just a public manifestation of a person's conversion. Check out Luke 18:15-16; Jesus said to bring the infants to him -- it didn't matter that these infants were too young to make a conscious decision.

The RC Churrch recently did away with purgatory. Or at least they gave that impression.
The teaching is still in place, so I think you got some misinformation. ;)

Kinda like they thinned out some of the saints a few years back.
In the early centirues of the church, there was no formal canonization process, and some people were venerated about whom not enough was known. This "thinning out" was simply declaring that not enough is known about St. <fill in the blank>. Read AZeitung's post (above yours); he gives a pretty good description. By the way, the name "Veronica" is Hebrew for "true face" or Latin for "true image" (depending on where you look), and it is thought that there could very well have been a woman who gave this assistance to Jesus on His walk to Calvary, even if we don't know exactly who she is. It's still OK to honor "St. Veronica". Worship her? No, we don't worship anybody but God! ;)

they get a special pass through the pearly gate even if they were secretly an axe murderer, or Jack the Ripper.
:D Funny, that is how many Catholics think of the "Once saved, always saved" philosophy -- that you can accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior, and you'll go to heaven, no matter what horrible crimes you commit afterwards. Catholics don't believe this. Of course, I may be misunderstanding the teaching, so feel free to explain!

ANd unlike my family, everone her has been extremely civil and downright respectful..
As a mod, I intend to keep it that way. ;) There is really no reason for different "flavors" of Christians to snipe at each other -- that makes Satan happy, not God. The divisions among Christians are unfortunate, but the cause of unity is never served by lashing out and spitting venom. Discussion is good, it's OK to disagree, but let's leave the hate and nastiness out! :)

I apologize that I do not know the specific books that are required reading. My sister had to become a Catholic to be married to her husband and she had a couple of books that were required reading. I think I may be thinking of the recited prayers that are required.
Marriage preparation programs vary all over the place; they're all different, so I'm not sure what the requirements are, but the Catechism is just a teaching aid -- it explains (in detail) what the Nicene Creed is all about, the sacraments, the commandments, living in Christ, etc. Nobody has to read it; it's just there for anyone who needs some explanations (if someone attends a theological seminary, do they only read the Bible, or do they read other writings as well?). As a matter of fact, you can become a Catholic even if you don't know how to read at all. Or if you're blind, and can only read books transcribed into Braille, or if you only read a language into which not many books have been translated.

Just one final, general comment -- it's important to get your information from a reliable source. I'm just picking a denomination at random here, but let's say I wanted to learn about the Lutheran Church, and what Lutherans believe. I would try to speak to a respected Lutheran Minister, or read a book by a reputable Lutheran scholar. Would I want to get my information from someone who hates the Lutheran Church? Of course not -- that would only guarantee my getting a lot of misinformation, or even outright fabrication.

But for some reason, when it comes to Catholicism, people seem perfectly willing to take information from sources who hate the Catholic Church, and who have a huge axe to grind with it. How can people who go to those sources believe they are getting any more than a tissue of lies?

There are some books and tracts (and I will not dignify the authors by mentioning any names) that are filled with so much garbage, and so many lies about the Catholic Church, as to be almost laughable. These are authors who have absolutely NO idea what they are talking about, and yet, this is where some non-Catholic Christians go for their information. It is like trying to learn about Judaism by asking Adolf Hitler, or learning modern astronomy from a book written in 1920 by someone who thinks the Earth is flat. You know the old saying, "garbage in, garbage out".

The most alarming thing about the most extreme anti-Catholic bashers and haters (and I am NOT talking about anyone here on MAP!) is that there is no evidence whatsoever of the love of Christ in them. They obviously choose to ignore Matt 22:39 and John 13:34-35, so why should we believe anything that comes out of their mouths (or pens)?

It would be comical, if it weren't so sad. The bad guy in the red suit loves to see people hating each other, and mocking each other's faith. As Christians, we should be above that (and not just with respect to other Christians, but towards all people, no matter what their beliefs).

Oh well, Jesus never said following Him would be easy, did He? ;)

AZeitung

15-Mar-2005, 04:53 PM

As far as...

INFANT BAPTISM:
1 Pt 3:21 is speaking of Noah and how cleansing came from the water. It goes on to talk about how water signifies a pledge that we have made to live a new life w/ christ. The end of the verse talks of the fact that our salvation lies in the resurection of Jesus Christ, not in the water.

And yet, the bible does support the idea of baptism for the dead. Do you practice that as well (this is evidence for purgatory, BTW and dates back to the time of Paul)?

Acts 2:38 States to "REPENT" and be baptised. As far as I know an infant that has no knowledge of the origional sin it was born with cannot then repent of it. Rentance always comes first. In every instance that we see baptism in the new testamnet repentance came first.

Infant baptism is not Biblical

PURGATORY:

1 Co 3:15 The fire that this verse speaks of is the fire of the refiner. The fires of trials. If your house is built on anything other then a solid foundation of Jesus Christ, you will fall under the trials. It is not speaking of Hell

Right.

or any other place. I would need many more scriptures to be convinced.

It's oral tradition that dates back to the early days of the church. Why does it need to be in the bible to be true? The bible itself admits that all the documents in existence couldn't contain everything Jesus said and did, and even at that, it only comprises a small portion of the total documents that were in existence at the time.

Besides, what reason do you have to believe that Cor 3:15, 1 Cor 15:29, and 1 Pet 1:7 *aren't* talking about purgatory, other than the fact that someone told you not to interpret it like that? Were those mentioned already? I can't remember.

If you want to talk about things with no biblical support, lets talk about the rapture - and no, I don't mean the second coming, I mean the specifically protestant part about the rapture.

As far as the evidence shown here. Purgatory is not Biblical.

USE OF THE BIBLE:

1 Co 11:2 Paul is talikng of his own teachings which are recorded in letter form which inturn became the NT.

2 Thess 2:15 Again this verse is talking of Authoritative words and teachings of Paul.

Check out Dt 4:2; Dt 12:32; Pr 30:6; Rev 22:19

I apologize that I do not know the specific books that are required reading. My sister had to become a Catholic to be married to her husband and she had a couple of books that were required reading. I think I may be thinking of the recited prayers that are required.

The prayers are part of religous education, yes, but most likely the required reading was because she was converting and didn't grow up with the religion. There are no books that are required reading. We do have the catechism, but you don't even have to read or own one. It's a good idea to get one, though.

CELEBACY:

The RC church does not allow there priests to be married. This is not Biblical.

Ok, on the first point, there actually is a married priest at my church in Naperville. He was a married protestant minister who converted to Catholicism.

But seriously, are you kidding about there being no biblical basis for this?
How about 1 Cor 7:6-7 and 1 Cor 7:37-38

In verses 6 and 7 Paul says "He that giveth in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better."

In verses 37-38, Paul is speaking of marriage
"But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment. For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that."

When he says "For I would that all men were even as I myself," he is speaking of his celibacy.

There are too many rules and regulations aside from what are commanded of us by Christ in the RC church. Rules and regulations that as far as I can see are man made.

Care to give an example?

Mt 23:3-9 ....They tie up heavy loads and put them on mens shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them...

I see the added burden on my Catholic brothers and sisters in Christ as unnecessary and even detrimental. I think that men are getting in the way of what can and should be between the Believer and Jesus.

The Bible is never contradictory.

Nobody said it was.

If you really believe in the parctices and ceremonies of the Catholic Church then you should be able to come up with many scriptures that support your doctrine. Especially if they are required ceremonies (sorry I don't know a better descriptive word).

Required cerimonies. . . you mean sacrements? Those would be
Baptism
Communion
Reconcilliation
Confirmation
Marriage/holy orders
Annointing of the sick

Which in particular do you have a problem with that you think aren't supported by the bible?

Please, if you have a specific practice/belief that you're attacking, come out and say it. So far, all I've heard are generalizations, like "Catholics have too many regulations". Which regulations are you talking about? How many is too many? Which ones shouldn't be practiced? If you can't give a specific practice or set of practices that you believe are wrong, your arguments don't hold a lot of water.

Now let me ask, on the basis of Sola Scriptura, where is evidence that slavery should not be practiced? The Catholic church condemned racial slavery in the 15th centruy as the work of Satan, but on the basis of scripture alone, it would seem there's no evidence for this. Is that another one of those things we have to try to back up, too?

edit:
It is like trying to learn about Judaism by asking Adolf Hitler

Thanks. You just gave me my new away message.

aikiMac

15-Mar-2005, 05:16 PM

And yet, the bible does support the idea of baptism for the dead. Do you practice that as well (this is evidence for purgatory, BTW and dates back to the time of Paul)?
The Bible supports baptism for the dead only if you want it to. You are now standing on the edge of that dangerous area of making the Bible say what you want it to say. I know the NT verse to which you refer. The Apostle Paul used baptism of the dead as an illustration of the illogical, irrational, silly, and plain mistakeness of a certain group of Christians on another issue. Paul did not encourage baptism of the dead. There are plenty of other Bible verses one could draw on to present an eminently reasonable argument that such practice would be very contrary to God's will.

Regarding infant baptism: this is a topic that I've gone round and round on. My initial Christian background was Lutheran. My present affiliation is Baptist. The two groups disagree strongly on the issue of baptism. I know all the arguments going both ways. For whatever reason, the Apostles were not clear on this issue in their writings. It's unfortunate, but we can't fix it now. The bottom line is that we don't know which side is more right. All we do know is that Christians are supposed to be baptized. Lutherans (and other baby-baptizers) practice "confirmation" for teens and adults. In practical effect, confirmation is the same as a Southern Baptist's teen or adult baptism. Going the other way, Baptists (and other non-baby-baptizers) have infant dedications. In practical effect, the dedication ceremony is the same as a Lutheran infant baptism.

So, (1) we don't know who is more right, but (2) in the end we do the same things anyway, just differently, and (3) we agree on that which is crystal-clear in the Bible: Christians are supposed to be baptised.

If you want to talk about things with no biblical support, lets talk about the rapture - and no, I don't mean the second coming, I mean the specifically protestant part about the rapture.
What is the "specifically protestant part" that you are asking about? I might know something about it.

AZeitung

15-Mar-2005, 05:33 PM

The Bible supports baptism for the dead only if you want it to. You are now standing on the edge of that dangerous area of making the Bible say what you want it to say. I know the NT verse to which you refer. The Apostle Paul used baptism of the dead as an illustration of the illogical, irrational, silly, and plain mistakeness of a certain group of Christians on another issue. Paul did not encourage baptism of the dead. There are plenty of other Bible verses one could draw on to present an eminently reasonable argument that such practice would be very contrary to God's will.

Ok, I'll admit, I don't know what the church's official position on this is, but I am really not getting what you said out of the passage I was talking about.

"Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be in all.

Otherwise, what will they do who are baptized for the dead, if the dead do not rise at all? Why then are they baptized for the dead?

And why do we stand in Jeopardy every hour?

I affirm, by the boasting in you which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily."

It doesn't sound like he's condemning anything as a silly mistake. That passage, to me, sounds like it completely supports the idea. Let me know what exactly you make of it, and then I'll go into more detail as to what I mean.

I have to eat lunch and go to class right now, so I won't be back for at least four hours.

Kinjiro Tsukasa

15-Mar-2005, 05:41 PM

It's oral tradition that dates back to the early days of the church. Why does it need to be in the bible to be true? The bible itself admits that all the documents in existence couldn't contain everything Jesus said and did, and even at that, it only comprises a small portion of the total documents that were in existence at the time.
Exactly. See 1 Cor 11:2, 2 Thess 2:15, and 2 Tim 2:2 (I already mentioned these in my post from yesterday, sorry for the repetition). Also, John 21:25.

Regarding the first verses of Matthew 23 ("placing the heavy burdens"), this refers to the Scribes and Pharisees. Here it is, in context (Matt 23:1-7):

Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples, saying, "The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses. Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice. They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on people's shoulders, but they will not lift a finger to move them. All their works are performed to be seen. They widen their phylacteries and lengthen their tassels. They love places of honor at banquets, seats of honor in synagogues, greetings in marketplaces, and the salutation 'Rabbi.'

I guess we could write a whole library of books on interpreting the Bible. :rolleyes:

Rev 22:19 -- It wasn't the Catholics who did that! ;)

aikiMac

15-Mar-2005, 05:46 PM

Ok, I'll admit, I don't know what the church's official position on this is, but I am really not getting what you said out of the passage I was talking about. ... It doesn't sound like he's condemning anything as a silly mistake.
We're talking about 1 Cor 15. Start at verse 12, and you'll get the context. For that matter, start at the beginning of the chapter.

Paul is arguing for the resurrection of the dead. For some unstated reason, the Corinthians didn't believe in the resurrection of the dead, yet here they were baptising dead people. Paul argues, beginning at verse 12, that (1) the dead will one day rise, and (2) the Corintian doubters were being downright illogical, downright ridiculous even.

Knight_Errant

15-Mar-2005, 06:33 PM

Sorry, but I couldn't resist this;
Is catholicism a chrstian religion?
Is the pope a catholic?

Kinjiro Tsukasa

15-Mar-2005, 06:36 PM

Is the pope a catholic?
Well, I hope so! :D

megk

15-Mar-2005, 06:55 PM

I do not think that Lk 18:15-17 can be applied to the practice of infant baptism. Lk is speaking to our faith, not our salvation.

I agree with you in that 'once saved always saved' is a dangerous idealogy. I do not believe that it is scriptural although there are many theologins out there that could make a good argument for it. I believe it is a dangerous as thinking that just because you were baptized your at two months old you will go to heaven.

AZ- as far as the oral tradition that supports purgatory. If I cannot support it by the Word of God I simply choose to not believe it. Check out the verses I already quoted on adding and subtracting from and to Gods Word.

My idealogy and doctrine are formed by taking the scripture and testing it against itself. If I only find one verse that supports my view or idea, I question my idea. I do use other books in my study, but I always test them by the word of God. If the Word doesn't support it, I want no part of it.

1 C0 7 is about marriage and yes Paul remained celebit. But he also said that if a man could not handle that life style then he should marry. Maybe I am wrong but I thought the RC Church did not allow priests to be married. I mean that is their stand on the issue is it not? Paul says to remain unmarried if you choose to.

My main issues with Catholic doctrine are as follows;

Salvation through infant Baptism, Salvation through Baptism period. (Am I wrong in that Catholics believe this?)

Communion being for only Catholics (I must admit I do not know if this is church by church or if it comes from Rome, but in Crystal Lake, IL. if you are not a Catholic you can not partake in communion) This doesn't even bring up the huge difference in what protestants and catholics believe the sacrements represent.

Praying to Mary as opposed to praying to Jesus. This is not the same as intercessory prayer to me. I pray to God and only to God, not to a saint not to Mary. When I intercede for someone i am still praying to Jesus on thier behalf. I am never praying to Mary to pray to Jesus. I don't get it?????

And, I know that the MT passage was about the scribes and pharisees, I was simply relating that phenomina to what I see happening in the RC church. I love the saying..."Keep it simple, stupid" I don't think belief in Jesus is supposed to be so complicated.

If you want to get into the rapture I'll go there...There are quit a few verses that touch on this topic. You will have to be more specific though. What exactly do you disagree with?

Also, I agree that as Christians we can have disagreements, we can be civil, and talk like the Brothers and Sisters that we are. It is simply stimulating to the mind to discuss our differences. The fact remains that we all love Jesus Christ. Amen?

Kinjiro Tsukasa

15-Mar-2005, 07:53 PM

Meg, maybe I can answer some of your questions.

My main issues with Catholic doctrine are as follows;

Salvation through infant Baptism, Salvation through Baptism period. (Am I wrong in that Catholics believe this?)
Yes, that is an incorrect belief. Salvation is through Jesus Christ.

Communion being for only Catholics (I must admit I do not know if this is church by church or if it comes from Rome, but in Crystal Lake, IL. if you are not a Catholic you can not partake in communion) This doesn't even bring up the huge difference in what protestants and catholics believe the sacrements represent.
That difference is the very reason that non-Catholics are not supposed to receive Communion in a Catholic Church.

Here's the official word on receiving Communion:

"We welcome our fellow Christians to this celebration of the Eucharist as our brothers and sisters. We pray that our common baptism and the action of the Holy Spirit in this Eucharist will draw us closer to one another and begin to dispel the sad divisions which separate us. We pray that these will lessen and finally disappear, in keeping with Christ’s prayer for us ‘that they may all be one’ (John 17:21).

"Because Catholics believe that the celebration of the Eucharist is a sign of the reality of the oneness of faith, life, and worship, members of those churches with whom we are not yet fully united are ordinarily not admitted to Communion. Eucharistic sharing in exceptional circumstances by other Christians requires permission according to the directives of the diocesan bishop and the provisions of canon law. . . . "

Well, to make a long story short, to receive Communion in a Catholic Church indicates that you share the Catholic belief of exactly what Communion is (Mark 14:22-24, Luke 22:14-20); those who don't share the belief should not receive Communion. (1 Cor 11:29). Incidentally, there is absolutely no shame or stigma attached to being a guest at a Catholic Mass (church service), and not going up for Communion. Another "incidentally", is that non-Christians are also welcome to come to Mass, although they can't receive Communion, either.

Praying to Mary as opposed to praying to Jesus. This is not the same as intercessory prayer to me. I pray to God and only to God, not to a saint not to Mary. When I intercede for someone i am still praying to Jesus on thier behalf. I am never praying to Mary to pray to Jesus. I don't get it?????
The simplest way to explain this is to suppose you went to your best friend and said "<friend's name>, will you please say a prayer for me?" Substitute "Mary" for "friend's name", and that's all "praying to Mary" is. Incidentally, Catholics do pray directly to God (in any one or more of the three persons: God the Father, Jesus the Son, and the Holy Spirit -- I haven't opened up a can of worms here by mentioning the Trinity, have I? ;) ),and are never obligated to ask anyone else, either living, or in Heaven, to pray for them.

I don't think belief in Jesus is supposed to be so complicated.
It isn't, really -- it's just that there is so much in the Bible, that there is a lot to talk about. :)

Also, I agree that as Christians we can have disagreements, we can be civil, and talk like the Brothers and Sisters that we are. It is simply stimulating to the mind to discuss our differences. The fact remains that we all love Jesus Christ. Amen?
I agree, and learning more about each other's beliefs is always a good thing. Anything that will lessen division is good, and bring about unity. John 17:21

aikiMac

15-Mar-2005, 08:13 PM

The simplest way to explain this is to suppose you went to your best friend and said "<friend's name>, will you please say a prayer for me?" Substitute "Mary" for "friend's name", and that's all "praying to Mary" is.
But why do you believe that Mary and any other dead saint can hear your prayers? That's the part that I don't understand.

Various Protestant groups also have closed communion, for the reason stated in 1 Corinthians.

Kinjiro Tsukasa

15-Mar-2005, 08:57 PM

But why do you believe that Mary and any other dead saint can hear your prayers? That's the part that I don't understand.

Basically, because we don't believe they're truly dead. The corporeal bodies of the saints in Heaven may be dead, but their souls are as alive as yours and mine. They are still part of the Body of Christ. I'm just curious here, why do you believe they can't hear us?

AZeitung

15-Mar-2005, 09:05 PM

We're talking about 1 Cor 15. Start at verse 12, and you'll get the context. For that matter, start at the beginning of the chapter.

Paul is arguing for the resurrection of the dead. For some unstated reason, the Corinthians didn't believe in the resurrection of the dead, yet here they were baptising dead people. Paul argues, beginning at verse 12, that (1) the dead will one day rise, and (2) the Corintian doubters were being downright illogical, downright ridiculous even.

See, I'm getting something slightly different - the Corinthians aren't beleiving in the ressurrection of the dead, so Paul says "why baptise the dead if they won't be ressurrected?" It sounds to me like baptising the dead is an argument *for* ressurrection, not that ressurrection prohibits baptism after death.

He makes arguments like this:

If it is preached that Christ was raised from the dead, how do you argue against it?
If there is no ressurrection of the dead, why baptise the dead?

I can't find a part in there where he's arguing against baptising the dead. Honestly, I'm really trying to look objectively, because this is something that I'd never even heard of (or at least remembered, anyway) until I was looking through some of the verses posted today and came across this one.

The simplest way to explain this is to suppose you went to your best friend and said "<friend's name>, will you please say a prayer for me?" Substitute "Mary" for "friend's name", and that's all "praying to Mary" is. Incidentally, Catholics do pray directly to God (in any one or more of the three persons: God the Father, Jesus the Son, and the Holy Spirit -- I haven't opened up a can of worms here by mentioning the Trinity, have I? ;) ),and are never obligated to ask anyone else, either living, or in Heaven, to pray for them.

Exactly. I just want to add, the Hail Mary ends with
"Holy Mary, mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen." Not "Holy Mary, mother of God, save us sinners yourself."

Sorry, but I couldn't resist this;
Is catholicism a chrstian religion?
Is the pope a catholic?

To answer your questions, is the pope Polish?

aikiMac

15-Mar-2005, 09:19 PM

Basically, because we don't believe they're truly dead. The corporeal bodies of the saints in Heaven may be dead, but their souls are as alive as yours and mine. They are still part of the Body of Christ. I'm just curious here, why do you believe they can't hear us?
The living Body of Christ cannot read thoughts and cannot hear voices from miles away. I have no reason whatsoever to believe we gain these super powers at death. The very suggestion is a flight of fancy. There, I said it.

AZeitung

15-Mar-2005, 09:25 PM

So, just how many miles away is Heaven exactly, anyway :D
But in all seriousness, I really do tend to think that the laws of physics don't apply in the afterlife. Besides, weren't there some pasages quoted from revelations that indicate the dead could hear us?

If you want to get into the rapture I'll go there...There are quit a few verses that touch on this topic. You will have to be more specific though. What exactly do you disagree with?

Jesus creating a worldly kingdom on earth.

Kinjiro Tsukasa

15-Mar-2005, 09:25 PM

The living Body of Christ cannot read thoughts and cannot hear voices from miles away. I have no reason whatsoever to believe we gain these super powers at death. The very suggestion is a flight of fancy. There, I said it.
God enables it. No super powers involved.

aikiMac

15-Mar-2005, 09:28 PM

God enables it. No super powers involved.
But where does this belief come from? What is the basis?

AZeitung -- regarding 1 Cor 15, you are right that Paul did not explicitely argue against baptizing the dead. But neither did he say it was a good thing. As I said before, he used the Corinthians' present practice (verse 29 is in the present tense, indicating that the Corinthians were doing it at that time) as an argument against their unbelief on the resurrection issue.

That the very practice of baptizing the dead is ineffectual is a conclusion drawn from other Bible passages.

aikiMac

15-Mar-2005, 09:31 PM

Besides, weren't there some pasages quoted from revelations that indicate the dead could hear us?
The highly reasonable interpretation of those passages is that the prayers therein were said to God.

Jesus creating a worldly kingdom on earth.
:eek: x a million and 3

You can't be serious. Dude, come on, read the Old Testament.

Kinjiro Tsukasa

15-Mar-2005, 09:33 PM

But where does this belief come from? What is the basis?
Same question -- where does your belief come from that they can't hear us? What basis?

(We're getting nowhere fast with this one, aren't we? ;) )

AZeitung

15-Mar-2005, 09:34 PM

But where does this belief come from? What is the basis?

AZeitung -- regarding 1 Cor 15, you are right that Paul did not explicitely argue against baptizing the dead. But neither did he say it was a good thing. As I said before, he used the Corinthians' present practice (verse 29 is in the present tense, indicating that the Corinthians were doing it at that time) as an argument against their unbelief on the resurrection issue.

But I don't see any indication that it's a bad thing either. It seems to be lumped into the same catagory as preaching that Jesus was resurrected, which we all know is a good thing.

What I want to know is where are there any negative connotations associated with this practice.

That the very practice of baptizing the dead is ineffectual is a conclusion drawn from other Bible passages.

Well, I don't know anyone that actually *does* baptize the dead, since most likely, if you're Christian, you would have been baptized in life. It's just that it actually seems to be presented in a positive light in those passages. Is there some other place where Paul indicates that it's a bad thing to do?

AZeitung

15-Mar-2005, 09:40 PM

The highly reasonable interpretation of those passages is that the prayers therein were said to God.

:eek: x a million and 3

You can't be serious. Dude, come on, read the Old Testament.

Oops, sorry, I don't know why I wrote that like that. I meant to say first of all that I'm not too sure about the thousands years time span of the reign and how exactly the kingdom is going to work. Also, I wanted to add that there's that thing about the good people getting "raptured" away and the rest being left with Christ on earth? Isn't that how it goes.

edit: I know the bible says some will be taken away and some left behind, but does it say that those left behind are left in this peaceful kingdom on earth?

Sorry, I've been trying to respond to this thread while reading through my thermodynamics textbook. I've been getting very sloppy.

edit again:
to put it more succinctly

The end of days, Christ returns, judges the living and the dead, God's kingdom with all the saints begins, no more purgatory, we all get our bodies back and the living saints are transformed to be in the kingdom too. The bad guys go to hell. The end.

edit one last time: I did some research on google, and apparently protestants who believe in a amillenial, post-tribulation rapture believe more or less the same thing as Catholics. I think that's basically what I was describing, so maybe that will clear things up.

aikiMac

15-Mar-2005, 10:14 PM

Same question -- where does your belief come from that they can't hear us? What basis?
(We're getting nowhere fast with this one, aren't we? ;) )
I was being serious. I asked a truly honest question with a truly sincere heart. If you don't have an answer, fine, you don't have an answer. I don't have an answer for every question either.

Starting now I assume that you don't have an answer. Subject closed. My position is based upon what I perceive to be obvious facts: (1) the physiology of all living people, and (2) my inability to find plain support for your position in the Bible.

But I don't see any indication that it's a bad thing either. ... Is there some other place where Paul indicates that it's a bad thing to do?
You are right that in that Corinthians passage Paul does not come out and say it's a bad thing. But consider:

1) Hebrews -- you die once and then the judgment. (I could look up the verse later)

2) Jesus' story (parable or true event, I'm not sure) about Lazarus and the unnamed Rich Man -- the Rich Man had no opportunity to repent after he died

3) None of Jesus' many parables about "the kingdom of heaven is like ..." give even a hint of a second chance after death.

4) John the Baptist seemed pretty concerned about repentance here and now.

5) The preaching of Peter and John in the early chapters of Acts offer no hint of a second chance after death.

6) Paul's presentation of the gospel in Romans offers no second chances to dead people.

7) No OT prophet hints at a second chance after death. Rather, the OT prophets take the attitude that you die and that's that.

8) 1 Cor 15 begins with Paul basing his entire message, the whole of everything that he preached, upon the Old Testament.

Catholics (and some other Christian groups) believe that baptism imparts saving faith upon the person being baptized. Well, considering everything above, I can in no way believe, even a little bit, that dead people can benefit from saving faith that arises after death. I am forced to believe that once you die, it's too late. Your fate is sealed. Consequently, I can not believe, even a little bit, that Paul approved of baptizing dead people.

aikiMac

15-Mar-2005, 10:27 PM

I meant to say first of all that I'm not too sure about the thousands years time span of the reign and how exactly the kingdom is going to work. Also, I wanted to add that there's that thing about the good people getting "raptured" away and the rest being left with Christ on earth? Isn't that how it goes.

edit: I know the bible says some will be taken away and some left behind, but does it say that those left behind are left in this peaceful kingdom on earth?

edit again:
...
The end of days, Christ returns, judges the living and the dead, God's kingdom with all the saints begins, no more purgatory, we all get our bodies back and the living saints are transformed to be in the kingdom too. The bad guys go to hell. The end.

edit one last time: I did some research on google, and apparently protestants who believe in a amillenial, post-tribulation rapture believe more or less the same thing as Catholics. I think that's basically what I was describing, so maybe that will clear things up.
There is no one answer to these questions. Protestants disagree. There are four broad theories: pretrib, midtrib, posttrib, and no trib (amillenial). There are sub-divisions under these broad catagories.

My understanding is that the protestant amillenial view is the same as the Catholic view.

The OT is crystal-clear that there will be a kingdom of God, and Jesus will sit as king of the whole kingdom. The open question is how and when we get there, and whether it begins with an earthly kingdom or not.

The NT is crystal-clear that a rapture will occur. Definition: Jesus comes back, dead Christians rise from the grave and meet him in the sky, living Christians follow on their heels. The open question is when, and how closely in time does the final judgment follow the rapture.

My view is, of course, the correct view. :D I believe in a pre-wrath rapture. It's a variant of the midtrib position. But whichever view you take, only Christians will be raptured. And those left behind will not experience a peaceful time. Quite the opposite. If you believe in pretrib or midtrib, those left behind will suffer through the tribulation. If you believe in posttrib or no trib, those left behind are left behind to face God's sentence on them of hell.

Kinjiro Tsukasa

15-Mar-2005, 10:48 PM

I was being serious. I asked a truly honest question with a truly sincere heart. If you don't have an answer, fine, you don't have an answer. I don't have an answer for every question either.

Starting now I assume that you don't have an answer. Subject closed. My position is based upon what I perceive to be obvious facts: (1) the physiology of all living people, and (2) my inability to find plain support for your position in the Bible.
Sorry if I seemed a little snippy there; I didn't mean to be. But, since you're asking me to support my views from scripture verses, I think you should be prepared to do the same. ;) The burden of proof is more on you than on me, since The Catholic Church never claimed to be a "sola scriptura" church.

In any event, I don't believe that Earthly physiology is any factor in Heaven (makes sense, since those who go to Heaven leave their corporeal bodies behind); nor do I believe there are any limits on what God can accomplish.

Saints (in Heaven) have the beatific vision of God; they can "see" or "hear" whatever God wishes them to. They are plenty aware (1 Cor 13:12, Ps 103:20-21).

I don't know if we'll really get very far trading Bible verses, since we seem to have different interpretations of them. I go by my Church's interpretation, as I don't necessarily trust private interpretation (2 Peter 1:20-21).

Well, this is all from me for tonight, because it's late, and I have to go home.

Peace be with you, and God bless!

aikiMac

15-Mar-2005, 10:59 PM

That's actually a good enough answer. Thanks.

megk

17-Mar-2005, 03:56 PM

aikiMac

17-Mar-2005, 04:25 PM

OK, As far as communion. From the scripture you refrenced I have no disagreement with you. I believe that the Catholic church believes that once the sacrements are taken they actually become the flesh and blood of Christ. I in no way believe this. I believe that the sacrements simply represent the new covenant through Jesus' death on the cross. We are commanded to partake in communion to remember the cross, to remember the redeemer.

As far as 1 Co 11:29 I believe this verse is a severe warning to believers to take the communion very seriously. I can't say much to other Protestant churches having closed communion. I don't know of any.

I suppose it's the attitude behind the RC position on Communion that rubs me the wrong way, that in some way, I am not a Christian and do not deserve to share in communion. Again, I see no biblical basis for this belief.
Let me play the other side for a moment.

Is communion for non-Christians? No. The answer is no. Next question: Who is a Christian? Well, I don't know. I posed a definition this week in another thread. Let's suppose my definition was right. Communion wasn't in my definition. Therefore, it doesn't matter what you think. But you're a Christian, right? And you're at this church where communion is being offered, right? Then why don't you join the church? If you're a Christian, and you're there, then what's stopping you from joining this Christian church?

Now you can participate in communion.

Okay, maybe you were on a road trip. Well, if you're just passing through, then what's your problem? There's no need to complain. You'll be gone tomorrow. Furthermore, I think you can appreciate the pastor's position of not letting non-members participate. If you're not willing to join this church, then how does he know that you are a Christian? This problem that the pastor faces is greatly magnified if you're just passing through town because the pastor knows even less about you! How does he know that a visitor is a Christian??!!

Again, if the bible does not support it I will not put my Faith in it.
...
And as far as the saints in heaven being able to see and hear...The verses refrenced would have to be stretched to the max, if not misinterpreted to support your argument that the saints can and do hear our prayers to them and then proceed to interceed for us.
Ah, but the question now is, how shall we interpret particular passages of the Bible? There is a great deal that all Christian groups agree on. The parts left over are probably not important, are they?

Are you a Calvinist? If not, why not? John Calvin knew the Bible quite well. Are you a Lutheran? If not, why not? Luther almost single-handedly translated the entire Bible. He knew the Bible inside out, but he did not believe in a millenial kingdom. He did not believe in a seven-year tribulation. Hmmm. This is an issue that I have sweated over for a long time. Sometimes it keeps me awake at night.

I understand that you would follow the churches teachings and interpretation, but let me just point out that the Bible was meant to be read by every believer, and the Holy Spirit is extremely capable of giving each and every believer a knowledge of the scriptures.
Correct, but, the non-sola scriptura position is not without some rational basis. Jesus didn't write anything down, and the Apostles did not write everything that they learned nor everything that they taught. Some material was passed on orally. Perhaps -- and I leave it as a perhaps -- some of the important teachings were passed on orally. And perhaps this includes interpretations of written material. If this is so, then the idea of following the teachings of learned priests is a good idea.

The question now is, how do we trust what these priests teach today, nearly 2000 years after the Apostles and the Apostles' direct students died off? Hmmm. That is a really, really important question.

Me, I feel far more comfortable going back to that which they did record for posterity: the Bible. They wrote it because it mattered, and I have every faith that what they wrote has not been altered. That is sufficient for me.

megk

17-Mar-2005, 04:42 PM

Let me play the other side for a moment.

Is communion for non-Christians? No. The answer is no. Next question: Who is a Christian? Well, I don't know. I posed a definition this week in another thread. Let's suppose my definition was right. Communion wasn't in my definition. Therefore, it doesn't matter what you think. But you're a Christian, right? And you're at this church where communion is being offered, right? Then why don't you join the church? If you're a Christian, and you're there, then what's stopping you from joining this Christian church?

Now you can participate in communion.

Okay, maybe you were on a road trip. Well, if you're just passing through, then what's your problem? There's no need to complain. You'll be gone tomorrow. Furthermore, I think you can appreciate the pastor's position of not letting non-members participate. If you're not willing to join this church, then how does he know that you are a Christian? This problem that the pastor faces is greatly magnified if you're just passing through town because the pastor knows even less about you! How does he know that a visitor is a Christian??!!

Ah, but the question now is, how shall we interpret particular passages of the Bible? There is a great deal that all Christian groups agree on. The parts left over are probably not important, are they?

Are you a Calvinist? If not, why not? John Calvin knew the Bible quite well. Are you a Lutheran? If not, why not? Luther almost single-handedly translated the entire Bible. He knew the Bible inside out, but he did not believe in a millenial kingdom. He did not believe in a seven-year tribulation. Hmmm. This is an issue that I have sweated over for a long time. Sometimes it keeps me awake at night.

Correct, but, the non-sola scriptura position is not without some rational basis. Jesus didn't write anything down, and the Apostles did not write everything that they learned nor everything that they taught. Some material was passed on orally. Perhaps -- and I leave it as a perhaps -- some of the important teachings were passed on orally. And perhaps this includes interpretations of written material. If this is so, then the idea of following the teachings of learned priests is a good idea.

The question now is, how do we trust what these priests teach today, nearly 2000 years after the Apostles and the Apostles' direct students died off? Hmmm. That is a really, really important question.

Me, I feel far more comfortable going back to that which they did record for posterity: the Bible. They wrote it because it mattered, and I have every faith that what they wrote has not been altered. That is sufficient for me.

Wow! you did a good job playing the other side. Communion is a serious thing. If I were traveling and wanted to take communion I would. I would take 1 Co 11:29 into account and make sure I was serious about what I was doing. It is not anyone elses business as to whether I am a Christian or not. I am not asking to teach sunday school or lead worship. I am simply wanting to remember my Savior. I do not need to be a member of a particular church to remember my Savior. If a Pastor wants to put forth a warning before communion is presented then thats fine. My Pastor always requests that the person be a believer in Jesus Christ. Jesus can judge whether I am or not, it is not for a Priest or Pastor to say.

I agree that the Rapture and the end times events are a confussing issue. I have interpreted the scriptures as I see the Holy Spirit leading me. I may be off base in certain details, but the fact remains the same, Jesus is coming back, and I am going to be prepared.

As far as non-sola scriptura...If it ain't in the Bible I will not rest my Faith in it. Men are incredibly flawed, I am not going to trust something that is not in the Word of God. 2 Ti 3:16 "all scripture is God breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness..." I can not get the same kind of gauruntee from the word of a Catholic Priest. The Bible is the authority.

aikiMac

17-Mar-2005, 05:07 PM

It is not anyone elses business as to whether I am a Christian or not. I am not asking to teach sunday school or lead worship. I am simply wanting to remember my Savior. I do not need to be a member of a particular church to remember my Savior. If a Pastor wants to put forth a warning before communion is presented then thats fine. My Pastor always requests that the person be a believer in Jesus Christ. Jesus can judge whether I am or not, it is not for a Priest or Pastor to say.
Ahh, but it is the job of a pastor/priest to protect people. Wrongly taking communion is a bad thing, we can all agree. "Closed communion" is a guaranteed way to weed out a lot of people who ought not take communion --> protection of people --> the pastor is doing his job.

Yes, he'll get some false negatives. But I can't fault a pastor for doing so when his motivation is to protect people from misusing communion. Sometimes judgement calls are hard to make. I think this is one of those hard decisions where no answer is clearly right and no answer is clearly wrong, but you have to pick something. :bang:

As far as non-sola scriptura...If it ain't in the Bible I will not rest my Faith in it. Men are incredibly flawed, I am not going to trust something that is not in the Word of God. 2 Ti 3:16 "all scripture is God breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness..." I can not get the same kind of gauruntee from the word of a Catholic Priest. The Bible is the authority.
That is a very strong argument.
But we all rely on the advice of other commentators, right? So how do we choose which commentators to follow? Grrrr! Questions! :bang:

AZeitung

17-Mar-2005, 05:21 PM

As far as non-sola scriptura...If it ain't in the Bible I will not rest my Faith in it. Men are incredibly flawed, I am not going to trust something that is not in the Word of God. 2 Ti 3:16 "all scripture is God breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness..." I can not get the same kind of gauruntee from the word of a Catholic Priest. The Bible is the authority.

You believe the bible because it says that it is correct. The Catholic church also says that it is correct. You implicitly trust one, because of its own words, but not the other. There's really no more reason to have faith in the bible's claims to accurracy than the church's. You've just decided to trust one but not the other, which is fine, but it's not like the bible's assertions of its own correctness make it any more reliable than the church's assertions of its own correctness.

Who were the ones who put together the bible? Who decided which books to include and which to reject? It wasn't until Constantine made Christianity the official religion of the empire that it became organized and unified. Ultimately, it was the Catholic church that tried to weed out the false traditions and Gospels from the true ones. You've chosen to accept the written words that the church chose to keep in the form of the bible, but none of the other traditions that weren't placed into the bible, but agreed upon by that same group of people. Sure, the bible may be the word of God, but are we really to believe that it's every word he ever said? If so, He must not be a very talkative fellow.

I have faith in the church as the living body of Christ, not just one of the documents that it put together.

megk

17-Mar-2005, 05:24 PM

Agreed that the Pastor's job it to "shpherd". But, isn't a Pastor shepherding his flock if he clearly states how detrimental it is to take communion under false pretenses? He then leaves the question up to the believer or non-believer. Again, there is no scriptural evidence of anyone being excluded from communion, atleast non that I have found. The verse that might be quoted here would be the verse about it being better to have a milestone tied around your neck and be thrown into the sea then to lead one of these children into sin. I believe this is specific to misuse of the word of God and doctrine.

I wouldn't say that I rely on a commentator. I read a version of the Bible called The Thompson Chain Reference Bible in NIV. There are no commentaries in my Bible. It's the word of God only, I can link certain themes so as to understand them better but only in the context of the Bible. For instance if I wanted to do a study on the Judgement of Christ, I can look up all the scripture that contains anything regarding that question. it's actually very cool. I do read alot of history, for example i am doing a new testemant survey right now. That simply helps me to put what was written into historical context. I guess what I am getting at is it's always better to study the Word yourself as opposed to leaning heavily on comentaries or Priests. I am sure you would agree.

For any of my Catholic Brothers out there, I have a question about the belief that Mary ascended into heaven??? Where does this belief come from.

AZeitung

17-Mar-2005, 05:31 PM

That's why it's called the assumption, because we assume that she's in heaven.

But seriously, Apostolic tradition, and see my above post.

megk

17-Mar-2005, 05:35 PM

You believe the bible because it says that it is correct. The Catholic church also says that it is correct. You implicitly trust one, because of its own words, but not the other. There's really no more reason to have faith in the bible's claims to accurracy than the church's. You've just decided to trust one but not the other, which is fine, but it's not like the bible's assertions of its own correctness make it any more reliable than the church's assertions of its own correctness.
The Bible has been tested and tried. It has prophetic power, it is living and active in our lives. To imply that the word of the Church should carry as much weight as the Word of God is scary to me. Not to speak of the fact that the word of the Church has indeed been wrong from time to time.

Who were the ones who put together the bible? Who decided which books to include and which to reject? It wasn't until Constantine made Christianity the official religion of the empire that it became organized and unified. Ultimately, it was the Catholic church that tried to weed out the false traditions and Gospels from the true ones. You've chosen to accept the written words that the church chose to keep in the form of the bible, but none of the other traditions that weren't placed into the bible, but agreed upon by that same group of people. Sure, the bible may be the word of God, but are we really to believe that it's every word he ever said? If so, He must not be a very talkative fellow.

I have faith in the church as the living body of Christ, not just one of the documents that it put together.

I agree that the early church has everything to do with the Canonization of the scripture but I think we can agree that from the early church to now things have changed slightly, and I don't mean the Bible.

And no, the Bible does not contain every word God ever spoke, it contains the words He wants us to know. Who are we to add or subtract from that word. I don't know, that seems a bit arrogant to me :confused:

I too have faith in the living body of Christ, but I am not comfortable calling the Bible a 'document that the church put together' :eek: The Bible has so much more to offer, it has so much more power then you give it credit for.

I believe that you are a Christian, do you believe that I am a Christian? :rolleyes:

megk

17-Mar-2005, 05:38 PM

That's why it's called the assumption, because we assume that she's in heaven.

But seriously, Apostolic tradition, and see my above post.

I thought it was called the ascension, and did Mary die and then go to heaven like everyone else or do Catholics believe something special happened to her? What do you mean by 'Apostolic Tradition'?

aikiMac

17-Mar-2005, 06:15 PM

Not to speak of the fact that the word of the Church has indeed been wrong from time to time.
Ding ding ding! We have a winner!
There's your answer, AZeitung. At specific points in time, specific teachings and practices of the Catholic Church have been demonstrably and objectively wrong as measured against the text of the Bible. The reason for this is simple: people are sinful --> corruption arises --> Church teachings become false.

(We could say the same about particular non-Catholic churches as well.)

It is for this reason -- the fact that sinners are corruptible and do make mistakes -- that Christian doctrine should and must always be measured against the text of the Bible. Commentaries are great. Every pastor uses commentaries, and every seminary student studies out of commentaries. But if you ever, ever, let commentaries rise above the text of the Bible, then you will inevitably and necessarily be led astray from the word and will of God.

megk

17-Mar-2005, 06:19 PM

Yeah...what he said ;)

AZeitung

17-Mar-2005, 09:19 PM

Ding ding ding! We have a winner!
There's your answer, AZeitung. At specific points in time, specific teachings and practices of the Catholic Church have been demonstrably and objectively wrong as measured against the text of the Bible. The reason for this is simple: people are sinful --> corruption arises --> Church teachings become false.

Church teachings don't become false. Occassionally, the church changes various rules, but not its teachings or traditions. There is a difference. For example, if the church changes its protocol on taking communion, that doesn't mean the old way of doing things was bad, or that communion is now believed to be something different from what it was, just that they feel doing it a different way emphasizes more important aspects of communion.

But Catholics don't really believe anything different than they did in the middle ages. It's just a matter of protocol. For example indulgences - Catholics still believe in the concept (from newadvent.org "an indulgence is a remission of the temporal punishment due to sin, the guilt of which has been forgiven."), the church just doesn't sell them anymore. The teachings of the church haven't changed as much as some people think, just the way the church goes about doing things.

(We could say the same about particular non-Catholic churches as well.)

It is for this reason -- the fact that sinners are corruptible and do make mistakes -- that Christian doctrine should and must always be measured against the text of the Bible. Commentaries are great. Every pastor uses commentaries, and every seminary student studies out of commentaries. But if you ever, ever, let commentaries rise above the text of the Bible, then you will inevitably and necessarily be led astray from the word and will of God.

Unfortunately, you're confusing commentary with tradition, the later being around since the beginning of the church and pieced together at the same time and in the same way as the bible (edit: although it is believed that Apostolic tradition was originally handed down from the apostles - I'm speakong only of it being *compiled* at the same time and in the same way that the bible was *compiled), and the later being something your somebody has written about the bible. The bible itself is subject to interpretation anyway, as evidenced by some of us saying it should be interpreted one way and some saying it should be interpreted another. And the source of those interpretations is generally tradition.

BTW, MegK

Mary - Assumption
Jesus - Ascention

wayofthedragon

17-Mar-2005, 10:31 PM

Just a few links on the topic

http://cnview.com/on_line_resources/the_truth_about_roman_catholics_final.htm

http://www.gotquestions.org/prayer-saints-Mary.html

http://www.remnantofgod.org/biblical.htm

AZeitung

17-Mar-2005, 11:59 PM

Thank you for those lovely, unbiased articles written by clearly intellegent people

Doesn't it strike you odd that there were no Christian religions for over 1500 years after Christ?

Capt Ann

18-Mar-2005, 04:27 AM

In defense of the Catholic church, I see several strengths.

First, the Roman Catholic Church tends to have a much deeper understanding of and appreciation for the "body of Christ" as the family of all saints from throughout history, both presently on earth and those now in heaven, than any Protestant denomination that I've encountered. This is the basis from which comes the belief in prayers to the saints.

[Aside: Personally, I don't see the need for the prayers to the saints in heaven....even asking them to pray for me.....Jesus said that if two or more agree on earth it shall be done for them, so I see a difference in asking a friend to pray with me on earth, as opposed to asking a friend/sister/brother in heaven to pray for/with me. I see praying in agreement on earth as inviting God into the middle of a situation where He has granted us the authority to seek or reject His intervention--intercession is when I ask God's will to be done on earth, as it already is in heaven.]

Whether or not you believe in prayers to saints in heaven, this does bring up an interesting question: Will we be able to see/hear/know events on earth as they unfold when we are in heaven? I think that we will, partly because of the scripture in Hebrews, where it talks about the "great cloud of witnesses" that surrounds us. While it's possible this is referring to angels (I've heard some commentators say this), I think that's highly unlikely, since in context, it's talking about all the saints who had gone before, and died in faith (Hebrews Ch 11, the "Faith Hall of Fame").

OK, Back to strengths of the Catholic Church:
Second, I think it is a strength to have some denominational hierarchy. While hierarchies can be unwielding, and slow, or can become corrupt, they also can protect individuals from wayward individual leaders who go astray. I have been in several different churches that had strong, charismatic individuals in leadership, with no outside accountability. The end result was very ugly: false teachings easily arose, decisions could be very arbitrary, with no opportunity or avenue for appeal, and a change in leadership (individual leader moving, leaving, or dying) could torpedo the whole local church. A hierarchy assures continuity of leadership, and some level of accountability.

Since I've been lurking on this thread for a while, please excuse me while I play 'catch-up' with a bunch of different topics that have come up recently.

As far as 'Sola Scriptura', I agree that it is, in all honesty, 'unscriptural'. There are no scriptures that I can think of that say that the Bible is the only source of truth or knowledge of God. In fact, "The heavens declare the glory of God....", "there is no languiage where their voice is not heard",...etc. It is clear from scripture, though, that the Bible is [i]sufficient[i] (See 2 Tim 3:15-17, and John 20:30-31) for salvation, for knowing who Jesus is, for growing in godly character, and for being equipped for every good work. Every Scripture is God-breathed (2 Tim 3:16). Unfortunately, we can't say the same thing for 'every tradition'. For that reason, I rely totally on the Bible, and will use it to judge other traditions, thoughts, ideas, concepts, etc., and keep what matches with the Bible, and throw out what contradicts the Bible.

As far as the idea that the church established what books would be in the Bible at the time of Constantine.....I disagree with this. Don't forget that the Jewish community also established what books would be in the OT, independently of the Christian community (interesting that they match so well, eh?). Also, the four Gospels were very well established as the only authentic Gospels by the middle of the 2nd century AD (Taitian used these four only in his "diatesseron"-- a translation of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, woven together into one chronological narrative, written about 150 AD). The Syrian, Indian, and Nestorian traditions, which were never part of the Roman tradition, used virtually the same NT (I think they left out Rev., and 2/3 John). Virtually everywhere else, the entire NT as we have it today was used from very early on.

OK, I started with two great strengths of the RC church, now please forgive me in advance for stating two weaknesses.

First, I see potential danger in the reliance on tradition as equal to or higher than scripture. While I agree that the traditions of the Apostles are good to keep and valid practice for churches today, I think it is dangerous to assume that those original apostolic traditions are embodied in the current traditions/practices of the Roman Catholic Church. Please forgive this very inadequate analogy, but I think that would be like me saying that the Tae Kwon Do I practice today is the same martial art that was practiced in the Shilla Kingdom in ancient Koryo, in 331 AD. That might be what the World TKD Federation says, but we all know it's just not so. The Roman and Greek churches split in the 5th century over the 'filioque': the Roman Catholic Church decreed that the Nicene Confession should say that the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Father and the Son", while the Greek Orthodox wanted it to stay the way it originally was written, "proceeds from the Father". We have historical evidence that the Greeks kept it the way it was originally. It is so sad that the largest church split in history was over something so minor, yet it shows how subtly simple changes happen in 'tradition' (and in this case, it was the Roman Catholic Church that changed the tradition).

Secondly, I am concerned about the whole issue of infallibility. I know there is a lot of misunderstanding about the topic (for those that don't know, the doctrine does not mean that the pope is never wrong, or that everything he says is prophetically speaking as if he were speaking for God--it means that certain official pronouncements on matters of faith and doctrine are absolutely correct, and these have been of a fairly small number, throughout history). However, I can walk into any group of Christians anywhere in the world and say that "there are some things I don't agree with about the <insert Protestant denomination name here> church," and no one would take offense. But if I say, "there are some things I disagree with about the Roman Catholic Church," there is an instant assault on the very heart of the authority of the church, because the doctrines I am questioning are held to be infallible. At its root, I suppose, this is related to the questions of tradition and the authority of the Bible, and whether one is more authoritative than the other. I use the Bible to judge tradition, and (I think?) the Catholic church tends to use tradition to interpret the Bible.

Well, I've filled my 'post quota' for today (and all in one post! Sorry for going on so long :( ). Just some food for thought. Eagerly awaiting your replies....

aikiMac

18-Mar-2005, 05:17 AM

Church teachings don't become false. Occassionally, the church changes various rules, but not its teachings or traditions.
...
But Catholics don't really believe anything different than they did in the middle ages. It's just a matter of protocol. For example indulgences - Catholics still believe in the concept (from newadvent.org "an indulgence is a remission of the temporal punishment due to sin, the guilt of which has been forgiven."), the church just doesn't sell them anymore. The teachings of the church haven't changed as much as some people think, just the way the church goes about doing things.

That's a distinction without a difference, dude.

Unfortunately, you're confusing commentary with tradition, ...
Maybe. But then, maybe all we know today about "tradition" by your definition is through some 1900 years of commentary, eh?

The bible itself is subject to interpretation anyway, as evidenced by some of us saying it should be interpreted one way and some saying it should be interpreted another. And the source of those interpretations is generally tradition.
More specifically, it's the choice of hermeneutic. Tradition is one way of choosing a hermeneutic.

AZeitung

18-Mar-2005, 09:06 AM

That's a distinction without a difference, dude.

Not really. Name one belief that you think has changed in the church.

Maybe. But then, maybe all we know today about "tradition" by your definition is through some 1900 years of commentary, eh?

We know what was written when the traditions were compiled.

You could say the same thing about the bible - all we know about the life of Jesus is commentary as well, most of which was probably written by people who had never even met him. And Genesis certainly wasn't dictated to Moses by God as some people claim, because there's pretty solid evidence of its development over time by different authors/editors.

If you're refuse to accept the ability of the early church to determine correct traditions, what makes you so sure about it's ability to determine the correct Gospels?

chib

18-Mar-2005, 10:18 AM

<bad language removed> ,Gods etc

polecat63

18-Mar-2005, 11:21 AM

Doesn't it strike you odd that there were no Christian religions for over 1500 years after Christ?

Wow. That is really interesting. I guess the 100,000 followers of Christ that lived in Jerusalem before it fell would be very upset to hear that. Not to mention the people in the churches of Corinth, Thesalonia, the Philippians, Ephesians, Hebrews and few other. Probably a few hundred thousand so called Christians all within 70 years of the death of Jesus. But I guess since the didn't use the term Christians at that point you could technically say they weren't Christians.
Isn't the internet great?!? You can spread lies, inuindo, rumor, suposition and repeat all the stuff you've heard but didn't bother to invetigate sooooo much faster now!

Kinjiro Tsukasa

18-Mar-2005, 03:24 PM

I suppose it's the attitude behind the RC position on Communion that rubs me the wrong way, that in some way, I am not a Christian and do not deserve to share in communion. Again, I see no biblical basis for this belief.
I think you may be reading some attitudes in there that don’t exist, or at least, are not supposed to exist. It isn’t that Catholics don’t think other Christians aren’t Christians, or that they aren’t good enough. Because of the significant difference in what we believe Communion represents, it is limited to those who believe the same. It would be the same if I attended a service in another Christian Church (and this can happen – special events, weddings, ecumenical services, etc.) – my church wouldn’t let me receive Communion there, not because the other church is “not Christian” or unworthy, but because it would be a sign that I share that Church’s belief In what Communion is – and I don’t.

I'm wondering, were you ever a guest in a Catholic Church, and someone made you fell “less than”, “not good enough” or “undeserving” for not being able to receive Communion? If anyone ever does that to someone, they are absolutely WRONG to do so.

It’s a funny thing – Catholics usually aren’t known for interpreting the Bible in a very literal way, but this is one instance where we do! :D

Incidentally, Catholic priests don't ask who is Catholic and who isn't. If you went up for Communion in a Catholic church, you wouldn't be refused unless you were wearing a big sign saying "I'm not Catholic". The policy is stated in the missalettes (books that show the scripture readings for each Sunday); it's up to the individual to follow it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Regarding Bible interpretation, I would hope that people are praying to the Holy Spirit for guidance when they read the Bible. Since there are so many different interpretations of the same verses, though, I have to believe that some people are actually being guided by the Spirit, and some may be “on their own” (since the Holy Spirit wouldn’t mislead anyone). This is where we could use the help of one of the more scientific-minded people reading this thread – design an experiment – take 20 different people, from 20 different denominations, all unknown to each other. Give each of them the same scripture (preferably an ambiguous one), ask them to pray to the Holy Spirit for correct interpretation, and then ask for their interpretation. I’d be interested to see whether all 20 versions would be the same (if each of the 20 was being guided by the Holy Spirit, the interpretations would be the same). Meanwhile, I’ll go with what my Church says so I don’t have to worry about that (I don’t have to ask anyone; there are footnotes in the Bible, at the end of each chapter – sort of like a study Bible -- these notes can be read or ignored, as you please; you don’t have to read them).

Incidentally, I like the idea of a chain reference Bible, with linkage of themes. My RSV Bible has a section that does this for the four Gospels, but it would be nice to have this for the whole Bible.

Regarding Mary, the Catholic Church doesn't have an official teaching on whether or not she died before being assumed into Heaven, or was just taken up, as were Enoch and Elijah. The subject of the Assumption could fill another whole post. ;)

Regarding the rapture, the Catholic position is closest to the “amillenial” group. Catholics believe in the gathering together with Jesus at the end times, although they rarely use the word "rapture" to describe this -- rather ironic, since the word "rapture" has Latin roots meaning "caught up", and appears in 1 Thess 4:17 in the old Latin Vulgate version of the Bible.

By the way, Capt Ann, welcome to this thread! :)

I will continue to pray for the divisions among Christians to be healed. I would also recommend that anyone reading this thread attend an ecumenical prayer service, if you have any available. We have them here, now and then. All Christian churches are invited to participate, and the priests and ministers develop a service that is suitable for all denominations of Christianity, and respectful to everyone’s beliefs. It’s really a wonderful experience.

aikiMac

18-Mar-2005, 04:01 PM

Regarding Bible interpretation, I would hope that people are praying to the Holy Spirit for guidance when they read the Bible. Since there are so many different interpretations of the same verses, though, I have to believe that some people are actually being guided by the Spirit, and some may be “on their own” (since the Holy Spirit wouldn’t mislead anyone). This is where we could use the help of one of the more scientific-minded people reading this thread – design an experiment – take 20 different people, from 20 different denominations, all unknown to each other. Give each of them the same scripture (preferably an ambiguous one), ask them to pray to the Holy Spirit for correct interpretation, and then ask for their interpretation. I’d be interested to see whether all 20 versions would be the same (if each of the 20 was being guided by the Holy Spirit, the interpretations would be the same).
Take Isaiah 11, as an example. Been done before. I promise you that the 20 people will not all give the same interpretation. But, simultaneously, I assert that it doesn't matter for Isaiah 11. No essential point of faith will be disputed.

Differences arise from different hermeneutics. Reformers, for example, follow a "literal-figurative" hermeneutic. They interpret direct passages literally, and they interpret figurative passages according to some spiritual meaning that fits with their two overriding beliefs: (1) The Church is Israel, and Israel is the Church; and (2) The purpose of God is the salvation of mankind.

Dispensationalists follow a literal hermeneutic: they interpret all passages literally, but allow for figures of speech. All figures of speech convey an underlying literal meaning; e.g., "It's raining cats and dogs" conveys the underlying literal meaning that it's raining hard, real hard. That underlying meaning is the one they try to pull out of the text. Dispensationalists pair this hermeneutic with their overriding beliefs that (1) The Church is not Israel; and (2) The purpose of God is to bring glory to himself.

Etc. etc.

Name one belief that you think has changed in the church.

The one you brought up: the selling of indulgences. I read the Luther biography "Here I Stand," and I graduated from a Lutheran high school. I'm pretty confident in my belief that the Roman Catholic church endorsed and promoted the selling of indulgences both for (1) the forgiveness of a future or past sin of the buyer, and (2) for the forgiveness of a dead person so that the dead person would get out of purgatory.

So, literally, in those days the church endorsed the belief that if I wanted to do some sin, I could buy an indulgence first, and then go off and do my sin, and God would be okay with that. No problems with God. Likewise, if I was rich enough, my friends and relatives absolutely definitely would not have to spend more than a day in purgatory. If I was rich enough. And if I gave my money to the Catholic Church. But if I was poor, they might be in purgatory a long, long time.

These teachings are blatantly contrary to the text of the Bible. And to the best of my knowledge, indulgences are not sold today anywhere. So, something did change within the Catholic Church.

You could jazz it up all you want and say the practice changed but the underlying teaching did not. Baloney. The practice was the teaching, the teaching was the practice. There is no meaningful difference between them.

I'll give you an example of an error that still exists: the dating of Easter. We've all read the Old Testament. We've all read the gospels. We all know that Jesus died at the Jewish Passover, and we all know that the Passover occurs on Nisan 14. Why change the day, huh? What's your problem that you have to change the day? More than that, why insist that other people follow your change or be labeled heretics? At the Council of Whitby, ~664 AD, the Celtic Christians had a choice: celebrate the Pope's Roman Easter or be kicked out of the Church as heretics.

The Pope was wrong, and that's that. There's no two ways about it. And here we are today, still foolishly celebrating Easter on the wrong day.

And Genesis certainly wasn't dictated to Moses by God as some people claim, because there's pretty solid evidence of its development over time by different authors/editors.
You are flirting with heresy now, dude. There is "solid" evidence only if you want to believe that line in the first place. Is it just my wrong impression, or do you indeed pick and choose which teachings of the Catholic Church to believe?

AZeitung

18-Mar-2005, 04:46 PM

Wow. That is really interesting. I guess the 100,000 followers of Christ that lived in Jerusalem before it fell would be very upset to hear that. Not to mention the people in the churches of Corinth, Thesalonia, the Philippians, Ephesians, Hebrews and few other. Probably a few hundred thousand so called Christians all within 70 years of the death of Jesus. But I guess since the didn't use the term Christians at that point you could technically say they weren't Christians.
Isn't the internet great?!? You can spread lies, inuindo, rumor, suposition and repeat all the stuff you've heard but didn't bother to invetigate sooooo much faster now!

You haven't been paying attention to the thread have you?
If the Catholic Church isn't Christian, and many of the same arguments can be used against the Orthodox churches, that means there was a huge time period when there were no Christians at all, excluding, perhaps, a little bit at the beginning of the Church - but they were practicing things like veneration of Saints long before the church was officially established in Rome, so I guess that time period is probably very very short.

I was being sarcastic, but maybe you're a bit slow to pick up on that. Please try to pay attention before you respond.

AZeitung

18-Mar-2005, 04:48 PM

You are flirting with heresy now, dude. There is "solid" evidence only if you want to believe that line in the first place. Is it just my wrong impression, or do you indeed pick and choose which teachings of the Catholic Church to believe?

Actually, the church doesn't care so much about the authorship of Gensis. We don't believe that it had to be dictated to a single man by God, like Muslim's believe Mohamed wrote the Koran for it to be divinely inspired. Heck my *bible* has evidence in it against Mosaic authorship. And as for the Gospels, I have never found an argument for apostolic authorship as strong as those I've found against it - but that's not important, because I believe that God's word was preserved through tradition and direct influence of the apostles on individual churches.

But the more important point is that you're chosing to trust people's judgement on the choice of books in the bible alone, while I think it's alright to trust their judgement on the traditions they chose to preserve as well, which are and have always been part of the Catholic church.

edit: and I'm not saying that no Catholics believe in apostolic authorship - a majority probably do - just that it's one of those things, like evolution, that's not really important.

The one you brought up: the selling of indulgences. I read the Luther biography "Here I Stand," and I graduated from a Lutheran high school. I'm pretty confident in my belief that the Roman Catholic church endorsed and promoted the selling of indulgences both for (1) the forgiveness of a future or past sin of the buyer, and (2) for the forgiveness of a dead person so that the dead person would get out of purgatory.

So, literally, in those days the church endorsed the belief that if I wanted to do some sin, I could buy an indulgence first, and then go off and do my sin, and God would be okay with that. No problems with God. Likewise, if I was rich enough, my friends and relatives absolutely definitely would not have to spend more than a day in purgatory. If I was rich enough. And if I gave my money to the Catholic Church. But if I was poor, they might be in purgatory a long, long time.

Actually, the idea is still pretty much the same.

See, originally, the church said, to be forgiven of sins, you should have to make some sort of worldly sacrafice to show that you're serious about being forgiven. That's not really a bad idea. Then someone got the idea that they could make money if they made the worldly sacrafice money. Eventually, they realized that the church using this idea just to make money wasn't a really good idea and stopped allowing people to buy their indulgences. But the practice is pretty much the same - you get an indulgences still exist, just not ones where you get them by paying the church. You would do other things, like prayer, as directed by a priest.

These teachings are blatantly contrary to the text of the Bible. And to the best of my knowledge, indulgences are not sold today anywhere. So, something did change within the Catholic Church.

You could jazz it up all you want and say the practice changed but the underlying teaching did not. Baloney. The practice was the teaching, the teaching was the practice. There is no meaningful difference between them.

I'll give you an example of an error that still exists: the dating of Easter. We've all read the Old Testament. We've all read the gospels. We all know that Jesus died at the Jewish Passover, and we all know that the Passover occurs on Nisan 14. Why change the day, huh? What's your problem that you have to change the day? More than that, why insist that other people follow your change or be labeled heretics? At the Council of Whitby, ~664 AD, the Celtic Christians had a choice: celebrate the Pope's Roman Easter or be kicked out of the Church as heretics.

That's only an error if you assume that the church actually believed Jesus to have died on the exact day they call Easter - although even that would depend on which calendar you use.

aikiMac

18-Mar-2005, 05:03 PM

Actually, the church doesn't care so much about the authorship of Gensis.
...
edit: and I'm not saying that no Catholics believe in apostolic authorship - a majority probably do - just that it's one of those things, like evolution, that's not really important.
As to the first, it flies against that which I've been told elsewhere, and I have a hard time believing that priests and bishops and the Pope don't care who wrote Genesis, or any other book.

As to the second, I can understand your point, but you picked a very poor example. The origin of mankind is exceedingly important.

I don't know what you mean by "apostolic authorship."

That's only an error if you assume that the church actually believed Jesus to have died on the exact day they call Easter - although even that would depend on which calendar you use.
You lost me there. All four gospels say he died at Passover. The date for Passover is given in the OT. Done deal.

AZeitung

18-Mar-2005, 05:40 PM

As to the first, it flies against that which I've been told elsewhere, and I have a hard time believing that priests and bishops and the Pope don't care who wrote Genesis, or any other book.

As to the second, I can understand your point, but you picked a very poor example. The origin of mankind is exceedingly important.

I don't know what you mean by "apostolic authorship."

You lost me there. All four gospels say he died at Passover. The date for Passover is given in the OT. Done deal.

Well, that's based on a lunar calendar, yes? So, if we go by the actual date on *our* calender now, the date would move a little bit from pasover every year. Plus with leap year and everything, today it would be getting shuffled around even more. Of course, the calendars weren't like ours back then, but the Romans probably didn't use a Jewish calendar either.

That being said, I don't think the church necesarrily tried to put Easter on the date of Jesus' death. Whatever the reasons, good or not, they chose some other day. It may not have been a mistake, so much as a decision to fill some other motives. Still, unless the church was claim was that Jesus didn't die at passover, I don't have a problem with that. (edit: now that I think about it, I seem to remember something about John, maybe, saying the day after passover, or before. Didn't it?)

Back to indulgences - I forgot to say that I suppose you actually are right about one thing - I didn't read your post as carefully as I should have because I have some things to do before I go home today for spring break, so I missed the part where you mentioned that it was possible to buy your indulgences ahead of time, which I don't remember my history well enough to say that's true for certain, but now that you mention it, it does ring a bell. But this was not part of the church's tradition, it was something added in during the middle ages/early Rennaissance.

There are things in the Catholic church that don't have to be done the way they are, and I'll admit to that. Like I said before, communion doesn't have to be done exactly the way we do it (what communion actually *is* on the other hand, is tradition and not subject to change. The ceremony and what is required of the priests/person recieving is a rule of the church subject to change. And the church does make distinctions like that when revising rules and mass.). And the church certainly has done things that weren't always in its best interests. But I think there are certain important traditions that can be traced back to the beginning of the church, or earlier that the church believes, and I believe, should be trusted.

Kinjiro Tsukasa

18-Mar-2005, 05:53 PM

I'll jump in the pool again, since there seem to be a lot of misconceptions about indulgences. OK, here goes:

1) Indulgences were never supposed to be sold. They were associated with giving alms to the poor. Yes, some people saw an "opportunity" and started to abuse the tradition. This was dealt with in 1567 by Pope Pius V. "Selling" indulgences was never part of official Catholic belief.

2) You can't buy forgiveness with indulgences -- forgiveness is assumed to already have taken place.

3) They were not invented as a source of money for the church -- that is simply not true.

4) You can't get indulgences "in advance" -- they have never applied to sins not yet committed.

5) You can't buy your way out of Hell with indulgences -- once you're in Hell, it is too late. The time to seek forgiveness is while you're still alive.

I've mentioned this before, but please be careful about what sources you use for information about the Catholic Church -- there are far too many really poor sources out there. Popular "knowledge" may be "popular", but it is often wrong.

aikiMac

18-Mar-2005, 06:03 PM

Well, that's based on a lunar calendar, yes? So, if we go by the actual date on *our* calender now, the date would move a little bit from pasover every year.
Not relevant. You must have heard of the Chinese New Year. I have firsthand knowledge that Koreans today track two calendars simultaneously, one lunar and one solar. And many calendars sold in stores today mark the eight big Jewish celebrations, which, we both know, are determined on a lunar calendar. If these other people can track lunar dates, we can track lunar dates too.

That being said, I don't think the church necesarrily tried to put Easter on the date of Jesus' death. Whatever the reasons, good or not, they chose some other day.
You got that right.

Back to indulgences ...
You can jazz it up all you want, but we both know that in the 1500's and thereabouts, the Catholic Church taught something false, and fixed it.

Edit:
This was dealt with in 1567 by Pope Pius V. "Selling" indulgences was never part of official Catholic belief.
The Church cleaned itself up in several respects as a result of the Lutheran controversy. I salute them for that.

But I think there are certain important traditions that can be traced back to the beginning of the church, or earlier that the church believes, and I believe, should be trusted.
Well, yes! Every Christian group would wholeheartedly agree with that.

AZeitung

18-Mar-2005, 06:15 PM

Not relevant. You must have heard of the Chinese New Year. I have firsthand knowledge that Koreans today track two calendars simultaneously, one lunar and one solar. And many calendars sold in stores today mark the eight big Jewish celebrations, which, we both know, are determined on a lunar calendar. If these other people can track lunar dates, we can track lunar dates too.

However, our calendar is more accurate than those calendars. If you want to know the actual position of the earth relative to the sun when Jesus died, it would most likely not fall on passover. So which one is correct? It all depends on how you define a year. And our definition of a year is better than the lunar one.

You got that right.

So you admit it wasn't a mistake, then.

Sorry forgot to finish that sentance the first time around.

You can jazz it up all you want, but we both know that in the 1500's and thereabouts, the Catholic Church taught something false, and fixed it.

Again, practice vs. tradition. Traditions remain, practices change. The church probably still doesn't think it's necessarily a bad thing to charge some kind of monetary amount as penance for sins and help out charity - its just too easy for people to start doing bad things and trying to squeeze as much money out of people a they can, then keeping it for themselves, instead of doing what they're supposed to do. Indulgences are only bad when it becomes more about ritual and profit than faith and reconcilliation with God. Turning a blind eye to a bad practice isn't the same as saying that church tradition supports an idea.

Well, yes! Every Christian group would wholeheartedly agree with that.

Than you and the Catholic church just have a different idea of which traditions are supposed to be preserved.

aikiMac

18-Mar-2005, 06:22 PM

However, our calendar is more accurate than those calendars. If you want to know the actual position of the earth relative to the sun when Jesus died, it would most likely not fall on passover. So which one is correct? It all depends on how you define a year. And our definition of a year is better than the lunar one.
I don't know what you just said.

Turning a blind eye to a bad practice isn't the same as saying that church tradition supports an idea.
That's where we disagree.

AZeitung

18-Mar-2005, 06:36 PM

I don't know what you just said.

Ok, we say that one year has passed when the earth has passed through a certain point with relation to the sun twice. When this happens, we say that it is the "same day" as it was a year ago.

This definition, however, is somewhat arbitrary. We choose to use this definition because it gives a high degree of seasonal consistancy, and because it can be meaningfully defined astronomically.

Older calendars, like lunar calendars, are often subject to a degree of interpretation, provide less seasonal consistancy, and not the same degree of astronomical consistancy except for the moon.

If we use the older, less precise calendar, after one year has gone by from passover, it's passover again, and is the "same day". If we use the newer, more precise, and more astronomically meaningful calendar, one year from passover is not passover again, and passover does not occur on the "same day" every year.

As it is, Easter doesn't fall on the "same day" every year either. Does this mean that we're Jesus died on a a "different" day every year? No - because our concepts of "same day" and "different day" are completely meaningless, and nearly arbitrary. The same day never comes around again. We could call a year 121 days if we wanted, and then Jesus would die three times a year.

If we actually want to celebrate the anniversary of Jesus death by our calendar, it wouldn't fall on Easter, but neither would it fall on passover.

That's where we disagree.

I think we're operating on different definitions of tradition, then. What the Catholic church believes to be an important part of its practices is my definition of tradition. The other stuff can be changed, and does get changed. The things that fall under my definition of tradition, though, don't get changed and never will. So for example, kneeling could theoretically stop being a part of mass. The veneration of saints would never stop being a practice of the church.

aikiMac

18-Mar-2005, 07:26 PM

No - because our concepts of "same day" and "different day" are completely meaningless, and nearly arbitrary. The same day never comes around again. We could call a year 121 days if we wanted, and then Jesus would die three times a year.

If we actually want to celebrate the anniversary of Jesus death by our calendar, it wouldn't fall on Easter, but neither would it fall on passover.

Not true, and not true. See Genesis: the sun, moon, and stars are there to track days and seasons. See Exodus and Leviticus: God defined a calendaring system based upon the movment of the moon, and he marked out certain days for his (God's) holidays.

Days are defined and chosen. Nisan 14 is neither meaningless nor arbitrary. None of the days marking the seven "Feasts of the Lord" are meaningless or arbitrary. You erase the Old Testament if you say otherwise.

You can use any calendar on top of that. I don't oppose solar calendars. But if we're talking about anything related to one of the "Feasts of the Lord" then come on, let's use the Lord's calendar.

Back to Easter -
Jesus rose from the dead on a Sunday. All four gospels say so. Under God's calendar, that day isn't always a Sunday. We all know that. But so what. If we want a Sunday, I would propose that we have an "Easter Observed" celebration. We have "Observed" celebrations for other holidays in the USA. We could observe Easter on the Sunday closest to the Passover. I don't see anything at all wrong with that. Unfortunately, that's not how the Pope defined the date for Easter that we follow today. Yes, even Baptists observe Easter on the same day that Catholic's observe Easter. We're all equally stupid this time.

The Roman Catholic Church did threaten to kick out the Celts for not following along with the Pope's Easter date. It's obviously a big deal for the Pope. (The Church was also upset with the way the Celtic priests cut their hair, or rather, didn't cut their hair.)

AZeitung

18-Mar-2005, 07:35 PM

Not true, and not true. See Genesis: the sun, moon, and stars are there to track days and seasons. See Exodus and Leviticus: God defined a calendaring system based upon the movment of the moon, and he marked out certain days for his (God's) holidays.

So, I take it you use the Jewish calendar, then?

What part specifically about what I said wasn't true? The sun and the moon define two different calendars, one which is more seasonally and astronomically consistant than the other.

Besides, we don't even celebrate passover anymore. If it's not important that we celebrate it, why does it matter where it is in relation to easter?

Days are defined and chosen. Nisan 14 is neither meaningless nor arbitrary. None of the days marking the seven "Feasts of the Lord" are meaningless or arbitrary. You erase the Old Testament if you say otherwise.

Do you think of Sunday as your day of rest, or Saturday?

You can use any calendar on top of that. I don't oppose solar calendars. But if we're talking about anything related to one of the "Feasts of the Lord" then come on, let's use the Lord's calendar.

Back to Easter -
Jesus rose from the dead on a Sunday. All four gospels say so. Under God's calendar, that day isn't always a Sunday. We all know that. But so what. If we want a Sunday, I would propose that we have an "Easter Observed" celebration. We have "Observed" celebrations for other holidays in the USA. We could observe Easter on the Sunday closest to the Passover. I don't see anything at all wrong with that. Unfortunately, that's not how the Pope defined the date for Easter that we follow today. Yes, even Baptists observe Easter on the same day that Catholic's observe Easter.

If it's that big of a deal why do you go along with it?

The Roman Catholic Church did threaten to kick out the Celts for not following along with the Pope's Easter date. It's obviously a big deal for the Pope. (The Church was also upset with the way the Celtic priests cut their hair, or rather, didn't cut their hair.)

Ah, but there maybe good reason for that. The Celtic priests often wore a druidic tonsure. I think it's understandable why the pope might not like that. The Celtic church was always a bit different, partly due to it's national/ethnic pride and dislike of outside authority, and partly because it had never experienced the persecution from pagans that was still remembered in Europe. The ties between the Celtic church and the druidic religions were closer than you might think. At least, according to Jean Markale and Geoffrey Ash (sp).

aikiMac

18-Mar-2005, 08:04 PM

So, I take it you use the Jewish calendar, then?

What part specifically about what I said wasn't true?
For picking the dates for the seven Feasts of the Lord I most certainly use the Jewish calendar. Easter is the Christian name for Passover/First Fruits, which are two of the Feasts of the Lord. Therefore, I use the Jewish calendar to find Easter.

I saw three things wrong with what you said:
1) "Our concepts of 'same day' and 'different day' are completely meaningless, and nearly arbitrary.
2) "The same day never comes around again. We could call a year 121 days if we wanted, and then Jesus would die three times a year."
3) "If we actually want to celebrate the anniversary of Jesus death by our calendar, it wouldn't fall on Easter, but neither would it fall on Passover."

As to #1, God defined days and he defined a calendaring system to keep track of those days. Ergo, days are neither meaningless nor arbitrary.
As to #2, Jesus died on a particular "Feast of the Lord" day. By #1, it's fixed on God's calendar, so it does come around again each year as measured by that calendar.
As to #3, Jesus' death would fall on Passover no matter what calendar you use. See #1 again.

Besides, we don't even celebrate passover anymore. If it's not important that we celebrate it, why does it matter where it is in relation to easter?
Don't be ridiculous. Jesus died at Passover and rose on First Fruits. That is what Easter celebrates. To separate Easter from those holidays is to separate the "Christ" from the Old Testament. But if we do that we have to throw out Jesus' own words that he was fulfilling the Old Testament, and Peter's speech in Acts 2, and Paul's preaching in 1 Cor 15:1-5, and most of Hebrews, and probably some other parts of the NT.

Do you think of Sunday as your day of rest, or Saturday?
Either or both.

If it's that big of a deal why do you go along with it?
I'm out numbered. Find me a church that doesn't go along with it. :cry:

AZeitung

18-Mar-2005, 08:15 PM

For picking the dates for the seven Feasts of the Lord I most certainly use the Jewish calendar. Easter is the Christian name for Passover/First Fruits, which are two of the Feasts of the Lord. Therefore, I use the Jewish calendar to find Easter.

I saw three things wrong with what you said:
1) "Our concepts of 'same day' and 'different day' are completely meaningless, and nearly arbitrary.
2) "The same day never comes around again. We could call a year 121 days if we wanted, and then Jesus would die three times a year."

These are completely true. How can one year later be the "same day" regardless of which calendar you use, if one year later is different on each calendar? Being in the same relative place to the sun/moon/stars or whatever you want to use doesn't actually make it the "same day" again. It's a record keeping system, nothing more.

3) "If we actually want to celebrate the anniversary of Jesus death by our calendar, it wouldn't fall on Easter, but neither would it fall on Passover."

As to #1, God defined days and he defined a calendaring system to keep track of those days. Ergo, days are neither meaningless nor arbitrary.

He didn't define our current calendering system, because its different from the ones we used to use. January 1st 1985 is no more the same day as January 1st 2005 as it is February 1st 2005.

As to #2, Jesus died on a particular "Feast of the Lord" day. By #1, it's fixed on God's calendar, so it does come around again each year as measured by that calendar.
As to #3, Jesus' death would fall on Passover no matter what calendar you use. See #1 again.

The *anniversary* of his death is a calendar dependant phenomenon. Anniversary is defined as one year later, and one year is defined by a calendar. Our calendar places one year later at a different time in relation to passover every year. If you really want to take the Jewish calendar that seriously, you should celebrate your birthday on a different day every year, by our calendar (the same day by the Jewish calendar).

Don't be ridiculous. Jesus died at Passover and rose on First Fruits. That is what Easter celebrates. To separate Easter from those holidays is to separate the "Christ" from the Old Testament. But if we do that we have to throw out Jesus' own words that he was fulfilling the Old Testament, and Peter's speech in Acts 2, and Paul's preaching in 1 Cor 15:1-5, and most of Hebrews, and probably some other parts of the NT.

Either or both.

I'm out numbered. Find me a church that doesn't go along with it. :cry:

Then, I'm guessing even most protestant churches don't think this is as big a deal as you seem to.

LilBunnyRabbit

18-Mar-2005, 08:21 PM

The Bible has been tested and tried. It has prophetic power, it is living and active in our lives.
I was going to quietly withdraw, but this I think has to be pointed out. The Bible has not been tested and tried. It has no more prophetic power than Nostradamous or Mystic Meg.

Who are we to add or subtract from that word. I don't know, that seems a bit arrogant to me :confused:
Every translation or adaptation adds or subtracts something. Its two thousand years old. Simple common sense to work out that it must have been rewritten at least once or twice.

As to the second, I can understand your point, but you picked a very poor example. The origin of mankind is exceedingly important.
Slight problem on that then. Who did Cain marry in the land of Nod?

Kinjiro Tsukasa

18-Mar-2005, 08:24 PM

I was going to quietly withdraw, but this I think has to be pointed out.
Bunny, you know you can't stay away from these threads -- it's like a moth to a flame. :D :D

aikiMac

18-Mar-2005, 08:34 PM

The Bible has not been tested and tried. It has no more prophetic power than Nostradamous or Mystic Meg.

Every translation or adaptation adds or subtracts something. Its two thousand years old. Simple common sense to work out that it must have been rewritten at least once or twice.
We're obviously not talking about the same Bible.
I hope you come back to the thread after reading up on the Bible that we're discussing here.

shunyadragon

19-Mar-2005, 09:27 AM

We're obviously not talking about the same Bible.
I hope you come back to the thread after reading up on the Bible that we're discussing here.

Which Bible are we discussing? There are various Bibles, some dropped some books, added others, and created their own translation. But, the Roman Church basically established the basic Bible, Trinitarian theology of Christ, and the Apostles creed that most of the major churches still follow. The break up of the church was more on the basis of the nature of Divine authority on earth, corruption, territorial and national turf wars, and not the fundimental Christian belief of Christianity. Even the recent eccumenical councils found widespread agreement on these issues. It is the details, and who has the authority that there was never a prayer that they would ever agree on.

Many Protestent churches claim their Bible is older than the Roman church and the various churches of the first couple hundred years followed their Bible and beliefs, but their is no historical support or evidence for this. In fact their is virtually nothing in the way of documentation during the life of Christ and up to ~75 to 100 years after that except for a few indirect references. The known history begins with fragments and little else.

The claim by Protestent fundimentalist that the early church fathers believed in a literal Bible and in particular genesis is also not true. Many major early church fathers rejected this view.

The only thing that is known of the early churches is that there was a diversity of beliefs among the believers. The evidence for early Roman influence is clear in the pro-Roman tone of Paul and his opposition to other Apostles.

aikiMac

20-Mar-2005, 12:48 AM

Which Bible are we discussing? There are various Bibles, some dropped some books, added others, and created their own translation. But, the Roman Church basically established the basic Bible, Trinitarian theology of Christ, and the Apostles creed that most of the major churches still follow.
We're discussing the Christian Bible. :p Yes, the "Roman Church" Christian Bible with the trinitarian theology and the Apostles Creed. You can take your pick between the Protestant version with 66 books, or the Catholic version that adds in a handful of "apocryphal" books.

Many Protestent churches claim their Bible is older than the Roman church and the various churches of the first couple hundred years followed their Bible and beliefs, but their is no historical support or evidence for this.
Huh? Can you name some of these "many Protestant churches" ?

Kwajman

20-Mar-2005, 12:52 AM

This thread is making my head hurt.

aikiMac

20-Mar-2005, 12:56 AM

This thread is making my head hurt.
Way man. :D

megk

22-Mar-2005, 03:43 PM

Again, practice vs. tradition. Traditions remain, practices change. The church probably still doesn't think it's necessarily a bad thing to charge some kind of monetary amount as penance for sins and help out charity - its just too easy for people to start doing bad things and trying to squeeze as much money out of people a they can, then keeping it for themselves, instead of doing what they're supposed to do. Indulgences are only bad when it becomes more about ritual and profit than faith and reconcilliation with God. Turning a blind eye to a bad practice isn't the same as saying that church tradition supports an idea.

UGH!!! I read this and it makes me sad. What exactly do you think Christ died for? Why do you think he went through all of that pain and suffering? If his suffering and pain wasn't going to be good enough to free humanity from the bonds of sin I highly doubt Father God would have watched His Son die in that manner. The cross is enough. Niether you or the Church or anyone else can tell me I need to pay money to help everyone know that I am serious about my repentance. Please that verges on legalism. Jesus' blood is enough. Maybe we need to start sacrificing lambs again, I'm sure Jesus won't mind that we think we need to do more.

I also think the main difference between us AZ, is that I do interpret the Bible literally. I believe it is the infalable word of God. Perhaps that is why you put more faith in the churches traditions, you don't consider the Bible to be infalable.

Bunny,

Check out the prophecies about Jesus Christ and then come back and tell me they weren't fulfilled. And my Bible is living and active in my life. Sorry, but you can't argue against another persons experience.

Hey Guys, Lets stop arguing about when Easter really is. The important thing is to remember why we celebrate. We live because He died and was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father. It is deffinetly worth celebrating.

aikiMac

22-Mar-2005, 03:51 PM

Hey Guys, Lets stop arguing about when Easter really is. The important thing is to remember why we celebrate. We live because He died and was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father. It is deffinetly worth celebrating.
Indeed.
Okay, Sunday it will be. :)

On a separate note:
I've been wanting a NRSV study Bible for awhile now, 'cause I like that translation. I followed the MAP link to Amazon.com over the weekend and found a Harper Collins edition for $9.01 ! In new condition! Dude! I ordered it. It even has the apocrypha. I never read the apocrypha before. This will be interesting.

Kinjiro Tsukasa

22-Mar-2005, 03:59 PM

aikiMac, tell me how you like the apocrypha! (we call them deuterocanonical books).

I was wondering, what is the difference between the RSV and the NRSV? (I have the former).

The church probably still doesn't think it's necessarily a bad thing to charge some kind of monetary amount as penance for sins and help out charity
Please read up a little more on Church history (from a reliable source) -- when this ever happened, it was an abuse -- and never Church policy. Forgiveness of sins is free, and unrelated to money donated to charities (those donations are admirable, but voluntary).

Easter in five days!

megk

22-Mar-2005, 04:02 PM

Indeed.
Okay, Sunday it will be. :)

On a separate note:
I've been wanting a NRSV study Bible for awhile now, 'cause I like that translation. I followed the MAP link to Amazon.com over the weekend and found a Harper Collins edition for $9.01 ! In new condition! Dude! I ordered it. It even has the apocrypha. I never read the apocrypha before. This will be interesting.

Tell me what you think of the apocrypha. I might read them in a seperate book form.

aikiMac

22-Mar-2005, 04:10 PM

I was wondering, what is the difference between the RSV and the NRSV? (I have the former).
Ya, where's Capt Ann? She knows all about these things.
Wife and I have a RSV and an NRSV at home. I respect Shakespeare as much as the next person, but for me, reading the KJV and the RSV are too much like reading Shakespeare. Things don't flow. It's hard reading. That's okay for studying poetry or plays, but I don't want to struggle when I read the Bible. I find the NRSV very easy to read (it flows for me), and on top of that, all of the commentators say it's a very accurate translation. I get the best of both worlds: easy and accurate.

Kinjiro Tsukasa

22-Mar-2005, 04:16 PM

Hmmm, my version doesn't read like Shakespeare at all -- maybe what I have is really the NRSV?

aikiMac

22-Mar-2005, 04:24 PM

Or maybe you're a better reader than I am! :D For real.
To each his own. That's why there's so many English translations.

AZeitung

22-Mar-2005, 10:28 PM

UGH!!! I read this and it makes me sad. What exactly do you think Christ died for? Why do you think he went through all of that pain and suffering? If his suffering and pain wasn't going to be good enough to free humanity from the bonds of sin I highly doubt Father God would have watched His Son die in that manner. The cross is enough. Niether you or the Church or anyone else can tell me I need to pay money to help everyone know that I am serious about my repentance. Please that verges on legalism. Jesus' blood is enough. Maybe we need to start sacrificing lambs again, I'm sure Jesus won't mind that we think we need to do more.

You seem to have this attitude that "if I'm going to hell, it's nobody's business but my won". I can understand that from a non religious person's perspective, but not from a Christian. If a person who belongs to a church is doing something wrong, it's the responsibility of the other members of the church to help him. Why else belong to a church? If when you do something wrong, the church says "if you really have faith, you'll have no problem doing this", it's not only a good way to test yourself and strengthen your own faith, but for the church to see your faith as well. Paying for indulgences in the mideival sense is a bad idea, but suppose you told yourself that every time you were jealous of someone, or angry for no reason, or something like that, that you'd give $10 to a Christian charity, don't you think your behavior might start to change? There may be no need to be perfect, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

I also think the main difference between us AZ, is that I do interpret the Bible literally. I believe it is the infalable word of God. Perhaps that is why you put more faith in the churches traditions, you don't consider the Bible to be infalable.

I think taking the bible literaly is a separate argument. And I think you don't take everything in the bible exactly literaly either, since a few of your beliefs might be slightly different if you did.

However, remember that the bible was put together from a lot of books existing at the time by a group of men. That same group of men put together many of the traditions of the catholic church from a lot of traditions existing at the time. You seem to think that God said "Your choice in books for the bible shall be infallable, and shall be my exactly my word, however, I could care less about which traditions you choose. Most of them will be wrong. But the books you pick will still be the right books. Except for the seven books that Martin Luthor and some other people in the future decide to throw out."

ATF

22-Mar-2005, 10:31 PM

I know this was several posts back, but I just noticed it. Catholics don't worship saints; they honor them, same way you honor your mother or father. Only God is worshipped.

We pray for their intersession on our behalf. Only God is worshipped as u stated. :)

Kinjiro Tsukasa

22-Mar-2005, 10:32 PM

Kinjiro Tsukasa

22-Mar-2005, 10:35 PM

Sort of. We pray for their intersession on our behalf. :)
True, but asking for their intercession simply means asking them to pray for us -- just as you'd ask your Mom or Dad to say a prayer for you.

I can ask my parents to pray for me, I can have pictures of them in my home -- that is a way of honoring them ("Honor thy father and thy mother"), but that doesn't mean I'm worshiping them. Same with the saints. :)

(And I apologize for double posting :) )

AZeitung

22-Mar-2005, 10:38 PM

If this comes up again, we (Catholics) should just ignore it. Anyone in this thread who doesn't understand our position just hasn't bothered to read like he should, or is purposely being difficult.

ATF

22-Mar-2005, 10:43 PM

True, but asking for their intercession simply means asking them to pray for us -- just as you'd ask your Mom or Dad to say a prayer for you.

I can ask my parents to pray for me, I can have pictures of them in my home -- that is a way of honoring them ("Honor thy father and thy mother"), but that doesn't mean I'm worshiping them. Same with the saints. :)

(And I apologize for double posting :) )

Well said! I couldn't agree more. I was wondering if the pictures/statues question would be raised. You have put that one to rest.

Kinjiro Tsukasa

22-Mar-2005, 10:43 PM

If this comes up again, we (Catholics) should just ignore it. Anyone in this thread who doesn't understand our position just hasn't bothered to read like he should, or is purposely being difficult.
The problem is, there are a lot of bad, inaccurate (sometimes maliciously so) sources of information out there. People think the Catholic Church is in error, but when you ask them what they believe about the Church, it's all a bunch of misconceptions. In many cases, those opinions have been held for generations; we can't change them all overnight, I guess.

aikiMac

22-Mar-2005, 10:50 PM

Since my post seems to have gotten lost in the shuffle, I just want to repeat that if anyone was ever charging money for indulgences or for forgiveness of sins, it was an abuse. This was never Church policy.
I thought that Pope Leo X invented it. :confused: Didn't the guy Martin Luther ran into have permission from Pope Leo to be selling indulgences in that area?

ATF

22-Mar-2005, 10:50 PM

If this comes up again, we (Catholics) should just ignore it. Anyone in this thread who doesn't understand our position just hasn't bothered to read like he should, or is purposely being difficult.

Or we can (IMHO) stand our ground and with God's grace and divine wisdom impart his word to unbelievers. My priest Father Tom Dilorenzo has a great saying "Shame the devil and tell the truth". I think I'll watch The Passion......

ATF

22-Mar-2005, 10:58 PM

The problem is, there are a lot of bad, inaccurate (sometimes maliciously so) sources of information out there. People think the Catholic Church is in error, but when you ask them what they believe about the Church, it's all a bunch of misconceptions. In many cases, those opinions have been held for generations; we can't change them all overnight, I guess.

Our Church is under full blown attack. And I'm not talking about people. ( But their included) The enemy wants to destroy her but as Jesus told us he will never let that happen. What breaks my heart is
1. When the abuse was discovered the amount of people that fled
2. The response of the clergy
3. The closing of churches

When times get tough we run. Just ask Saint Peter.

I could go on and on. I will say this look around you. How do things feel? :)

Kinjiro Tsukasa

22-Mar-2005, 10:59 PM

I thought that Pope Leo X invented it. :confused: Didn't the guy Martin Luther ran into have permission from Pope Leo to be selling indulgences in that area?
There was never supposed to be any outright selling. There was a practice of using various "good works" as an occasion of granting an indulgence. One of these good works was almsgiving to the poor. It is this practice that was, at time, abused, leading Pope Pius V to cancel all grants of indulgences that involved any sort of financial transaction. Indulgences were around long before there was any hint of money involved.

Kinjiro Tsukasa

22-Mar-2005, 11:08 PM

What breaks my heart is
1. When the abuse was discovered the amount of people that fled

I find (and this could be true of any church or religious group) that there are way too many Christians (all types) that are just lukewarm (among Catholics, we call some of them "Cafeteria Catholics" -- they pick and choose which doctrines they want to follow, and which ones they don't).

These lukewarm Christians are just using The Scandal of the Day as an excuse to leave the Church behind (and Christian belief, as well). If it's not abuse of indulgences, if it's not a sex abuse case, it will always be something -- the lukewarm will always find a reason to leave their belief behind -- it's "easier" and "more convenient" for them.

Our job (all Christians) is to fire them up.

Regarding the closing of churches, the answer to that is more vocations to the priesthood. Catholics are not alone in this; other denominations, including those with a married priesthood, are also having shortages. The problem isn't with anyone's doctrine; it is the secular attitude of our society. People want all aspects of their lives soft and easy these days, and Jesus never promised that following Him would be easy.

And if this is another double-post, I apologize again!

aikiMac

22-Mar-2005, 11:14 PM

And if this is another double-post, I apologize again!
There's an edit button, you know.
:)

All the many non-Catholic branches of Christianity suffer from "lukewarm" and "cafeteria" congregants. I've even had the displeasure of attending church with downright "cold" people, as opposed to lukewarm. That's not always fun. You're right: we're supposed to fire them up.

Kinjiro Tsukasa

22-Mar-2005, 11:16 PM

There's an edit button, you know.
:)

Smarty! And I'm a mod, and I did it twice. :o

Capt Ann

22-Mar-2005, 11:24 PM

AZ--

I think there's a basic difference between believeing the Bible and believing the traditions, though. Just a few observations:

1. We still have early manuscripts from the Bible that are in existance, and we can read them to see that the Bible we have today is the same Bible the first-Century Christians used. We do not have early written evidence that the traditions that the Roman Catholic church teaches/believes now are the same traditions that the Apostles held back inthe first century AD. I can check extant copies of manuscripts from about 150 BC to 150 AD (Old Testament), and portions of books in the New Testament from as early as about 65 AD. I can check early translations of the Bible into Greek and Syriac, ancient Greek and Hebrew manuscripts, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and compare them to today's Bible, and see for myself that I have the same book. However, I have no such evidence to support Roman Catholic traditions.

So, first-of-all, I can be confident that the Bible has not changed in 1900 years, but I have no similar source for confidence in the traditions.

2. We have the early records of the Church Fathers, held in high esteem by both Protestants and Catholics. These support the Bible, but not necessarily all the traditions of the Roman Catholic church. There are something like 78,000 scriptural references in the writings still in existence today, from church fathers from the first three centuries of church history (e.g., the writings of Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Pappias, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Augustine of Hippo, etc.). I have a better number in a reference book somewhere, and if someone wants more details, I can look up the reference, but basically, there are enough quotes in these writings alone that the entire New Testament could be reconstructed, just from these teachers' and leaders' quotes. All of these individuals, and their students, and their congregations/churches believed the Bible as we have it today, enough to use for their teachings. Yet, in all these writings, I could find no references to pergatory, prayers to saints, papal infallibility, Mary remaining a virgin or being assumed into heaven, or Mary being maintained by God without sin. That, of course, doesn't mean that there are no references at all...it may be that I haven't found them.

Regardless, I can show clear evidence that the early church Fathers used and held as God's Word the Bible as we have it today. I cannot do the same for the church traditions that are practiced today.

3. We have Jesus' testimony. Jesus quoted extensively from the Old testament and referred to its authors as 'the Prophets'. In other words, to the extent that the New Testament is a reliable historical record (doesn't have to be God's word or infallible at this point), we have evidence that Jesus Himself put His stamp of approval on the books of the Old Testament (and not the word of a council of church leaders meeting in the third century AD!). The New Testament provides no such record of Jesus condoning current church traditions, as mentioned in the above paragraph. In fact, Jesus had choice words for the Jewish elders, who 'set aside the word of God so they could keep their tradition." While I am not claiming that this is what the Roman Catholic church has done, it does give me reason to pause, and be concerned that it is at least possible that such a thing could happen, and therefore, I should judge the traditions by God's law, and not the other way around.

4. We have the testimony of prophecy. The Old Testament, the Gospels, and Revelation have prophecies in them that we can judge against recorded history, to verify that they predicted events that did in fact occur after the predictions were made. This prophetic testimony offers strong supporting evidence that these books are in fact divinely inspired. We have no such testimony to support the traditions, nor could we have such support: traditions are not prophetic in nature.

5. We have the existence of other 'streams' of Christianity, that maintain the same Bible, but not the same traditions. In my 'Point 2' above, I list some early church fathers. This list is actually divided into two groups: the more famous three of the list are from North Africe, not Rome or Europe. This is important, becasue for the first three centuries of Christian history, the center of theological debate, learning, and teaching was in North Africa, and not in Rome. Today, Coptic Christianity still exists in Ethiopia and Egypt, not as part of the Roman Catholic tradition. They use the Bible as we have it today, with different traditions than those practiced by the RC church. Similarly, the Greek Orthodox, Indian Orthodox, and Assyrian traditions are different than the RC traditions. This, again, offers strong evidence that the Bible we have today is the same as the one used in the first century of Christianity, but the traditons practiced today are not the same.

ATF

22-Mar-2005, 11:25 PM

Jesus never promised that following Him would be easy.[/i]

(Mat 16:24) Then said Jesus unto his disciples, "If any [man] will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me."

To walk with Jesus will definately bring trials and tribulations. Promise.

(Phil. 1:29) "For to you it has been granted for Christ's sake, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for his sake"

(Phil. 4:13)- "I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me."

Capt Ann

22-Mar-2005, 11:30 PM

Wow, you guys posted a bunch while I was responding to that other one!!!

About the Apocrypha/Deuterocanonicals: I really like the wisdom books (Sirach and Ecclesiasticus) Ecclesiasticus, BTW, means "church book", and it was often used for study and teaching for new believers.

Kinjiro Tsukasa

23-Mar-2005, 12:26 AM

Just curious, aren't Sirach and Ecclesiasticus the same thing? Among Catholic Bibles, the Douay-Rheims has "Ecclesiasticus", and the NAB has "Sirach", but it's the same book (51 chapters). I especially like Sirach 6:5,14-17.

On Tradition: In Matthew 15:6, Jesus replaced an incorrect interpretation of scripture (which allowed the Korban) with a correct interpretation (which didn't). He replaced human tradition with divine Tradition. That is how Catholics see Tradition -- divine Tradition (upper-case "T") -- which comes from God either through Jesus or through the apostles. The apostles, themselves, didn't shy away from divine and apostolic Tradition (1 Cor 11:2, 2 Tim. 2:2, 2 Thess 2:15, Acts 2:42). This divine Tradition is the authentic understanding and application of the message of the Bible.

A corollary is that Catholics don't believe in private interpretation of the Bible. Even assuming a modern person knows all the ancient languages (a laudable accomplishment, indeed!), and has access to, for example, the Dead Sea Scrolls, how do we know that person will have the correct interpretation of the Bible? The Holy Spirit cannot mislead people or teach error, so if all interpretations of the Bible were inspired by the Holy Spirit, they would all be correct and identical -- but they are not. Even within a particular branch of Christianity, you find differences in interpretation. Peter even warns us about private interpretation (2 Peter 1:20, 2 Peter 3:16). In any event, it all comes down to what we mean when we say "Tradition", and Catholics see Church Tradition as divine Tradition -- the authentic application and understanding of the Bible -- not mere, human tradition.

AZeitung

23-Mar-2005, 02:32 AM

Or we can (IMHO) stand our ground and with God's grace and divine wisdom impart his word to unbelievers. My priest Father Tom Dilorenzo has a great saying "Shame the devil and tell the truth". I think I'll watch The Passion......

It's just, I think we can see the same answer about 8 times in this thread. Repeating it is just wasting space.

AZeitung

23-Mar-2005, 02:35 AM

So, first-of-all, I can be confident that the Bible has not changed in 1900 years, but I have no similar source for confidence in the traditions.

What about the seven books that protestants removed? The Orthodox churches have some different books as well, but those haven't changed, I suppose.

And I can't speak for the other Orthodox churches, but we know exactly when and over what issues the Greek Orthodox church divided from the Roman church. There's nothing confusing or uncertain about it that would obscure which traditions were being followed at the time. And they do in fact, share many traditions with Catholics that protestants do not.

Also, I'm relatively certain that no versions of the Gospels have been found that actually date 65 AD. There are theories that place the books around 60 AD, but if any Gospels were actually found that really dated 65 AD, that would be a significant finding.

There was at least one early significant person in the church who thought that only the book of Luke should be used. And certainly the people before the bible was put together didn't hold it as the only word of God.

edit: Do protestants not believe that Mary remained a virgin?

Capt Ann

23-Mar-2005, 04:04 AM

What about the seven books that protestants removed? Again, this is really just the same debate: Did Protestants 'remove' them, or did Catholics 'add' them? Since this could go in circles forever, I prefer to just rephrase that question to 'what books can I personally believe, with some degree of certainty and in good conscience, to be the Word of God?' I don't think the Orthodox use any different Bible (except some Nestrorians don't believe in Rev and some of the John's, I think).

Also, I'm relatively certain that no versions of the Gospels have been found that actually date 65 AD. There are theories that place the books around 60 AD, but if any Gospels were actually found that really dated 65 AD, that would be a significant finding.
I will re-check some of my sources, but I had heard that a fragment of Mark was found that, because of the writing style, could be dated with a good degree of certainty to before 70 AD. 65 AD was the best estimate for this particular fragment.

edit: Do protestants not believe that Mary remained a virgin?
Yes, that is one of the differences. In one place in the Gospels, the people in Capernaum reject Jesus' teaching, saying, "Is not this the carpenter's son? ", and then it goes on to list several of His brothers, by name, and to mention His sisters. Also, by tradition, the epistle of James was written by James, Jesus' brother.

This however, is a minor difference in interpretation of these passages. The bigger issue is the concept of the "Immaculate Conception". Please forgive me, but my Catholic Theology is really rusty. Doesn't the Catholic Church teach that God supernaturally preserved Mary from ever committing sin, so that Jesus could be born free from sin's taint? This is my understanding of the Immaculate Conception, and if my understanding is correct, then it undermines the whole teaching of salvation by grace through faith, because it denies that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

Just curious, aren't Sirach and Ecclesiasticus the same thing?
My bad :o
I meant Wisdom and Sirach. Sirach was originally titled "The Wisdom of the Son of Sirach", and I still get those two mixed up.

That is how Catholics see Tradition -- divine Tradition (upper-case "T") -- which comes from God either through Jesus or through the apostles. The apostles, themselves, didn't shy away from divine and apostolic Tradition (1 Cor 11:2, 2 Tim. 2:2, 2 Thess 2:15, Acts 2:42). This divine Tradition is the authentic understanding and application of the message of the Bible.I agree, and I would value authentic Apostolic tradition very highly. My problem is that I don't have the same level of confidence that these particular traditions are divinely inspired as I have for thr Bible being divinely inspired. I can make a good case, with historical, theological, and prophetic evidence, supporting the authenticity of the Bible. I have not been able to do the same for traditions.

The Holy Spirit cannot mislead people or teach error, so if all interpretations of the Bible were inspired by the Holy Spirit, they would all be correct and identical -- but they are not. Even within a particular branch of Christianity, you find differences in interpretation.
Yes-and-no. If all interpretations were inspired of the Holy Spirit, they would all be correct--they still might not all be identical. We all see in part and know in part (1 Cor 13:9-12). Someday we will all know perfectly, but until then, we see bits and pieces of an infinite God. I know a little--I see some things. If I am wise, I will always remember that I see imperfectly: I only see part of the 'big picture', and my brothers and sisters in Christ see other pieces of the same puzzle. I would be a fool to throw away the pieces that God has shown you of Himself. I can learn from you, if I am willing to listen, and not be too prideful. So, I believe there are things I can learn from the Catholic Church. I also believe, however, that the Catholic Church only has part of the puzzle, too--even with all the tradition and centuries of learning, it is still imperfect in knowledge (and will be until the day Christ returns).

....And I said all the above about interpretations that are different, but complimentary. There are also interpretations that are just plain different...and out in left field. People are able to come up with some pretty off-the-wall stuff, it is true. There are also wolves in sheeps' clothing who have more insidious motives for coming up with wierd interpretations. But Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would guide us into all the truth. I firmly believe that God will direct sincere Christians to be able to recognize the difference between the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.

AZeitung

23-Mar-2005, 06:08 AM

Again, this is really just the same debate: Did Protestants 'remove' them, or did Catholics 'add' them?

So, then, are there older versions of the complete bible, more or less as we know it today, that don't include those books than the ones that do include them? Every book in the bible was added, since it wasn't a complete work onto itself until it was compiled.

But regardless of who put what where, the bible has changed in the past 1900 years, at least, for protestants anyway. You would argue for Catholics as well, but that doesn't really help the case for it not changing, either.

Since this could go in circles forever, I prefer to just rephrase that question to 'what books can I personally believe, with some degree of certainty and in good conscience, to be the Word of God?' I don't think the Orthodox use any different Bible (except some Nestrorians don't believe in Rev and some of the John's, I think).

I can double check, but I believe that various Orthodox churches use apocryphal books of the New Testament in their bibles. I think it's generally only the addition of one or two books, though.

I will re-check some of my sources, but I had heard that a fragment of Mark was found that, because of the writing style, could be dated with a good degree of certainty to before 70 AD. 65 AD was the best estimate for this particular fragment.

Well, if you find a source for that, let me know. I'd love to see it. I've been looking for physical evidence of a pre 70 AD version of one of the four gospels in the bible, but haven't been able to find any that's reliable. There were some claims of "carbon dating" providing a 40-50 AD date for certain scrolls, which actually showed John to be the *earliest* gospel, but I think those were pretty much discredited.

Yes, that is one of the differences. In one place in the Gospels, the people in Capernaum reject Jesus' teaching, saying, "Is not this the carpenter's son? ", and then it goes on to list several of His brothers, by name, and to mention His sisters. Also, by tradition, the epistle of James was written by James, Jesus' brother.

This however, is a minor difference in interpretation of these passages. The bigger issue is the concept of the "Immaculate Conception". Please forgive me, but my Catholic Theology is really rusty. Doesn't the Catholic Church teach that God supernaturally preserved Mary from ever committing sin, so that Jesus could be born free from sin's taint? This is my understanding of the Immaculate Conception, and if my understanding is correct, then it undermines the whole teaching of salvation by grace through faith, because it denies that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

The immaculate conception referrs to her being concieved without original sin, rather than original sin being removed through baptism.

"Brethren of the Lord" is usually taken by Catholics to mean cousins, or other relatives.

spiff

23-Mar-2005, 02:04 PM

"Brethren of the Lord" is usually taken by Catholics to mean cousins, or other relatives.

Isn't that just a case of interpreting the bible in the way that least challenges what the church teaches? Brethren means brothers, not cousins or other relatives.
If you insist on taking other parts of the bible at literal face value then how can you then go and interpret a different part in a non-literal way?

AZeitung

23-Mar-2005, 02:51 PM

1. I never insisted that everything in the bible be taken literally, but that is quite irrelivant.
2. We're dealing with ancient Greek, not English. There is room for interpretation in a lot of things.
3. The word "brethren" itself doesn't always referr to brothers. Especially in scripture.
4. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02767a.htm has more information than I do on this.

Johnno

23-Mar-2005, 03:06 PM

I've only just seen this thread, and I can't be bothered to read every single post, so pardon me if I repeat anything which has been said already.

The question is flawed. Christianity is a religion. Roman Catholicism is a denomination of the Christian religion.

If Roman Catholicism isn't Christian, then what on earth do you imagine it is? :confused:

aikiMac

23-Mar-2005, 03:21 PM

The question is flawed. Christianity is a religion. Roman Catholicism is a denomination of the Christian religion.
Don't we need to define "Christianity" before we can assert that the RC Church is a denomination of Christianity?

Johnno

23-Mar-2005, 03:25 PM

Don't we need to define "Christianity" before we can assert that the RC Church is a denomination of Christianity?

We could do, but then we'd probably need to define the words that we use to define Christianity!

aikiMac

23-Mar-2005, 03:38 PM

If we do, we do. So be it.

Edit:
Capt Ann's points in posts 156 and 162 are spot on. But regarding the supremacy of oral tradition versus the written text of the Bible, has anyone read the "Joshua" books by the Catholic priest Joseph Girzone? I read "Joshua in the Holy Lands" and "Joshua and the Children." They're both very good. He touches on this issue his books, in a subtle way, and his pro-Catholic argument is very strong.

Kinjiro Tsukasa

24-Mar-2005, 12:05 AM

I just wanted to wish all of the regular posters in this thread a happy and blessed Easter. I'm taking some vacation days (family coming to visit), and won't be back online until next Tuesday. Happy Easter!

Capt Ann

24-Mar-2005, 03:45 AM

Likewise, KT!

God's blessings to all on this thread, and I will see you all when I get back online some time after Easter.

megk

24-Mar-2005, 03:29 PM

AZ,

Please point to specific scripture that supports your belief that Mary was born w/o origional sin.

And.....Happy easter all. HE IS RISEN, HE IS RISEN INDEED!!

Hope everyones has an awsome celebration. :D

JAMJTX

24-Mar-2005, 05:44 PM

Actually, the original Church started in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost.
What evetually became the "Catholic Church" was apparently started by the man identified in the Bible as "Simon the Sorcerer". There is no direct link to the teaching of the apostles until Paul's letter to them.
When it became obvious that Christianity could not be stopped, the Roman empire adopted parts of Christianity into thier pagan religion to appease the growing number of Christians. Eventually pagan holidays were made into "Christian holidays", such as Christmas (no one knows when Jesus was born and there is no record of such celebrations prior), and the upcoming pagan fertility festival known as Easter (eggs, rabbits, etc).
The catholic church includes teachings that are not compatible with Biblical Christianity. Such as the worship of Mary (the queen of heaven, mother of god, etc): Praying to "saints" for miracles: the Pope as the intermediary between God and man, the trinity doctrine; the list goes on and on.

aikiMac

24-Mar-2005, 06:05 PM

Actually, the original Church started in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost.
Among Jews celebrating one of the seven "Feasts of the Lord," no less.

What evetually became the "Catholic Church" was apparently started by the man identified in the Bible as "Simon the Sorcerer".
:confused: I say you're wrong.

The catholic church includes teachings that are not compatible with Biblical Christianity. Such as ... the trinity doctrine
I say you're very wrong. Scratch that -- I know you're wrong. Try this list (http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/showpost.php?p=175841&postcount=741) of verses.

spiff

24-Mar-2005, 09:59 PM

Actually, the original Church started in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost.
What evetually became the "Catholic Church" was apparently started by the man identified in the Bible as "Simon the Sorcerer".

just like it was bodhidarma who brought kung fu to china?
why did the "original church" come into being on the day of pentecost?

the really sad thing is we will never know what we have lost, how much of christian history do we really understand? sure, we have books that survived long enough to be included in the Bible, but how many other gospels were lost before then?
Who knows, there may be a book lying somewhere under the middle-eastern sand that tells us all of jesus' activities during his childhood, not just that single Jerusalem experience.

JAMJTX

25-Mar-2005, 03:29 AM

First, Bodidharma did not bring kung fu to China. He brought Zen Budhism.
What Americans know as "kung fu" started on American television in the 1970's and Kung Fu is not the name of a Chinese art.

There may very well be other books and writings some where that would be included in the Bible if we had them. I am quite sure that the Dead Sea Scrolls contain valuable information.

What we do know is that Jesus originally came to preach to the Jews of Israel and all subsequent events happened in Israel. Christianity spread out from Israel to the rest of the world. This is fact.

It is also known that what is now known as "the Catholic Church" was established a few hundred years after the "apostolic period". Although it grew out of a 'church' that was planted around the time of the Apostles.

At the time the Apostle Paul wrote the letter that is now known as "the book of Romans", there had not yet been an Apostle to Rome and in fact he had just recently learned of it's existence. This "church" was planted by Simon Magus, (known in the Bible as Simon The Sorcerer). Simon The Sorcerer was eventually a conman and "snake oil salesman" wh opicked up a little bit of Christian Theology on the raod then went to Rome and starte a religion of hisown. If you choose not to believe that, then fine but it is rather well documented. But what is indisputable is the spread of Christianity from Israel to the rest of the world. Not from Rome to the rest of the world.

The Catholic Church says that the Apostle Peter was the "first Pope". But there never was anything to suggest that Peter ever went to Rome. This church has always operated independently of the main body and has always had it's own seperate Theology and supersticions.

shunyadragon

25-Mar-2005, 04:23 AM

So, then, are there older versions of the complete bible, more or less as we know it today, that don't include those books than the ones that do include them? Every book in the bible was added, since it wasn't a complete work onto itself until it was compiled.

The Bible as we know is quite late except for a few scrapes, which could not be used to justify one Bible over another or specific doctrines as Capt Ann claims. The Roman Church basically compiled the first Bible, determined the basic doctrine of Christianity and the Apostles Creed as we know it today. As the church broke up each picked and chose among the books available and doctrines to their liking. The Orthodox and Roman Churches have vaste libraries of other known texts and books of early Christianity that have been assigned various levels of credibility.

But regardless of who put what where, the bible has changed in the past 1900 years, at least, for protestants anyway. You would argue for Catholics as well, but that doesn't really help the case for it not changing, either.

I can double check, but I believe that various Orthodox churches use apocryphal books of the New Testament in their bibles. I think it's generally only the addition of one or two books, though.

Well, if you find a source for that, let me know. I'd love to see it. I've been looking for physical evidence of a pre 70 AD version of one of the four gospels in the bible, but haven't been able to find any that's reliable. There were some claims of "carbon dating" providing a 40-50 AD date for certain scrolls, which actually showed John to be the *earliest* gospel, but I think those were pretty much discredited.

There is nothing that is reliably dated as this early.

The immaculate conception referrs to her being concieved without original sin, rather than original sin being removed through baptism.

"Brethren of the Lord" is usually taken by Catholics to mean cousins, or other relatives.[/QUOTE]

aikiMac

25-Mar-2005, 04:26 AM

...and Kung Fu is not the name of a Chinese art.
Sure it is. Wing chun kung fu, Jun Fan gong fu, Shaolin kung fu, white tiger kung fu, ... :)

At the time the Apostle Paul wrote the letter that is now known as "the book of Romans", there had not yet been an Apostle to Rome and in fact he had just recently learned of it's existence.
:confused: Did you just say Paul learned of the existence of Rome only shortly before he wrote the epistle to the Romans?

This "church" was planted by Simon Magus, (known in the Bible as Simon The Sorcerer). Simon The Sorcerer was eventually a conman and "snake oil salesman" wh opicked up a little bit of Christian Theology on the raod then went to Rome and started a religion of his own. If you choose not to believe that, then fine but it is rather well documented. But what is indisputable is the spread of Christianity from Israel to the rest of the world. Not from Rome to the rest of the world.
What church was planted by Simon Magus? The one in Rome? I don't think so. That sounds too much like an un-documented un-fact for my brain to accept. I've read a couple church history books, and that wasn't in them. What book did you read?

The Catholic Church says that the Apostle Peter was the "first Pope". But there never was anything to suggest that Peter ever went to Rome.
Why must he go to Rome to be the first Pope? :confused: That's an odd requirement.

This church has always operated independently of the main body and has always had it's own seperate theology and superstitions.
What's the "main body" ?

JAMJTX

25-Mar-2005, 04:48 AM

Perhaps I mistyped. It would not be the first time.
The Apostles surely had knowledge of the existence of Rome, but had no knowledge of the church in Rome being planted and were not part of it.
Also, the claim by the Catholic Church is that the Catholic Church was started by Peter in Rome and that he was the first Pope. None of which is true.

On the day of Pentecost Peter preached the first sermon that got the Church started in Jerusalem. But he was not the "Pope" and the Theology of the Catholic Church is very far removed from the Theology of the Apostles. The Apostled never spoke of a "trinity". The Jews only ever had 1 God. Christians believe that 1 God came to the world in the form of a man - Jesus Christ - and that he works his power in the form of "the Holy Spirit". But they are 1 God.

The first story of Simon Magus I heard came from a friend who Pastored a Church. I never heard that name before but certainly knew of "Simon the Sorcerer". He read it in a book, which one I can't tell you. It's just something that stuck with me. This also was not a man to say things that he did not have a firm foundation and belief in, so it was something that I just accepted but never really gave much thought to.
Then a few years later I found the same information on a web site when I was looking for somethine else. If you do a google search, I am sure you will find the same information, and you will find some books to read if you are more likely to believe it if it's in a book.

AZeitung

25-Mar-2005, 06:51 AM

<snip>

You need to learn to put your use tags the right way. Also, you need to learn to read more carefully.

There's too much other stuff to sort through in this thread, and it's 2:00 AM. I'm going to bed.

spiff

25-Mar-2005, 01:19 PM

First, Bodidharma did not bring kung fu to China. He brought Zen Budhism.

sigh, i feel so misunderstood. i was being a little bit sarcastic and was trying to point out to you that what you said about "Simon the Sorceror" being the one who started the Catholic Church was about as provable as the claims that bodhidarma took kung fu to china. in other words, not at all and it's probably just yet another legend.

What Americans know as "kung fu" started on American television in the 1970's and Kung Fu is not the name of a Chinese art.

OHHHH, I'm soooooooooooo sorry. of course, i mean gung fu/gong fu/wushu/my penis is biger than yours (choose the one you feel is allowed). like yeh, i'm going to sit here and say "Just like bodhidarma came to china and founded chinese martial arts" when i could just say kung fu instead.

The Apostled never spoke of a "trinity".

and not every Hung Gar practioner speaks of the 4 pillars or 12 bridge hands yet they still use them and learn them. oddly enough, the number 3 shows up a lot in religion, in fact just about the only concrete thing we know of the druids is their obsession with 3. what has that got to do with jesus? some people argue certain aspects of his actions and teachings are reminiscent of Eastern Shamanism (that at the time of Jesus' life had already spread into Europe) which had... and obsession with 3. but to the apostles jesus, God and the Holy Ghost, though there are three they were also one and they may not have felt the need to refer to any "trinity" when it's sitting there in front of them everyday.

The Apostles surely had knowledge of the existence of Rome, but had no knowledge of the church in Rome being planted and were not part of it.

think of it this way - Rome was their capital city because they lived in the Roman Empire, yes?
Rome was also the largest city in the Empire and it had a VERY large Jewish population (people just right for conversion). Now we may not have documentable evidence for Peter going into Rome but we also do not have any that says he didn't. And if you were trying to spread the word of God would you not go and do so in the largest city, the capital of the Empire, especially if it had a large number of people who would be fairly easy to convert because of their current religious beliefs?

On the day of Pentecost Peter preached the first sermon that got the Church started in Jerusalem.

so a sermon is what got the Church started? so what about the sermon on the mount? jesus had disciples then, and he managed to get followers during the sermon, so wouldn't that have it a church BEFORE pentecost?
you know, i reckon the church came into being during the last supper - because that was the blueprint for arguably the most important regular ritual in ALL christian churches.

aikiMac

25-Mar-2005, 05:25 PM

The Apostles surely had knowledge of the existence of Rome, but had no knowledge of the church in Rome being planted and were not part of it.
Huh? :confused: The epistle to the Romans was written to Christians in Rome. Therefore, there were Christians in Rome, and a Christian church in Rome, before Paul got there -- and he knew it. What is it that you're saying? You're speaking riddles and appealing to what someone said that someone said that someone said that someone once said to you, as if that's authoritative.

Come on, I'm far more inclined to believe that Peter preached in Rome and was crucified upside down in Rome, than I am to accept your assertion that this Simon of questionable faith started the first Christian church in Rome! Not counting the immediate 12 Apostles plus Paul, there were hundreds of Christians even before the time of the Pentecost celebration, and there were hundreds more thereafter. Recall that Pentecost was one of the three Feasts of the Lord for which all Jews were required to assemble in Jerusalem. (Great time to launch the Christian faith, aye?) It's immensely rational to believe that some of the visiting converts in Jerusalem that week were from the city of Rome, and took their new faith back with them, and this was the seed of a new church in Rome. More Christians came and went along the trade routes, eventually Peter reached Rome, eventually Paul wrote his epistle. There you go. I fail to see any reason to appeal to a story about someone of questionable faith starting the Christian church in Rome. I really don't get it.

On the day of Pentecost Peter preached the first sermon that got the Church started in Jerusalem. But he was not the "Pope" and the Theology of the Catholic Church is very far removed from the Theology of the Apostles. The Apostles never spoke of a "trinity". The Jews only ever had 1 God. Christians believe that 1 God came to the world in the form of a man - Jesus Christ - and that he works his power in the form of "the Holy Spirit". But they are 1 God.
The concept of the "trinity" does not deny that there is one God. It affirms, explicitely, that there is only and exactly one God. You're giving me the impression that you're not well versed in the doctrine of the trinity. :confused:

spiff

25-Mar-2005, 07:13 PM

Recall that Pentecost was one of the three Feasts of the Lord for which all Jews were required to assemble in Jerusalem. (Great time to launch the Christian faith, aye?) It's immensely rational to believe that some of the visiting converts in Jerusalem that week were from the city of Rome, and took their new faith back with them, and this was the seed of a new church in Rome. More Christians came and went along the trade routes, eventually Peter reached Rome, eventually Paul wrote his epistle. There you go. I fail to see any reason to appeal to a story about someone of questionable faith starting the Christian church in Rome. I really don't get it.

you know, I have a nice map somewhere on the spread of christianity, i'll see if i can find it for you, and it shows exactly that - all of the first major christian cities (even those in the holy land) were major trading posts, usually ports.

and as for the rest of your post... pretty damn good post aiki

shunyadragon

29-Mar-2005, 08:39 AM

Perhaps I mistyped. It would not be the first time.
The Apostles surely had knowledge of the existence of Rome, but had no knowledge of the church in Rome being planted and were not part of it.
Also, the claim by the Catholic Church is that the Catholic Church was started by Peter in Rome and that he was the first Pope. None of which is true.

On the day of Pentecost Peter preached the first sermon that got the Church started in Jerusalem. But he was not the "Pope" and the Theology of the Catholic Church is very far removed from the Theology of the Apostles. The Apostled never spoke of a "trinity". The Jews only ever had 1 God. Christians believe that 1 God came to the world in the form of a man - Jesus Christ - and that he works his power in the form of "the Holy Spirit". But they are 1 God.

The basic theology of the apostles could be interpreted as harmonious with any church, because of the vagueness of some concepts like the trinity.

The early church fathers after the apostles expressed many variations of belief that would not fit the traditional beliefs of most of today's churches.

Paul was probably the first to begin making the church Roman, and he was sympothetic to Rome in some of his letters. Paul said he strongly disagreed with the apostles and considered his views superior.

megk

29-Mar-2005, 05:02 PM

The basic theology of the apostles could be interpreted as harmonious with any church, because of the vagueness of some concepts like the trinity.

The early church fathers after the apostles expressed many variations of belief that would not fit the traditional beliefs of most of today's churches.

Paul was probably the first to begin making the church Roman, and he was sympothetic to Rome in some of his letters. Paul said he strongly disagreed with the apostles and considered his views superior.

Can you give some examples of those variations in belief between the Apostles? Or what exactly Paul disagreed with? I only know of one thing and that was the making Gentiles recognize and observe certain Jewish traditions from the old covenant, ie. circumcision.

The church began when Jesus ascended into heaven. Right before leaving Jesus tells Peter that he is the rock that Jesus is going to build his church on. Interesting how the name Peter means rock. Jesus also said that Satan had asked to sift Peter like wheat and that after Peter had come through the trial to turn and strengthen his brothers. On the day of Pentecost the Holy Spirit was poured out on the believers that were gathered in Jerusalem. After this happened Peter was enboldened and preached the Gospel and 500 people became believers. Before Pentecost the disciples were afraid and in hiding for fear of the Jewish authority. Also Jesus had told them specifically to wait in Jerusalem. I think the best dating of the beggining of the Church would have to be either the ascension or the day of Pentecost.

As far as the trinity. The trinity had been known from the begining of the Bible. God states in Genesis that "they made man in their image" and the Holy Spirit is what formed the earth and the elements.
Genesis 1:2--- the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
Genesis 1:26-- let us make man in our image, in our likeness...

That doesn't begin to reference all the scriptures in the new testament.
Mt 28:19-- Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

Doesn't seem like a false teaching to me. Pretty clear actually ;)
Ofcourse unless your a conspiracy theorist, and the Catholic Church rewrote the whole Bible, including the old testament.

spiff

29-Mar-2005, 05:28 PM

CanuckMA

04-Apr-2005, 03:35 AM

AZeitung

11-Apr-2005, 01:32 AM

AZ,

Please point to specific scripture that supports your belief that Mary was born w/o origional sin.

I've been putting this off, but I can provide evidence to support this tradition. However, first I would like you to point to a passage from the bible that specifically states that Genesis was written by Mosis.

When it comes to a lot of traditions, like the virginity of Mary, you can argue all you want that they were "added" later at some unknown time, but the fact is, despite what you might think, the church does keep records, and we have a pretty good idea whether or not these traditions were being practiced at the time that the church was created.

Also, it's not as though Catholics don't know and understand the bible. I'm sure the priests at my church are much more qualified to discuss the bible than anyone on this board. Take, for example, the monseignior at my church, Monseignior Sweatland. He graduated from Oxford and has degrees in politics, economics, physics, philosophy, theology, and probably something else that I've left out. He's been seriously studying the bible, as well as other religious and philisophical works for more than twenty years. He used to be a protestant, by the way, as a teenager left the church completely, then converted to Catholicism. Aikimac said that he was sometimes troubled by the fact that Martin Luther, who knew the bible well had opinions that differred from his and his churches. What about the thousands of Catholic priests and scholars who know the bible just as well? Do their opinions count for nothing?

Speaking of Martin Luther, both he and Calvin believed that Mary kept her virginity throughout her entire life and ascended into heaven (the assumption edit: as St. Augustine believed as well. The tradition goes back well before his time, but this proves that even in the fourth century it was well established).

And for the record, I'd like to point out once more that the dueterocannonicals were not "added" by Catholics, unless you are willing to admit that every book in the bible was "added" by Catholics. There is no doubt about it - the first bibles in the completed form that you know today were compiled at the start of the Roman church and had those books. They were removed by protestants, end of story. Most likely one of the reasons that Macabees II, for example, was removed, was because it contradicted Luther's views on purgatory.

Strafio

11-Apr-2005, 12:53 PM

The "Mary kept her virginity" doesn't sound right to me.
Didn't Jesus have lots of brothers and sisters?

Johnno

11-Apr-2005, 01:04 PM

The "Mary kept her virginity" doesn't sound right to me.
Didn't Jesus have lots of brothers and sisters?

I'm sure the Bible refers to Jesus's brothers and sisters. (I can't quote you chapter and verse, but I'm sure it does.) I think the church turns a blind eye to this as it twists itself in knots trying to argue that Mary remained a virgin for ever.

I've always hoped that he did have some. There would be a sort of poetic justice if at least some of the millions of Jews murdered over the years by so-called Christians were related to Jesus.

shunyadragon

11-Apr-2005, 01:32 PM

Can you give some examples of those variations in belief between the Apostles? Or what exactly Paul disagreed with? I only know of one thing and that was the making Gentiles recognize and observe certain Jewish traditions from the old covenant, ie. circumcision.

The church began when Jesus ascended into heaven. Right before leaving Jesus tells Peter that he is the rock that Jesus is going to build his church on. Interesting how the name Peter means rock. Jesus also said that Satan had asked to sift Peter like wheat and that after Peter had come through the trial to turn and strengthen his brothers. On the day of Pentecost the Holy Spirit was poured out on the believers that were gathered in Jerusalem. After this happened Peter was enboldened and preached the Gospel and 500 people became believers. Before Pentecost the disciples were afraid and in hiding for fear of the Jewish authority. Also Jesus had told them specifically to wait in Jerusalem. I think the best dating of the beggining of the Church would have to be either the ascension or the day of Pentecost.

[quote]As far as the trinity. The trinity had been known from the begining of the Bible. God states in Genesis that "they made man in their image" and the Holy Spirit is what formed the earth and the elements.

Ask any Hebrew Jewish scholar and you will get a distinctly different view.

Genesis 1:2--- the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

This simply refers to the spirit of God moving over the waters.

Genesis 1:26-- let us make man in our image, in our likeness...

This is widely held to refer to the collective beings of heaven such as the angels.

If this were true the Jews would believe in the Trinity. The quotes you cited do not support the concept of the trinity. They simply described the Divine nature of God through the minds of the writers of the OT.

That doesn't begin to reference all the scriptures in the new testament.
Mt 28:19-- Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

Doesn't seem like a false teaching to me. Pretty clear actually ;)
Of course unless your a conspiracy theorist, and the Catholic Church rewrote the whole Bible, including the old testament.

No conspiracy necessary the Romans determined the doctrine of Christianity and the basic contents of the Bible which are far from there Jewish roots.

The NT is not that clear either and the early church fathers did not agree on the concept of the trinity.