17 Jul 08
1 edit
I saw there was a thread already, asking me to support my claim that Catholics are not Christian. However, It has gotten kind of long, so I figured I would answer by starting another thread where everyone can see my answer easily without having to search for it.
First off, epiphinehas brought up the most important question to ask when determining if a church is Christian, "Are Catholic beliefs and practices Biblical." The answer to this question also determines if the followers are Christians because if they were and the church was teaching a false doctrine then they would leave that church to find one that does not.
One of the most debated teachings of Catholics is the praying to Mary so that she could intercede for them. We find that in the Bible the only mediator is Christ Jesus, not saints.
1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
They also believe that Mary had to 'will' that Christ was to be killed. That Christ could not fulfill his purpose unless Mary allowed it. And that she is the New Eve who was to contributed to removing sin and redeeming us. However, I find nothing in scripture that supports such claims.
Furthermore, they claim that Mary's virginal body and soul was taken up to heaven. However, she had no virginal body for she had other children by Joseph.
Another is praying for the saints to protect and comfort them, however, it is the Holy Ghost that does this, not the saints.
Joh 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
Joh 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
They also do not believe that the Bible is the only authority of the Lord and they rely on tradition rather than the Lord. They transgress the commandment of God by their traditions. Just because something is a tradition does not make it truth.
This is all I have time for right now, but before I go there is one more thing I would like to address.
My up bringing has nothing to do with my faith. I never really attended church growing up enough to learn anything from the Bible. I have gone to a few a couple of times, however, we never went more than a few weeks. Two were Pentecostal Churches(which one was the one I went to the longest growing up), and the other was a First Baptist Church(we only went 4 times). Untill about four years ago, we were not in anyway living for the Lord. We had an evangelist come to the house who was from CA. that wanted us to come to his church. We did and started reading our Bibles. We started to see that the church we were attending was not Biblical and set out to find one that was. However, we have yet to find one that follows God's Word. After searching for a year we finally got computers and my husband took the notion to punch in "Christian Chat" and came across a site that was ran by true believers that took the Bible seriously. The moderators there do not let anyone teach anything that is not Biblical. They can stay and chat but if they start promoting any false teaching they would get banned. That is where we would learn a lot of truth from the Bible that we never learned from going to any church. And yes we have meet some of the members(mostly moderators) in person and consider them our brothers and sisters in Christ.
17 Jul 08
1 edit
Originally posted by pritybettaI think according to your definition, you also not Christian, you believe that Jesus is your GOD, while he never said that. And the Bible, don't say that, it is just a tradition.
I saw there was a thread already, asking me to support my claim that Catholics are not Christian. However, It has gotten kind of long, so I figured I would answer by starting another thread where everyone can see my answer easily without having to search for it.
First off, epiphinehas brought up the most important question to ask when determining if a mbers(mostly moderators) in person and consider them our brothers and sisters in Christ.
17 Jul 08
Originally posted by ahosyneyBelieving that Jesus Christ is the Lord is in the Bible, therefore it is Biblical not a tradition.
I think according to your definition, you also not Christian, you believe that Jesus is your GOD, while he never said that. And the Bible, don't say that, it is just a tradition.
There is 115 verses that refer to Jesus as Lord, "Lord Jesus". Here is the deffinition of the word 'Lord' that is used in each of them:
κύριος
kurios
koo'-ree-os
From κῦρος kuros (supremacy); supreme in authority, that is, (as noun) controller; by implication Mr. (as a respectful title): - God, Lord, master, Sir.
Joh 10:30 I and my Father are one.
Act 10:36 The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all🙂
Act 19:10 And this continued by the space of two years; so that all they which dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus, both Jews and Greeks.
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
17 Jul 08
Originally posted by pritybettaI don't want the thread to take a direction that you didn't want. So may be in another thread/time we can discuss , because I don't think being LORD means being GOD.
Believing that Jesus Christ is the Lord is in the Bible, therefore it is Biblical not a tradition.
There is 115 verses that refer to Jesus as Lord, "Lord Jesus". Here is the deffinition of the word 'Lord' that is used in each of them:
κύριος
kurios
koo'-ree-os
From κῦρος kuros (su ...[text shortened]... :1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the [b]Word was God. [/b]
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
18 Jul 08
1 edit
Originally posted by pritybettaI have given two objections to epiphinehas' biblical criteria, which apply to you as well. My first is, if you give authority to the apostles who wrote the scriptures (which is a controversial claim), then shouldn't you also give authority to the beliefs and practices which existed in their communities but of which they did not write about? What is so more special about what they wrote over what they believed and practiced? There is a large corpus of works that date to the second century, claiming the approval of apostles. If we can authenticate their historical veracity, surely then we have a second authority?
I saw there was a thread already, asking me to support my claim that Catholics are not Christian. However, It has gotten kind of long, so I figured I would answer by starting another thread where everyone can see my answer easily without having to search for it.
First off, epiphinehas brought up the most important question to ask when determining if a mbers(mostly moderators) in person and consider them our brothers and sisters in Christ.
Secondly, given that a number of apocraphyl works originated contemporaneously with the New Testament, how can you be sure that the New Testament is divinely inspired and the others are not? For all you know, the church at this time could have mucked up big time and inadvertently spread the wrong gospels. Some Oriental Orthodox churches have a few extra books in the New Testament, which are claimed to have apostolic origin. What makes your bible better than theirs? What I am getting at is that scripture is not self-validating, we must refer to outside authorities to validate it.
I think you are embarrassingly ignorant about Catholic doctrine. For example, this claim,
"They also believe that Mary had to 'will' that Christ was to be killed. That Christ could not fulfill his purpose unless Mary allowed it. And that she is the New Eve who was to contributed to removing sin and redeeming us. However, I find nothing in scripture that supports such claims."
has no substance whatsoever. There is no Catholic doctrine that says Mary had to will that Christ be killed. Nor do Catholics say that Mary redeems anyone. (There is a marginal group that has petitioned the Pope to approve the doctrine of Mary as co-redemptrix. The content of this doctrine is that Mary participated significantly in Christ's redemption through her fiat to God; it does not say she is the redeemer or mediator or plays a salvific role. It only states that Mary helped Jesus in his redemptive mission. Content-wise, the proposes doctrine does not suggest anything new for Christianity. It is more honorific than anything. And it is unlikely to be defined dogmatically.)
And this claim,
"Furthermore, they claim that Mary's virginal body and soul was taken up to heaven. However, she had no virginal body for she had other children by Joseph."
refers to two different doctrines: perpetual virginity and the assumption of Mary. The doctrine of perpetual virginity is not exclusively Catholic; it exists in the Orthodox churches. Admittedly biblical scholars lean to the idea that she had children, although the gospels could be interpreted otherwise.
Another error:
"Another is praying for the saints to protect and comfort them, however, it is the Holy Ghost that does this, not the saints."
You are confused about what intercession means. The idea is that any person can pray to the saints, and the saints in turn can pray to God Who then protects/comforts/performs whatever miracles. The basis of intercessory prayer in Catholicism is that the Catholic prays for more prayers. The scriptures are very clear about the efficacy of prayer and their practice should not be controversial. Under no circumstances, does Catholicism describe the saints, including Mary, as rival mediators; their role is only as intercessory who, closer to God, can pray on behalf of those alive.
18 Jul 08
Originally posted by pritybettawhat do you mean by biblical? because if by biblical teachings you mean teachings supported by the bible there are quite a few that are doozies, including slavery, death sentencing and more.
I saw there was a thread already, asking me to support my claim that Catholics are not Christian. However, It has gotten kind of long, so I figured I would answer by starting another thread where everyone can see my answer easily without having to search for it.
First off, epiphinehas brought up the most important question to ask when determining if a ...[text shortened]... mbers(mostly moderators) in person and consider them our brothers and sisters in Christ.
However, she had no virginal body for she had other children by Joseph.
where in the bible does it say this? don't get me wrong, by logic she must have had children or at least she was no virgin because she was married to Joe. but where does it say in the bible she had children. Maybe i am Jesus' cousin and you should address to me as your holiness.
and about your chat. who decides what the false teachings are? who decides what the true ones are. who decided how to interpret a certain passage in the bible? and after the matter is settled on a certain interpretation what makes you more christian than catholics who like you have based their faith on a certain interpretation. are you more christian than the catholics because you are right and they are wrong?
- Joined
- 07 Jan 08
- Moves
- 34575
18 Jul 08
1 edit
Originally posted by Zahlanzi[/b]Please refer to Matthew 13: 54-56
[b]...
However, she had no virginal body for she had other children by Joseph.
where in the bible does it say this? don't get me wrong, by logic she must have had children or at least she was no virgin because she was married to Joe. but where does it say in the bible she had children... [\b]
18 Jul 08
Originally posted by Badwaterdon't know how the catholics manage their organisation. they should have been put out of business a long time ago 😀
Please refer to Matthew 13: 54-56[/b]
inquisition, burning of heretics and witches, stand on contraceptives and blatant manipulations of the bible are just a few that should have made them bankrupt.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
18 Jul 08
Originally posted by ZahlanziA "brother" is not necessarily a consanguineous brother. These brothers could be step-brothers (Joseph's previous children) or cousins (as I understand, Palestine had different familial notions. They did not have a precise terminology for familial relations that distinguished brothers, half-brothers, step-brothers, and cousins.)
don't know how the catholics manage their organisation. they should have been put out of business a long time ago 😀
inquisition, burning of heretics and witches, stand on contraceptives and blatant manipulations of the bible are just a few that should have made them bankrupt.
18 Jul 08
Originally posted by Conrau Kyes, but the context was that is he not the son of marry who is married to joe. so after quoting the parents, it is pretty hard to believe they didn't meant literally his brothers and sisters. you are right, it may be interpreted in many ways. however if you have an ambiguous passage that mentions jesus brothers and sisters questions arise. do you have a passage that unambiguously claims he didn't have any brothers and sisters and that mary never got it on with her husband? or only the catholics say it ?(and perhaps orthodox too)
A "brother" is not necessarily a consanguineous brother. These brothers could be step-brothers (Joseph's previous children) or cousins (as I understand, Palestine had different familial notions. They did not have a precise terminology for familial relations that distinguished brothers, half-brothers, step-brothers, and cousins.)
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
18 Jul 08
Originally posted by Zahlanziyes, but the context was that is he not the son of marry who is married to joe. so after quoting the parents, it is pretty hard to believe they didn't meant literally his brothers and sisters.
yes, but the context was that is he not the son of marry who is married to joe. so after quoting the parents, it is pretty hard to believe they didn't meant literally his brothers and sisters. you are right, it may be interpreted in many ways. however if you have an ambiguous passage that mentions jesus brothers and sisters questions arise. do you have a pa ...[text shortened]... ary never got it on with her husband? or only the catholics say it ?(and perhaps orthodox too)
Yes, it does refer to Jesus' brothers and sisters - but these are not necessarily brothers and sisters on his maternal side. They could be his cousins.
do you have a passage that unambiguously claims he didn't have any brothers and sisters and that mary never got it on with her husband?
No, but then again, I am not the one who claims that the gospels show unambiguously that Mary later had children.
18 Jul 08
6 edits
Originally posted by Conrau K...if you give authority to the apostles who wrote the scriptures (which is a controversial claim), then shouldn't you also give authority to the beliefs and practices which existed in their communities but of which they did not write about?
I have given two objections to epiphinehas' biblical criteria, which apply to you as well. My first is, if you give authority to the apostles who wrote the scriptures (which is a controversial claim), then shouldn't you also give authority to the beliefs and practices which existed in their communities but of which they did not write about? What is so more role is only as intercessory who, closer to God, can pray on behalf of those alive.
No. First of all, nobody gives authority to the apostles who wrote the scriptures except God. Second, it is beside the point what extra-biblical practices were employed by the early church, the point is whether these and subsequent practices passed down over the centuries are substantiated by scripture or not. Nowhere in scripture does it proclaim that tradition is inerrant or "God-breathed", in fact just the opposite. Jesus himself taught that tradition should be subject to the pruning of God's word: "Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition?... You have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition" (Matt 15:3,6). In this case, the teachings of the Pharisees are no different than the teaching of the RCC, i.e., they likewise taught that tradition encompasses scripture. Jesus sternly rebukes them for this, "Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy about you, saying: ‘These people draw near to Me with their mouth, and honor Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me. And in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men" (Matt 15:7-9).
__________
I'd like to say that I do not believe that there aren't born again or Spirit-filled Catholics in the world. I admit there is a possibility of that. My main concern is whether tradition eclipses or complicates the effectiveness of Christ's gospel as it is found in its unadulterated scriptural form. We can explore this by comparing the traditional RCC gospel with the Gospel as it is presented in the word of God, which I am prepared to do.
Secondly, given that a number of apocraphyl works originated contemporaneously with the New Testament, how can you be sure that the New Testament is divinely inspired and the others are not?
To say that the apocrypha was written contemporaneously with the New Testament is a bit of stretch. The approximate date of authorship was between 400 B.C. and 50 B.C. Also, the apocrypha was supposedly part of the Old Testament, not the New Testament, and in this respect the apocrypha is soundly rejected, not only by the Jews themselves but by Christ who never mentions any post-Zechariah OT books: "From the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who perished between the altar and the house of God; yes, I tell you, it shall be charged against this generation’" (Luke 11:51). Further, there are over 260 quotations in the NT from the OT and none of them are from the apocrypha.
What I am getting at is that scripture is not self-validating, we must refer to outside authorities to validate it.
This statement would be fine, I suppose, for anyone prone to not taking the NT as the divinely inspired word of God. However, it is a curious point coming from a Catholic (presuming you are Catholic), given that many Catholic traditional beliefs are derived solely from the authority of scripture, e.g., the Trinity, that Jesus has two natures (God and man), or that the Holy Spirit is the third person of the Godhead.
If Catholicism appeals to the authority of scripture to authenticate its traditions, then it cannot be said that the authority of scripture is also derived from those traditions. The NT must be and is self-validating.
18 Jul 08
Originally posted by Conrau Knobody claims that. i just asked if there is a passage in the bible that suggests jesus had brothers because i thought there wasn't. there is such a passage. you say it is ambiguous and it doesn't have to mean mary's children. but then you must have something on which you base your claim that it is ambiguous. if you don't then both interpretations have equal chances of being valid.
[b]yes, but the context was that is he not the son of marry who is married to joe. so after quoting the parents, it is pretty hard to believe they didn't meant literally his brothers and sisters.
Yes, it does refer to Jesus' brothers and sisters - but these are not necessarily brothers and sisters on his maternal side. They could be his cousins.
...[text shortened]... I am not the one who claims that the gospels show unambiguously that Mary later had children.[/b]
18 Jul 08
Originally posted by ZahlanziThats a piece of logic that escapes Catholics and many other sects as well. Often ambiguity is taken to mean the bible supports their view.
nobody claims that. i just asked if there is a passage in the bible that suggests jesus had brothers because i thought there wasn't. there is such a passage. you say it is ambiguous and it doesn't have to mean mary's children. but then you must have something on which you base your claim that it is ambiguous. if you don't then both interpretations have equal chances of being valid.