pritybetta says "catholics are not christians...

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
i don't agree
she must now bring arguments to support her claim. this should be fun

Why?

Originally posted by Rajk999
Some time ago Muslims on this site claimed that Muslim terrorists were not true muslims because their terrorists activities were not supported by the Koran.

That makes no more sense than what you appear to be saying.

A Muslim or a Christian is defined by his core beliefs. Variations in those beliefs from on group to another does not void his status.

A Muslim or a Christian is defined by his core beliefs. Variations in those beliefs from on group to another does not void his status.

That's besides the point, Raj, all I'm asking is whether the core beliefs of Catholicism are biblical or not.

Originally posted by Conrau K
These questions would only lead to an answer about whetherCatholics are sola scriptura Christians.

My understanding of prima scriptura, the Roman Catholic position, is that secondary sources have authority only in so far as they do not contradict the scriptures. Only the canon itself remains impervious to correction. Given this, questioning the biblical merit of certain core Catholic beliefs remains relevant.

After all, if we establish that Peter really wasn't the Rock on which God intended to build his church, the entire justification for the RCC's claim to be the one true church can be instantly invalidated, and with it the secondary sources and the traditions propagated by the RCC.

It is worth noting, also, that biblical correctness must be particularly relevant to an institution which claims to be the "one true church". At the very least, it is entirely within our bounds to test the validity of that claim, is it not?

Originally posted by duecer
leave her alone, we can't do anything to her that her upringing hasn't already. I feel sad for her, and include her in my prayers; it is unchristian to taunt her. Better to just ignore her.

i am not making this thread to ridicule her. i am making this thread to challenge her. i know her upbringing put a cage around her mind. that any thought against the word of god is sin. i am trying to make her think her position, bring arguments, and maybe she will see how thinking is not wrong, and perhaps come to some conclusions, that we cannot allow a guy dead 2000 years ago that didn't even talk to jesus(with witnesses) impose some rules on us, rules that certainly do not apply to our society.

or maybe she will convince me to become a fanatical southern protestant. depending on how good her arguments are.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
My understanding of prima scriptura, the Roman Catholic position, is that secondary sources have authority only in so far as they do not contradict the scriptures. Only the canon itself remains impervious to correction. Given this, questioning the biblical merit of certain core Catholic beliefs remains relevant.

After all, if we establish tha ...[text shortened]... very least, it is entirely within our bounds to test the validity of that claim, is it not?

My understanding of prima scriptura, the Roman Catholic position, is that secondary sources have authority only in so far as they do not contradict the scriptures. Only the canon itself remains impervious to correction. Given this, questioning the biblical merit of certain core Catholic beliefs remains relevant.

This is not true. The Catholic Church recognises the dual authority of scripture and tradition. This tradition consists of the definitive statements made by ecumenical councils, which also includes the canonisation of scripture. For sure, the scripture is seen as "impervious to correction" but is also seen as amongst other authorities left by Christ.

After all, if we establish that Peter really wasn't the Rock on which God intended to build his church, the entire justification for the RCC's claim to be the one true church can be instantly invalidated, and with it the secondary sources and the traditions propagated by the RCC.

As Tradition unequivocally affirms that Peter was the first pope and had the charism of infallibility, new bibilical scholarship will hardly invalidate the doctrine (as it has basis outside of scripture.) Apologists will invoke scripture to support the belief in the primacy of Peter, but the main authority is the Tradition.

Also, the Catholic Church does not claim to be the one true church. The position of the Catholic Church is that, 1. Christ established the one true church, 2. His church subsists in the Catholic Church, but elements of His church exist in many other Christian churches (albeit, defectively.) Thus, while the Catholic Church preserves all the features of one true church, it does not constitute this church in all entirety.

Originally posted by Conrau K
My understanding of prima scriptura, the Roman Catholic position, is that secondary sources have authority only in so far as they do not contradict the scriptures. Only the canon itself remains impervious to correction. Given this, questioning the biblical merit of certain core Catholic beliefs remains relevant.

This is not true. The Catholi ves all the features of one true church, it does not constitute this church in all entirety.[/b]

As Tradition unequivocally affirms that Peter was the first pope and had the charism of infallibility, new bibilical scholarship will hardly invalidate the doctrine (as it has basis outside of scripture.) Apologists will invoke scripture to support the belief in the primacy of Peter, but the main authority is the Tradition.

Of course the RCC will invoke Tradition to justify any inconsistencies with scripture, but the simple fact that the RCC is capable of successfully rationalizing to itself the legitimacy of its authority lends zero objective credibility to its sacraments. Even if scripture is, as you say, a secondary authority within the RCC, it is still nevertheless recognized as an authority. At the very least it would be curious if the teachings of the RCC, wherever they're ultimately derived from, weren't substantiated by scripture. What you'd have, then, would be a glaring internal inconsistency between two supposed authorities, one in serious need of a rationalization. In order to preserve the legitimacy of one, the other would have to be either dropped altogether or considered secondary to it.

Whether or not the RCC "canonized" the gospels is irrelevant as well. The authority given to the apostles was first given by God, making the RCC's canonization hundreds of years after the fact nothing more than an attempt at usurping the authority of God himself. This further brings into question the validity of Tradition and further exposes it to the critique of scripture, since it cannot be properly established that Tradition imbued scripture with any authority it didn't already have. Therefore, it is right and proper to bring scripture to bear upon RCC Tradition and ask if that Tradition is substantiated by scripture or not, since the authority of scripture is preeminent (whether the RCC recognizes it or not).

So let's have at it.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
....
That's besides the point, Raj, all I'm asking is whether the core beliefs of Catholicism are biblical or not.

The point I am making is that a Christian MUST be defined by the BASICS of what Christ taught :

1. Faith and Belief in Him and in the hope of His second coming
2. Baptism
3. Good Works.

I know how you think Epi ... and I know you are capable. You are going to bring on voluminous 'proof' that they do not follow the teachings of Christ or Paul ... but that does not make them non-Christian. And I will agree that Catholics compared to most other Christian sects have departed from the basic doctrine of the early churches. Remember this incident when the disciples were trying to get Christ to condemn another group ... ..

Luke 9:49 And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us.
50 And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]As Tradition unequivocally affirms that Peter was the first pope and had the charism of infallibility, new bibilical scholarship will hardly invalidate the doctrine (as it has basis outside of scripture.) Apologists will invoke scripture to support the belief in the primacy of Peter, but the main authority is the Tradition.

Of course the RCC wi scripture is preeminent (whether the RCC recognizes it or not).

So let's have at it.[/b]

Of course the RCC will invoke Tradition to justify any inconsistencies with scripture, but the simple fact that the RCC is capable of successfully rationalizing to itself the legitimacy of its authority lends zero objective credibility to its sacraments.

I do not see how that is the case. Historical records suggest that sacramental norms existed coterminously with the period in which the scriptures developed. If we acknowledge the authority of the apostles in the early church, then we must give credibility to the practices that existed in their church. Even if they the apostles did not write about all seven sacraments, we could be satisfied that they at least recognised them in some way.

And we have not, so far, discussed inconsistencies between Scripture and Tradition; you have only raised issue with the idea that Scripture does not substantiate some of the content of Tradition - which would not be an inconsistency. Which is why I disagree with this:

What you'd have, then, would be a glaring internal inconsistency between two supposed authorities, one in serious need of a rationalization. In order to preserve the legitimacy of one, the other would have to be either dropped altogether or considered secondary to it.

You would not have an "internal inconsistency". Youl have two authorities which offer disparate information, which is not necessarily contradictory or inconsistent. In Catholicism, Scripture and Tradition complement one another; neither is considered secondary to the other.

The authority given to the apostles was first given by God, making the RCC's canonization hundreds of years after the fact nothing more than an attempt at usurping the authority of God himself.

But it is a matter of Tradition who the apostles were and which scripture belonged to them and which were apocraphyl.

Therefore, it is right and proper to bring scripture to bear upon RCC Tradition and ask if that Tradition is substantiated by scripture or not, since the authority of scripture is preeminent (whether the RCC recognizes it or not).

So, do you think that scripture validates its own authority?

Originally posted by Rajk999
And I will agree that Catholics compared to most other Christian sects have departed from the basic doctrine of the early churches.

Exactly what were the doctrines of the early church?

Originally posted by Conrau K
Exactly what were the doctrines of the early church?

Many .... But these were not among them :

" .. Does the Bible teach believers to pray to saints? Is there a distinction between the clergy and laypeople taught in the Bible? Biblically, is Mary a perpetual virgin and a mediator between God and man? Does the Bible teach the baptismal regeneration of infants? Are the Sacraments necessary for salvation? Is Peter the Rock on which the church is built? Etc., etc.... " (Epiphinehas)

Originally posted by Rajk999
Many .... But these were not among them :

" .. Does the Bible teach believers to pray to saints? Is there a distinction between the clergy and laypeople taught in the Bible? Biblically, is Mary a perpetual virgin and a mediator between God and man? Does the Bible teach the baptismal regeneration of infants? Are the Sacraments necessary for salvation? Is Peter the Rock on which the church is built? Etc., etc.... " (Epiphinehas)

And what period approxiametly do you think the early church belongs to?

Originally posted by Conrau K
And what period approxiametly do you think the early church belongs to?

The time of Paul.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
i don't agree
she must now bring arguments to support her claim. this should be fun

"she must bring arguments to support her claim" ?

Why?

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
"she must bring arguments to support her claim" ?

Why?

sha made a claim. logic and the rules of debating say she must bring arguments to support her claim. then we disscuss her arguments and offer counter arguments to support our view.

this is how a debate should go, not like most of the threads in RHP where all make their claims with no regard of what was said before, they repeat the same thing or they start ranting. and after a while we forget what was the topic in the first place or we resort to name calling.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
sha made a claim. logic and the rules of debating say she must bring arguments to support her claim. then we disscuss her arguments and offer counter arguments to support our view.

this is how a debate should go, not like most of the threads in RHP where all make their claims with no regard of what was said before, they repeat the same thing or they star ...[text shortened]... and after a while we forget what was the topic in the first place or we resort to name calling.

Ahh--okay. That's an interesting point. I don't agree with one person deciding for another what the "rules" of posting on the debate forum of a chess site must be, but at least I understand the thread now.
Thank you.