[quote]BackInAction wrote:
I have a question in regards to Noah’s Ark and the Flood. If this was true and God wiped out everyone except for Noah, his family, and the animals on the Ark, why do we have different ethnicities of people? If Noah’s family were from the middle east, wouldn’t everyone be that color? Nobody else could have survived the flood cause it lasted 40 days.[/quote]
Are you being serious? There is an entire thread for it see below. Also the guy that started it spelled it Arc which I find funny.
‘So Jesus said to them, Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. [54 ] Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.’
So you eat his flesh and drink his blood you have no life in you, correct? I take it you have not done this. Perhaps you will say this mean you accept him as you Lord and Savior, or that you listen to his word, or that you obey his commands, but is that what it means? It’s not what it says."
The jews were not following His thought. The eating and drinking of Him meant believing and receiving Him as the revelation of the Father. He had explained that coming to him, believing in Him, is to have eternal life, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life” (John 6:47).
One receives spiritual life by believing in Christ and sharing in the redemptive benefits of His death on the cross (Rom. 3:24-25; 1 John 1:7). We continue to have spiritual life as we abide in fellowship with Christ and His Word. Compare John 6:53 with John 6:63, where He says, “The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” Thus, we partake of christ as we continue to have faith in Him and prayerfully receive His Word.
Jesus is the living Word (John 1:1-5); the Bible is the written Word (II Tim. 3:16; II Peter 1:21). Jesus calls Himself here the “bread of life” (John 6:35), and elsewhere He relates this bread to the Word of God: “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that preceedeth out of the mouth of God” (Matt. 4:4). Hence, we “eat his flesh” by abiding in Him and by receiving and obeying the Word of God (John 6:63).
We are saved by God’s grace and regenerating power of the holy spirit when we first hear and receive the Word (John 1:12; Acts 2:41). We continue to be saved and receive grace by remaining in union with Christ and partaking of the word of god continually through reading, obeying, and absorbing its truths into our spirits (I Tim. 4:13-16; Jas. 1:21). It is fatal to withdraw from fellowship with Christ or to neglect His Word.
[/quote]
Perhaps, but it is not what is stated is it. Now if you are to make inferences from seemingly impossible commands to ensure you are in communion with Christ. Then why can’t similar inferencing be done with other seemingly damning passages?
Further, of course we Catholics do this literally, though I do believe this particular passage to me symbolic as you stated.
No, anathema sit simply means, out of communion or not in line with.
Acts 2:38 - And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Acts 22:16 - And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.’
2 Maccabees 12:43-46 - making a gathering . . . sent twelve thousand drachmas of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection (For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead). And because he considered that they who had fallen asleep with godliness, had great grace laid up for them. It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins.
1 Cor 3:11-15 - For other foundation no man can lay, but that which is laid; which is Christ Jesus. Now if any man build upon this foundation, gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay stubble: Every man’s work shall be manifest; for the day of the Lord shall declare it, because it shall be revealed in fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work, of what sort it is. If any man’s work abide, which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man’s work burn, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire."
This is one of the most misunderstood doctrines in the church. Papal infallibility is a process for establishing dogma, not that everything the man does is perfect. The last time it was user was 1954 for the dogma of The Immaculate Conception.
Here is the scripture:
Mt 16:18-20 - And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. [19 ] I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
Mt 26:26 Ã???Ã??Ã?¢?? 28 -Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.” [27 ] And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, "Drink of it, all of you, [28 ] for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
Mk 14:22 �??�?�¢?? 25
And as they were eating, he took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to them, and said, “Take; this is my body.” [23 ] And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, and they all drank of it. [24 ] And he said to them, “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many. [25 ] Truly, I say to you, I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.”
Lk 22:19-20 - And as they were eating, he took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to them, and said, “Take; this is my body.” [23 ] And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, and they all drank of it. [24 ] And he said to them, “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many. [25 ] Truly, I say to you, I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.”
1 Cor 11:23 -29- For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, [24 ] and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” [25 ] In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” [26 ] For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
[27 ] Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. [28 ] Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. [29 ] For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself.
Same as above.
[/quote]
Confession: If anyone denies that the sacramental confession was instituted, and is necessary for salvation, by divine Law; or says that the manner of confessing secretly to a priest alone, which the Catholic Church has always observed from the beginning and still observes, is at variance with the institution and command of Christ and is a human invention, anathema sit (Council of Trent, Session 14).
James 5:16 - Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person has great power as it is working.
I do not deny, nor do I condemn. If I don’t think it’s a big shock to you that you are out of communion with Catholicism…Since you don’t want to be, it’s really no big deal
Concerning anathema:
And now you know that there is in fact scriptural evidence.
And so, now will you answer the question, do you condemn these people whom believe differently, but still love God in what ever form that would take?
Since she took a vow of celibacy, perhaps Josephs would want to have sex, but it wouldn’t happen, seeing as how the marriage was technically unlawful since she was pregnant. You can read about it in nauseating detail here:
[/quote]
So when did she take this vow of celibacy? Let me rephrase the question. What year and which council of the Roman Catholic Church set as Dogma that Mary took a vow of Celibacy?
Oh and by the way Joseph made it lawful when he accepted Mary as his wife. Joseph had every reason to divorce her quietly as the Bible says. Joseph is not given credit for actually making the birth legitimate. No one at the time would have thought differnetly. Everyone knew him as the carpenters son.God chose Joseph so that the lineage of David would be confirmed. Joseph also needs to have the same rights as Mary. [/quote]
Peruse the link, your questions are answered there. I am not saying read it in detail, but what you asked is in there.
[quote]pat wrote:
<<< Particularly when it came to gain profit or power by exploiting the faith of the lowly. It was because of the reformation that the church cleaned house. So in a sense it was a good thing.
What I see here is a lot of misconceptions on what exactly Catholicism is and what we believe. It’s sad really. I do not know what is being taught out there, but it is patently false almost categorically.
[/quote]This I admit, just infuriates me. Cleaned house? So when does the “church” give back it’s stolen headquarters then? I have never gotten an answer to that. When you steal from somebody and then repent you give back what you stole and maybe more. If impossible then that abomination should have been burned to the ground in denunciation of the unthinkably sick, sadistic, satanic way it was financed. Anything except to just keep it and keep using it. There is no repentance for hundreds of years now. That alone is a monumental ongoing and fatal evidence of Rome’s utter alienation from the God and Christ of the bible. Have you ever let it sink in what “The church” did to those people to build that thing? Ever? Killing them would have been more merciful.
Tell me one misconception of mine. I have gotten everything from catholic sources and in most cases sources with an included imprimatur so as to remove all doubt. I can make mistakes, but where? How bout an answer to Blacksheep’s anathemas from Trent. (He’s exactly right on the body and blood of Christ too BTW) Oh, there’s dozens more too. Oops, the ever immutable rock of the holy apostolic church changed that at vatican II. Actually there’s whole groups of dissent all over the flawlessly united body on a catalog of issues including “ignorance” as propounded in the CCC. I can make a list if you want. Usually these folks adhere to the Baltimore catechism or some other earlier standard instead, viewing the CCC as a modernist liberal corruption of the most holy faith. That makes it kinda inconvenient because the CC with all it’s newfound tolerance is what’s onthe vatican website. There’s just as much division there as anywhere else.
Let’s not even get into all the dogma that evolved over CENTURIES clearly indicating that earlier generations were without these “truths” that God must have withheld until pope ________ came along to make it anathema to deny it. Oh I know. There’s explanations for that too. There’s explanations for everything and as soon as you surrender your mind AND your soul to a man (and yes it is that) living in a sprawling palace city state built by pure evil it will all make sense to you too right?
I must be honest in stating that my delving back into RCC dogma again the past several weeks has caused a drastic re-deterioration of my estimation of that church which even at it’s best was never all that great anyway. I cannot state emphatically enough however that contrary to how it may appear this does not indicate hostility toward you people in this forum, but it would be dishonest of me to pretend not to have hostility toward Roman Catholicism. The deeper we go in these conversations the worse it gets.
“…And so, now will you answer the question, do you condemn these people whom believe differently, but still love God in what ever form that would take?”
It is not for me to condemn. I have given you my interpretation of the Holy Scriptures from my studies of said scriptures and through the leading of the Holy Spirit. The Truth will stand in the end.
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
I have a question in regards to Noah’s Ark and the Flood. If this was true and God wiped out everyone except for Noah, his family, and the animals on the Ark, why do we have different ethnicities of people? If Noah’s family were from the middle east, wouldn’t everyone be that color? Nobody else could have survived the flood cause it lasted 40 days.[/quote]
Are you being serious? There is an entire thread for it see below. Also the guy that started it spelled it Arc which I find funny.
Yep, I’m serious. I don’t see that question directly answered in that thread (but in honest, I only skimmed a few pages).
If one can’t accept inspired dogma and tradition, one might also want to put that bible away. It’s very existence is only possible through the same claim of inspired authority. To use the bible to say, “nuh-uh that word/action is not specifically in there, therefore, it’s bunk,” is silly. The bible isn’t the starting point. The Church is. The bible was not the vehicle for bringing the Church or the faith into existence. But the authority of the church was the vehicle for bringing the bible into existence. It is not/was not the other way around. Christ did not leave a bible upon his death on the cross. He left a church and a minesterial priesthood. Through this, you got your bible. Through this we got the bible AND what you’ve spat on and tossed away. Here in this thread I see Holy scripture being turned into an actual idol.
So while some American Protestants (evangelicals) here may say a pledge to a flag/nation, visit an immense statue of Lincoln, treat the constitution as if was NT scripture and the national anthem as if was straight out of psalms, or even state on behalf of God that this nation was blessed by ‘divine providence,’ it’s us that are the idolators. Come home to Rome, we’ve got punch and cookies at the reception desk.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
When does the American Protestant give back the the ‘stolen’ nation his churches still reside in today…
Let’s not go this route.[/quote]The United States of America was a brutal, greedy, even Islamic like conqueror of this continent. She mercilessly and illegitimately displaced, dispersed imprisoned multitudes of indigenous people created in the image of almighty God in the name of an entirely unbiblical pagan ambition touted as “manifest destiny”.
To the extent the American protestant was complicit in this evil rape of North America I denounce it though I also recognize that said United States committed none of these sinful deeds under guise of being the “one true holy and apostolic church” in which is enthroned “the vicar of Christ” on earth. None the less the “creator” is invoked in her founding documents and she has committed crimes against humanity. She does not however claim or defame the name of Christ or imperil anybody’s eternal soul whether retaining her evil spoils of conquest or not. She has also gained such a station in the world where restitution is ontologically impossible even on symbolic level.
Further, the protestant (OK and Baptist =] ) evangelical regard for the charge of our Lord and his apostles to take the only means of salvation to the ends of the earth obligates us to be wherever mankind resides in obedience to the preceding.
Rome’s turn. Now what? Not being in any way analogous to the United States I have some very serious suggestions. (that will never happen)
Psst. (whispering) I’ll let ya in on a little secret. I would love nothing more than for there to be one true holy and apostolic church if it were up to me. Believe that my friend. If there ever was going to one however it could NOT be this one in anything like it’s present state. After you answer this post. I’ll tell you something else that may surprise you.
And now for something totally off topic jist fer a minute to break up all the tension. I give you Dizzi and Emily from England on a pair of hammered dulcimers. Absolutely unbelievable.
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
Here are two unknowns about Christianity:
Polygamy is actually allowed in both the Old and New Testament
There is little to no evidence of any of the Jesus stories from non-biblical sources
[/quote]
I was Looking into this a little more. Look at Deuteronomy 17:17 - He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray. It is talking about the Israelite King and these are laws to the people about said King. So polygamy is denounced in the Bible. The original set up by God was one woman and one man.[/quote]
D 17:17 is a great verse, it not only talks about marriage, but worship. Isreal is supposed to be have fidelity towards God.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
If believing that you can go to Jesus’ Mother, as the guests did at the wedding, so she on your behalf can ask her Son for your prayers to be answered is a sin. Send me to Hell.
[/quote]
Read John 2. The guests did not go to Mary to beseech Jesus. Jesus had not preformed a miracle yet, so why would they? Mary heard that they were out of wine, or maybe she was thristy and wanted some wine for herself and could not find any. Either way she went to Jesus. The people at the wedding did not know who had done this except the servants that helped Jesus. Most servants as Jewish custom were gentiles. The first miracle of Jesus and it was only revealed to the gentiles. This story is not here to tell us to go to Mary to pray for us. This was the first miracle preformed by Jesus, and started his ministry out in the open.[/quote]
I didn’t know you wrote John, thanks for the explanation.
John 2:3 the mother of Jesus: Mary is never called by her personal name in the Fourth Gosepl (2:12; 19:25). No wine: An embarrasssing predicament for the young couple. Mary’s concern for thed situation may suggest she is a relative of the wedding party. Vatican II affirms the propriety of the title “advocate” for the Mother of Jesus (Lumen Gentium, 62). It means that just as Mary intervened at Cana for the needs of others, so she continues to make heavenly intercession for the needs of the saints on earth (CCC 969).
2:4 woman: Although it might offend the standards of modern etiquette, this was a title of respect and endearment in antiquty (4:21; 8:10; 20:13). There is, however, no ancient example of a son addressing his mother in this way. - Genesis 3 is the reverse image of the Canan episode. As Eve prompted Adam to defy the Lord and drag the human family into sin, so Mary prompts Jesus, the new Adam, to initiatie his mission of salvation. The description of Mary even alludes to Gen 3:15 where Yahweh speaks of a “woman” whose son will trample the devill underfoot (CCC 489, 494). what have you to do with me? The expression is a Hebrew idiom rendered in Greek (literally, “what to me and to you?”). It typically presupposes some perceived tension between two parties having contrary perspectives (Judg 11:12; 1 Kings 17:18; Mk 5:7), though not always (2 Chron 35:21). When the idiom is used in response to a person’s request, either stated or implied, the speaker sometimes capitulates to the expression will of the other (2 Kings 3:13) and sometims not (2 Sam 16:10). Here the former pattern is evident: Jesus coplies with Mary’s request (Jn 2:708), and Mary herself appears perfectly onfident that Jesus will respond favorably to her petition (2:5). In effect, Jesus would not have intiated the miracle at Cana, but neither does he refuse his Mother’s prompting. My house has not yet come: The assertion hides an important assumption. The statement would seem exaggerated unless the provision of wine was somehow connected with Jesus’ appointed “hour”. This points beyond the historical house of his Passion to the commeoration of that house in the eucharistic liturgy, where Christ is present behind the visible sign of wine (CCC 2618).
Footnote of Jn 2:4: What have you to do with me?: What is that to you or to me? While this expression always implies a divergence of view, the precise meaning is to be determined by the context, which here shows that it is not an unqualified refusal, still less a rebuke.
Jn 2:5 Do whatever he tells you: The finals words of Mary in the NT, which ring out as her spiritual testament for all dsiciples of Jesus. - The command to follow Jesus echoes the command to follow Joseph in Gen 41:55. As the patriarch when on to provide bread in abuncance during a time of famine, so Jesus supplies wine in abundance at a time of need.
The fact of the matter is, that Jesus did his first miracle becausae of His holy mother.
[quote]pat wrote:
You can go to a Catholic church in Georgia, and then go to one in Thailand and you get the same mass.
[/quote]
I did this twice, once domestically and then one internationally. It was awesome to hear the mass said in English in Phoenix and the same mass said in Latin in Argentina. And if Protestants think we worship Mary, they’d be horrified by what kind of Honor they bestow on her down in Latin American and third world countries. Not to say you guys have weak stomachs, just that American Catholics can be a lot tamer compared to people that show their reliance on God everyday to sometimes only feed one of their six children a day.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
May I make an observation. Brother Chris you have my respect. You are going about this discussion with the utmost integrity and respect. Tirib, you also have my respect and you are trying to not make this personal. Sorry Pat, but you are acting like a child. Respect is gained and earned, and not demanded. Catholics have issues with Protestants, and Protestants have issues with Catholics.
We are all here still trying to figure it out. This is the race we are all running, but on this side of heaven we are not going to figure it all out. We all have the basics, and that is Jesus Christ is the way the truth and the life. Jesus is God, and was born of a virgin.
Jesus Christ was crucifed on the cross, and was barried. On the third day rose again, and then accendended into heaven and now sits at the right hand of the Father. One day Jesus will return to judge all men and women. It is just the small details we are trying to figure out.
I am seeing that the main issues Protestants have with Catholics is the use of the Bible, of Mary , and the Pope. To call the Bible nothing more than a paper back IMO is foolish and you should reconsider that statement. To call the teachings of men through the ages after the final cannonization of the Bible to be on the same level as the Bible IMO is also foolish.
If those teachings were on the same par the council would have included them into the Bible. The councils wanted to make sure that the Bible was higher than all the other teachings for a reason. The Bible is the inspired words of God, is a sword, is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path. It is all we need.
All the other books are individuals thoughts on the scriptures, and have to be compared to the scriptures. Yes there is a hirearchy in all churches, but we all have to use the Bible and read it to make sure that what is being taught in church is actually Biblical. We are called to verify what is being taught is correct. The only way to do this is to compare it to the Bible. Traditions do not trump the Bible. Traditions can be invented, but the word of God never changes.
That is why the Bible was written in the first place. The letters of Paul was to counter herecy. I do not think Catholics are going to Hell just because they are Catholic, but you have to fight the ideas that are being passed around as tradition. IMO allowing the Idea that “Mary is sitting at the right had of God” in Heaven to me is foolish and another one of those traditons that are not biblical by any stretch of the imagination. We have been over this, but the Bible does not mention this at all.
Jesus even puts Mary in her place in the Bible. Does Jesus love his mother yes, but he loves all of us equally. Mary is a sinner just like you and me. Only Jesus Christ is the only human to have never sinned. When Jesus was asked who would be sitting at his right hand in Heaven, he never mentioned Mary, or anyone else for that matter. All human beleivers are saints, but we are all sinners.
I am still trying to get my hands around the idea that other religious people who do not beleive in Jesus are going to go to heaven. This is herecy and denounced by the Bible as Blacksheep has posted for us all. Jesus is the only way to heaven. It might not seem fair, but who said life was fair? We have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.
I would love to think that everyone is going to heaven, but the way to God is narrow, and Jesus even told us this. It is not broad, and if the Catholic Church is preaching this they really need to change this because this is not truth, or tradition of the church. We are to spread the Gospel, and that is the Good News that Jesus Christ is alive. He wants us to be with him in heaven, but the only way to do that is to beleive in Jesus Christ.
He is both fully God and fully Human. That is why his sacrifice is complete. He is all we need, and that is why he said, “It is finished.” Seems pretty complete to me.
We are to be holy and a pleasing sacrifice to God. Concentrate on him and his word to us. That is where the focus needs to be, and not on the outside fringes of individual teachings. There is a lot of similarities in us, and all true beleivers are my brothers and sisters.[/quote]
Now to clarify our position on Mary.
She is the mother of God. The one God chose to carry and raise his son. We DO NOT worship Mary nor would she want us to. We do honor her. Do you know why? Because Jesus honored her, that�¢??s why. Who are we to ignore she whom he himself honored and listened to? Jesus didn�¢??t take any human orders, except from her. Further to not honor her is against scripture where in the Magnificat, she proclaims �¢??All generations will call me Blessed.�¢?? And so it is so.
If you understood the history of the church, you�¢??d understand the traditions. They exist not because they are fun, or pretty or neat. It was to ensure unity and linearity between churches. Your not going to go to one church and see one thing and one message and go to another and see yet another. This was a huge problem in the early church and the apostles and their ordained had a hell of a time keeping people on the same page. You can go to a Catholic church in Georgia, and then go to one in Thailand and you get the same mass.
[/quote]
Yes she is blessed, but the chruch does not only call her blessed. You say she is sinless, and that she is an eternal virgin. The only way to seal a marriage in Jewish customs was to have sex. So she was a virgin when they got married, but after the birth of Jesus you really think that Joseph would not want to have sex with his wife? You are also saying that Mary is sitting at the right hand of God. You are not calling her just blessed, but raising her up to be equal with God. I hope this is not the teaching of the church, but only your interpretation of it. If it is the teaching of the church, and Brother Chris please correct me if I am wrong. Pat, sorry, but I do not think you are the authoritarian on Catholic teachings. Brother Chris is thinking of going to seminary, so I am going to respect his interpretation of the Catholic Church over yours.
[/quote]
Just a quick retort. I wouldn’t trust my interpretation of the Catholic Church, I do not even trust myself. I do not have authority, I can learn and trust what I have learned from the Catholic Church, though. I can always witness, evang, and stuff but ultimately you have to read the dogmas and the bible yourself to get it, and I know there are non-clerical people that wrote part of dogmas but just because I make a convincing argument or a good argument doesn’t make me write, the truth makes me write if I say it. Kind of weird I know, I’m still wrapping my head around it.
But on the Mary thing, worship is the breaking point for most people, it translates three different word phrases, dulia is a definitional word of worship. Its translated more easily translates to honor, not adding hyper in Latin means basically super. Super-honor if you would. However this is no where close to what you is given to God. Worship is what English speakers would call it. That is the one thing I do not like about English, that is partially why I am learning Latin, and so I can travel and go to Church without having to learn every language on the planet before I even get there. Also because if English’s rich and textual substance it is hard for a hard and fast ecclesastical understanding of stuff like the Bible and Dogmas and philosophy. Basically English sucks for anything that needs to be concrete, wonder why they made a different sub-language of English for Law, and people can still “make of what they want of it.” Plus, how cool is it to speak Latin, if you don’t know, it’s really cool. I think.
Second thing on Mary, she sits at the Right hand of the Son, The Son sits at the right hand of the Father. The Holy Ghost, I’m still not sure where he sits or if me more just floats…kidding. She is not on the Level of God, any head of them. They are all equal, and equal to none else. So, sitting on the right hand of Jesus does not mean she is equal, I’ll explain about the Church being Jesus wife and how this goes further.
However, the reason for this teaching can be seen in the Old Testament prophecies. Which King Solomon made an office for his mother, known as Mother Queen or Queen Mother, which was at his right hand. She didn’t not earn this office, but only because of King Solomon’s “status” I guess you could say, did she hold that office.
A big thing about Jewish people as well is that of bloodline, and that is the reason for King Solomon’s mother having an office at the right hand of Solomon. Think of this, if you lived in a kingdom, and you were the prince you might not be noticable to many people since you are basically considered a child of the king. However, the King and his wife would be much more noticable. Very much more noticable, even if Solomon was noticable himself. However, with his mother there, someone of the Kingdom would recognize her since she would have sat next to the King David, Solomon’s father himself. Her position was one to help King Solomon, even though he may be capable, I am sure we all like people to help us. Second, is to basically physically testify that the man sitting in the thrown of the King, is in fact the King and not an imposter since we all know mother’s are the best are recognizing their children (We don’t say the remark, beat up so bad that his own mother couldn’t recognize him for no reason).
Now, if you talk to a Jew you’ll get the impression of the reason that they do not believe Jesus is the Messiah, is because he didn’t fulfill the Davidic Kingship. That is partially true, but that is more to the fact that the Jews may have suspected that the Kingship as they are foretold would come at once, when in fact would come at two different times (which is in the prophesies). Part of the Davidic Kingship is the office of the Mother Queen. And, even in Jewish times if the Mother was not killed, the kingdom was not taken over. She could rule the kingdom herself, that is how powerful her office is. However, it is still not equal to the King by any means. That would be ludacris (did I spell that right or am is my mind in Atlanta right now?).
Pat will have to come in on this part, but I’ll offer a few words. I believe Pat is saying on Jesus not taking orders from any humans as after he started his ministry. Which he really didn’t unless you consider request as an order. Which it’s not unless you consider our prayers orders, which in some people’s case, even my own sometimes it is.
Traditions do not trump the Bible. The Bible does not trump traditions. Are we really arguing over capitilizing letters now. Catholic meaning universal, doesn’t matter if it is lowercase or upper case. The reason why the C in Catholic Church is capitalize is because in English you capitalize proper nouns, which in the case of catholic church since it is universal, and there only being one, would effect make it a proper noun.
As I like to say, Luther may have started the reformation but the Council of Trent ended it. However, they keep protesting.
Welcome to the world, everybody sins. I gotta funny for you on this one I heard from a Baptist:
Jews don’t recognize Jesus.
Protestants do not recognize the Pope.
Baptists don’t recognize each other in the liquor store.
Eh, I wouldn’t say no one is better than anyone, there are clearly better people than others, including myself. I’m way bad, but the Saints obviously were better than those that go to Hell. That is because they relied on God, and they may have been worse than those in Hell, but they obviously did something better than those in Hell. However, yes it is a misnomer to say that there are good and bad people, because well the matter is that we are still all dust. We are the human variety not the divine variety. Kind of why I shy away from saying I’m better than others, because I am sure there are a lot of criminals that are in Heaven, and I can theorise that there are a lot of nice people in Hell.
Well, if I may point out something, those people that are corrupt in the Catholic Church have one common denominator, their actions don’t follow the Bible and they do not follow dogmas. Let’s take Luther’s example of buying of indulgences. We still have indulgences, I’ll give you Plenary indulgence, which the kind that will wipe all temperoral punishment away, meaning if you die correct (no mortal sin, basically confession, eucharist, &c.) and do this you’ll skip pergatory and head to Heaven. If you read your Bible for 30 minutes, I know that’s what I though too, a day (this only lasts the day so the next day you have to do it again, TIRING) you’ll have plenary indulgence. Now, back to buying of indulgences. This was a mistake of not following the Bible or the dogmas correctly and in fact, it was more of being greedy and thinking someone can logically come to a conclusion that was false. However, indulgences not logically or factually false. So those 95 thesis were not incorrect, on the whole, however heresy and schism are.
Actually the thing is that unless Jesus only spoke for (I timed myself, back when I had this one of those Bibles with red ink for what Jesus said) 4 hours and some change, and the fact that his ministry according to John’s Chrono was about 3 years, I am sure he said and taught some more stuff than that. Which even though not recorded, is passed down through knowledge, not word for word, which we call tradition. Which goes into upper case tradition and lower case tradition. Which is another screwy topic of itself. But, as you said, let’s keep it simple.
[quote]
When was the first catechism written, and is there a copy of this one on line? [/quote]
Oh yes, the one thing about the Catholic Church is that they everything is public. And there are so many people in the Church willing to do work that it’s almost impossible to not find an online document that the Church possesses. I’ll find you a few.
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/14554/14554.txt This is the Baltimore Catechism declared non-perfect in every respect, but still a good Catechism. Yes, Catechisms have to be declared perfect in every respect, just like Bibles. Kind of like peer review, if it doesn’t pass, it doesn’t get the big stamp of approval, but our peer review is more along the lines of theologians and Holy Ghost. Catechism by the way is basically (if I am correct here and I wasn’t misinformed) universal teaching, there are several books like John that are considered catechisms from the Apostals. Now, don’t go around huffing and puffing, a catechism like the Baltimore and the CCC are more a summarizing of principles the those of the Bible. Now, you’ll say, “well all the books are catechisms,” which you’d be write…kind of. Catechisms have to follow a certain order or format, which John follows.
You can look at the Catechism of the Catholic Church (referred to as CCC by internet Catholics), but I’ll let ya know right now. Sometimes, I’m not so sure of what I am reading, in the book, and it brings more questions than answers and sometimes arguments. Lol. I more tend to look at St. Thomas Aquinas and the 1885 Baltimore Catechism.
‘So Jesus said to them, Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. [54 ] Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.’
So you eat his flesh and drink his blood you have no life in you, correct? I take it you have not done this. Perhaps you will say this mean you accept him as you Lord and Savior, or that you listen to his word, or that you obey his commands, but is that what it means? It’s not what it says."
The jews were not following His thought. The eating and drinking of Him meant believing and receiving Him as the revelation of the Father. He had explained that coming to him, believing in Him, is to have eternal life, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life” (John 6:47).
One receives spiritual life by believing in Christ and sharing in the redemptive benefits of His death on the cross (Rom. 3:24-25; 1 John 1:7). We continue to have spiritual life as we abide in fellowship with Christ and His Word. Compare John 6:53 with John 6:63, where He says, “The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” Thus, we partake of christ as we continue to have faith in Him and prayerfully receive His Word.
Jesus is the living Word (John 1:1-5); the Bible is the written Word (II Tim. 3:16; II Peter 1:21). Jesus calls Himself here the “bread of life” (John 6:35), and elsewhere He relates this bread to the Word of God: “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that preceedeth out of the mouth of God” (Matt. 4:4). Hence, we “eat his flesh” by abiding in Him and by receiving and obeying the Word of God (John 6:63).
We are saved by God’s grace and regenerating power of the holy spirit when we first hear and receive the Word (John 1:12; Acts 2:41). We continue to be saved and receive grace by remaining in union with Christ and partaking of the word of god continually through reading, obeying, and absorbing its truths into our spirits (I Tim. 4:13-16; Jas. 1:21). It is fatal to withdraw from fellowship with Christ or to neglect His Word.
Also stated,
“…So forget scripture for a minute… Let’s pretend you’re God. Would you condemn these people, who do not believe as you do to eternal damnation? A fate worse than death? I know I could not…”
So you say?
You are accursed by the Roman Catholic Church if you deny some of its main doctrines. The following are some of them (“anathema sit” means “let him be accursed”):
Baptism: If anyone says that the Roman Church…does not have the true doctrine concerning the sacrament of baptism, anathema sit…If anyone says that baptism is …not necessary for salvation, anathema sit (Council of Trent, Session 7).
Purgatory: If any one says, that, after the grace of Justification has been received, to every penitent sinner the guilt is remitted, and the debt of eternal punishment is blotted out in such wise, that there remains not any debt of temporal punishment to be discharged either in this world, or in the next in Purgatory, before the entrance to the kingdom of heaven can be opened to him; let him be anathema (Council of Trent, Session 6).
Papal infallibility: The Roman Pontiff… possesses…that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable. So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema (First Vatican Council).
Transubstantiation: If anyone denies that in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really and substantially contained, but says that he is in it only in a sign or figure…anathema sit (Council ofTrent, Session 12).
Sacrifice of the Mass: If anyone says that the sacrifice of the Mass is merely an offering of praise and thanksgiving, or that it is a simple commemoration of the sacrifice accomplished on the cross, but not a propitiatory sacrifice…offered for the living and the dead, for sins, punishments, satisfaction and other necessities, anathema sit (Council of Trent, Session 12).
Confession: If anyone denies that the sacramental confession was instituted, and is necessary for salvation, by divine Law; or says that the manner of confessing secretly to a priest alone, which the Catholic Church has always observed from the beginning and still observes, is at variance with the institution and command of Christ and is a human invention, anathema sit (Council of Trent, Session 14).
Do you deny the above? If not, you have condemned me.
Concerning “anathema,” Paul was so certain that the gospel he proclaimed was correct (II Peter 1:21) that he considered anyone else who preached another gospel as accursed (anathema) by God, even if it was an angelic spokesman . This solemn curse was not simply a statement of Paul’s viewpoint; it was the sentence of God upon those who preach another gospel, “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.” (Gal. 1:8-9).
[/quote]
Do you forget that the Gospel is more powerful than the pages in a book, no matter how important the book. The Gospel is the Good News, the Good News is that Jesus has died for our sins and was resurrected on the third day. That he fulfilled the Law. I have stated what the Bible has said in different terms, therefore by your definition I suppose I could be accursed of preaching another gospel. However, I hae not because a truth is a truth, but how we speak that truth may not be the same. Logically we know this as the same truth can be spoken in different sentences, such as in Spanish or English, or Latin and Greek.
[quote]
This section in Galatians conveys some of the strongest admonitions and rebukes found in the N.T. This is because Christians (and non-christians) there were being led into “another” (Gk. heteros) gospel (Gal. 1:6). Paul vehemently warned that this was not “another” (Gk. allos) gospel of the same kind which brought them to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. Instead this heteros gospel was a perversion of the true glad tidings of Christ (Gal. 1:7). It was contrary to the one they had first heard Paul preach (Gal. 1:8). He went on to pronounce a curse, anathema, upon anyone (human or angelic) who would present a gospel different from the one they first received from him.
Nowhere in the Word of God can I find any evidence for the above six doctrines of the Catholic Church. I rather choose the Word of God over the word of man.[/quote]
Because you cannot find them, does not mean they are not there. It is actually easy to find them if you take the dogmas and look for yourself. It would take a lot of time to go through them as I am having my Bible computer worked on and do not have any of my files on this computer.
However, on the statement of condemnation, you are only presenting half of the situation. There is a lot of teaching on this, so it can be miscontrued if not swallowed whole. Bascially I’ll give you a jest if I can.
There is two different heretics. Formal and material heresy. Formal is the sinful kind, like the kind we say Luther had. Material is what we consider you guys to have. You are heretical, but not on your own accord. Or, as Tirib probably hates, of no fault of your own. Now this does not mean that anything really. You can be saved or you can’t be, that is in God’s will, however there is still a difference.
Since she took a vow of celibacy, perhaps Josephs would want to have sex, but it wouldn’t happen, seeing as how the marriage was technically unlawful since she was pregnant. You can read about it in nauseating detail here:
[/quote]
So when did she take this vow of celibacy? Let me rephrase the question. What year and which council of the Roman Catholic Church set as Dogma that Mary took a vow of Celibacy?
Oh and by the way Joseph made it lawful when he accepted Mary as his wife. Joseph had every reason to divorce her quietly as the Bible says. Joseph is not given credit for actually making the birth legitimate. No one at the time would have thought differnetly. Everyone knew him as the carpenters son.God chose Joseph so that the lineage of David would be confirmed. Joseph also needs to have the same rights as Mary. [/quote]
I guess this is the like the reverse of feminism. No Joseph doesn’t need the same rights as Mary. Mary doesn’t have any right, but because her son is God. And only because of His own accord she has that office.
Seating Chart of Heaven (when looking at them from the front, not looking at their back as I once said this to a person and was accused of saying that according to Jewish history I just put Mary above the Godhead, which is ridiculous and that person should be slapped for such silliness): Mary - Jesus - God, and the Holy Ghost is making havic from the Devil I suppose. However, Jesus even says something to the accord when a mother asked if her son could sit at his right hand that the Father has already made the seating assignments. I always wondered what that ladies face looked like that when Jesus told her that. I would have been like wait…what?
[quote]pat wrote:
I did not know I was in a pissing contest with Brother Chris but, ok.
[/quote]
Old man rivers afraid his prostate isn’t as youthful as back in the day? Just joshin’ you. I didn’t know it either, I’m not sure what discerning if I should be married or go into the priesthood has anything to do with me being smarter or having more authority than you.
Story Time!!!
There was a little old woman that lived in Cuba, New Mexico (what a coincidence, that is where my grandmother lives, if any of you fuckers goes there looking for my grandmother, I swear on the ground I stand on she will make you the best ice tea and you better act like a fucking gentleman or she’ll skin your scrotum. Oh, and ask for her green chillies) And there was a new priest, well I was asking questions about the Church while she was praying for penance or something (I really don’t remember why we were there except for confession and adoration) and she came up and in her broken English started telling him he was wrong, and would go into chapter and verse, and dogma book, chapter, line and prove he was wrong by MEMORY. Now, this just shows you that just because someone is a priest or thinking about being a priest does not mean they are right. However, they are teaching from Dogma or the Bible, or what they say is the Truth, then they are speaking the truth.
And, trust me. We know all about talking out the side of our necks, wonder where the name Devil’s Advocate came from, look no farther than the Catholic Church. We got rid of the position, but we still aren’t afraid to fill it with the likes of Christopher Hitchens. I believe he was hired and paid (or he might have been nice of to do it for free, what a nice guy) to be the Devil’s Advocate against…I forget, but anyway, speaking on the issue of Mother Teresa. Yes, even for issues of Beatification we get a Devil’s Advocate. We don’t take making decisions like Sainthood and stuff like that as willy nilly. Serious stuff.
[quote]pat wrote:
This is one of the most misunderstood doctrines in the church. Papal infallibility is a process for establishing dogma, not that everything the man does is perfect. The last time it was user was 1954 for the dogma of The Immaculate Conception.
[/quote]
If only it wasn’t then I could actually root for the winning team every superbowl. THE SAINTS!
[quote]pat wrote:
<<< Particularly when it came to gain profit or power by exploiting the faith of the lowly. It was because of the reformation that the church cleaned house. So in a sense it was a good thing.
What I see here is a lot of misconceptions on what exactly Catholicism is and what we believe. It’s sad really. I do not know what is being taught out there, but it is patently false almost categorically.
[/quote]This I admit, just infuriates me. Cleaned house? So when does the “church” give back it’s stolen headquarters then? I have never gotten an answer to that. When you steal from somebody and then repent you give back what you stole and maybe more. If impossible then that abomination should have been burned to the ground in denunciation of the unthinkably sick, sadistic, satanic way it was financed. Anything except to just keep it and keep using it. There is no repentance for hundreds of years now. That alone is a monumental ongoing and fatal evidence of Rome’s utter alienation from the God and Christ of the bible. Have you ever let it sink in what “The church” did to those people to build that thing? Ever? Killing them would have been more merciful.
[/quote]
No Penance? Seriously…I think so far this everyday, yeah, everyday this year there are people saying penance for the Church’s passed sins. We even have cloistured nuns who’s main duty, besides that of being a Christian, is to say penance for the Church. When was the last time we heard penance from the Puritans, or the Anabaptist, or any other Protestant.
We have given back several Papal Estates, some given to us as war booty from Kings for saving their hide, some were war booty in our own personal duelings. It’s okay, most people don’t know these things, as it’s a surprise to people that not everything was done in modern mindset for all the time man has been on this rock. But, we learn, and we repent, and we say penance.
That is more of a theological situation than it is a moral and faith situation, I would say, kind of like your thoughts on St. Thomas, he got to wordy. Same thing with ignorance, people think it got to wordy, but if you look at the dogma it matches up, just matters of context and intentions. A lot has written after Vatican II in the spirit, but I’ll have to say that those that consider themselves Traditionalists have it right. The Vatican II, in the spirit is bunk. If you read it, over half the stuff people do in the spirit of the Vatican II is dumb. Plain dumb…like super dumb, like I want to poke their eyes out dumb because no where in the Vatican II documents does it allow this stuff…
Haha
There is no such thing as Roman Catholicism. It is Catholicism. There is the Roman Catholic Church, and the idea of Roman Catholicism came from people that called themselves for instance Irish Catholic…blah. No the Roman is more for geographical purposes than it is anything. I have actually heard people say, I’m not Roman Catholic, I’m Irish Catholic. I’ve always wanted to hit them over the head with a heavy rock (I love puns). Not because they are heretics, because they are not (just stupid), but because of the utter nonsense that is they think it is cool to be Irish Catholic, whatever that means.
Yes, Rome is a special place, it has something to do with Prophesies, but it’s because that is where our Pope is. I guess if the prophecies were not directed there, and where instead of located in Switzerland (That be Ironic wouldn’t it) We’d be Swiss Catholics…Although, we do have the Swiss Guard, which they are not neutral at all. About the only thing out of Swiss cheese land that isn’t.
Just joshin’ you. I didn’t know it either, I’m not sure what discerning if I should be married or go into the priesthood has anything to do with me being smarter or having more authority than you.