Misconceptions of Christianity

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
901

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

My Church created the Bible, I win. [/quote]

I beg to differ. Brother Chris you always forget about the Eastern Orthodox Church. This was the first Church because Paul’s first Missionary Journey was in Asia Minor, which encomposses the Eastern Orthodox Church. The Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Chruches were one Church and bishops from both churches were there at the councils that set the cannon. The Roman Catholic Church became more political over time while the Eastern Orthodox Church, IMO, stayed more true to the early church roots. The early church were Jews, and not so much Gentiles. The Eastern Orthodox Church’s calendar and festivals follow the Moon and not the Sun just like the Jews.[/quote]

I know about the Eastern Orthodox Church, and I am sorry my point still stands. The EOC’s church is not Catholic (some are, but not counting the Eastern Rite inside the Roman Catholic Church, they are not generally Catholic). Jesus did not give the keys to Heaven to Paul, he gave them to Peter. Yes, The EOC and the RCC were one Church at one point, but the EOC has dissembled and are no longer Catholic/catholic. What’s your point about Jews, so gentiles don’t count now or something, I do not follow.

[quote]
I have never studied in depth on why the apocrapha was taken out or added to the Bible. I do know that the Protestants followed the Jewish Cannon of the Old Testament which does not include the Apocrapha. The Jewish Bible was cannonized before the Christian Bible so this might be the reason the Protestants went this direction. Please correct me if I am wrong on what I am about to say. The Apocrapha was not officially cannonized, but continued to be used, because it was in the Septuagent the first translated Jewish Bible out of Hebrew to Greek.

The New Testament for all Christians is the exact same.[/quote]

There is different Sects of Judaism, Catholics were Messianic Jews that believed that Jesus was their Messiah. They did not all agree on how things were supposed to be. Jews use the Apocrypha, so do some Protestants. The reason why some Protestants do not use the Apocrypha is because then it would go against their doctrine.

A lot of things were not officially canonized until someone declared that the Traditional Bible was wrong, and they had to make it official.[/quote]

Jews do not use the Apocrypha. Some Jews prior to the cannonization of the Old Testament, 200BCE, used the Apocrypha. After the cannonization of the Old Testament they no longer use them. I will ask you to tell me which Protestant churches use the Apocrypha? All the major ones that I know of do not use them. I am not against the books, and in fact I have a Catholic Bible and plan on reading it. Just so you know those books do not change the Gospel of Christ. They are Old Testament, and are nothing more than History or Wisdom books. Both of our New Testaments are identical so the Gospel is all that remains.[/quote]

Never said they changed the Gospel, I said they go against Protestant Doctrine.

Anglican, and hundreds of others.

Protestant Church’s are not like the Catholic Church, I can’t just point at a certain faith and say that one, because they are all different. When I say Anglican I say that because some of them do, as they fashion themselves to be Catholic, even though after they got that woman Bishop we know that they are not Catholic, at least if they are not part of the Anglican Rite.

902

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
I know about the Eastern Orthodox Church, and I am sorry my point still stands. The EOC’s church is not Catholic (some are, but not counting the Eastern Rite inside the Roman Catholic Church, they are not generally Catholic). Jesus did not give the keys to Heaven to Paul, he gave them to Peter. Yes, The EOC and the RCC were one Church at one point, but the EOC has dissembled and are no longer Catholic/catholic.[/quote]

The EOC would also claim that their Church has apostolic succession all the way back to Peter. My point about Paul was the first Christian Churches started in Asia Minor and not the city of Rome. Paul was the one that brought Christianity to the Romans and not Peter. Because Paul was a Roman Citizen he had the right to confront his accusers in court, that is how the gospel reached Rome.

903

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]OTS1 wrote:

Didn’t John Paul II say ex officio that a righteous non-christian could go to heaven?

[/quote]

I am not a big Pope fan by any stretch of the imagination, but if a man is Righteous even a non Christian he will go to heaven. I will say the Romans 3:10 states, "As it is written:
“There is no one righteous, not even one;” so basically no one is righteous except Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior.[/quote]

And the Virgin Mary.[/quote]

I hope your answer was in jest. If not please see the below questions.

So the Virgin Mary was without sin? So Mary was born without Original Sin? Just because she was favored by God, does not mean she was without sin. This is one of the Roman Catholic Doctrines that we are going to have an issue with.

[/quote]

Yes, she was born without Original Sin. That’s fine, not sure why you have a problem with Mary being without Sin.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm[/quote]

How is it possible for Mary to be born without Original Sin? She had a Human Mother and a Human Father.

904

[quote]cueball wrote:

[quote]NAUn wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
Have you ever noticed that the people who deny simple historical events in the Torah also believe in aliens?

I’ve noticed an amazing overlap.[/quote]

I don’t see how believing in aliens discredits anyone’s opinion, unless they claim to know for a fact there are aliens and get into that whole nonsense.[/quote]

How can you believe in aliens without physical proof of their existence? For those who don’t believe in God, many say this is the necessary requirement for belief.

[/quote]

Like many words in the English language, to believe has many variations. I don’t mean to say believe in the sense of “accepted as truth” but to believe as in “to suppose” based on the evidence presented. I’m not sure if you are just trying to be contrary or if you really can’t understand the difference.

905

[quote]NAUn wrote:

[quote]cueball wrote:

[quote]NAUn wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
Have you ever noticed that the people who deny simple historical events in the Torah also believe in aliens?

I’ve noticed an amazing overlap.[/quote]

I don’t see how believing in aliens discredits anyone’s opinion, unless they claim to know for a fact there are aliens and get into that whole nonsense.[/quote]

How can you believe in aliens without physical proof of their existence? For those who don’t believe in God, many say this is the necessary requirement for belief.

[/quote]

Like many words in the English language, to believe has many variations. I don’t mean to say believe in the sense of “accepted as truth” but to believe as in “to suppose” based on the evidence presented. I’m not sure if you are just trying to be contrary or if you really can’t understand the difference. [/quote]

Conceding the possibility of existence is NOT the same as a belief in the existence. This would be akin to agnostic vs. believer.

906

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
I know about the Eastern Orthodox Church, and I am sorry my point still stands. The EOC’s church is not Catholic (some are, but not counting the Eastern Rite inside the Roman Catholic Church, they are not generally Catholic). Jesus did not give the keys to Heaven to Paul, he gave them to Peter. Yes, The EOC and the RCC were one Church at one point, but the EOC has dissembled and are no longer Catholic/catholic.[/quote]

The EOC would also claim that their Church has apostolic succession all the way back to Peter. My point about Paul was the first Christian Churches started in Asia Minor and not the city of Rome. Paul was the one that brought Christianity to the Romans and not Peter. Because Paul was a Roman Citizen he had the right to confront his accusers in court, that is how the gospel reached Rome.[/quote]

That is fine, but the Catholic Church transcends location. Each EO Church makes up their own rules.

907

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]OTS1 wrote:

Didn’t John Paul II say ex officio that a righteous non-christian could go to heaven?

[/quote]

I am not a big Pope fan by any stretch of the imagination, but if a man is Righteous even a non Christian he will go to heaven. I will say the Romans 3:10 states, "As it is written:
“There is no one righteous, not even one;” so basically no one is righteous except Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior.[/quote]

And the Virgin Mary.[/quote]

I hope your answer was in jest. If not please see the below questions.

So the Virgin Mary was without sin? So Mary was born without Original Sin? Just because she was favored by God, does not mean she was without sin. This is one of the Roman Catholic Doctrines that we are going to have an issue with.

[/quote]

Yes, she was born without Original Sin. That’s fine, not sure why you have a problem with Mary being without Sin.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm[/quote]

How is it possible for Mary to be born without Original Sin? She had a Human Mother and a Human Father.[/quote]

“in the first instance of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin.”

Miracle.

908

[quote]cueball wrote:

[quote]NAUn wrote:

[quote]cueball wrote:

[quote]NAUn wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
Have you ever noticed that the people who deny simple historical events in the Torah also believe in aliens?

I’ve noticed an amazing overlap.[/quote]

I don’t see how believing in aliens discredits anyone’s opinion, unless they claim to know for a fact there are aliens and get into that whole nonsense.[/quote]

How can you believe in aliens without physical proof of their existence? For those who don’t believe in God, many say this is the necessary requirement for belief.

[/quote]

Like many words in the English language, to believe has many variations. I don’t mean to say believe in the sense of “accepted as truth” but to believe as in “to suppose” based on the evidence presented. I’m not sure if you are just trying to be contrary or if you really can’t understand the difference. [/quote]

Conceding the possibility of existence is NOT the same as a belief in the existence. This would be akin to agnostic vs. believer.

[/quote]

I’m not going to argue semantics with you for no reason. Look in a dictionary or talk to an English professor if it is troubling you that greatly.

909

[quote]NAUn wrote:

[quote]cueball wrote:

[quote]NAUn wrote:

[quote]cueball wrote:

[quote]NAUn wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
Have you ever noticed that the people who deny simple historical events in the Torah also believe in aliens?

I’ve noticed an amazing overlap.[/quote]

I don’t see how believing in aliens discredits anyone’s opinion, unless they claim to know for a fact there are aliens and get into that whole nonsense.[/quote]

How can you believe in aliens without physical proof of their existence? For those who don’t believe in God, many say this is the necessary requirement for belief.

[/quote]

Like many words in the English language, to believe has many variations. I don’t mean to say believe in the sense of “accepted as truth” but to believe as in “to suppose” based on the evidence presented. I’m not sure if you are just trying to be contrary or if you really can’t understand the difference. [/quote]

Conceding the possibility of existence is NOT the same as a belief in the existence. This would be akin to agnostic vs. believer.

[/quote]

I’m not going to argue semantics with you for no reason. Look in a dictionary or talk to an English professor if it is troubling you that greatly.
[/quote]

Oh, for crying out loud. Nothing is “troubling” me. Your expounding on the variations of the word believe and then talking down to me about my understanding is completely unnecessary. My initial question to you was no more than pointing out that alien “believers” do so with no physical proof. The same charge athiests give Christians. Which is where I believe Jewbacca was coming from.

I’m sorry if I struck a nerve. It wasn’t my intention.

910

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]OTS1 wrote:

Didn’t John Paul II say ex officio that a righteous non-christian could go to heaven?

[/quote]

I am not a big Pope fan by any stretch of the imagination, but if a man is Righteous even a non Christian he will go to heaven. I will say the Romans 3:10 states, "As it is written:
“There is no one righteous, not even one;” so basically no one is righteous except Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior.[/quote]

And the Virgin Mary.[/quote]

I hope your answer was in jest. If not please see the below questions.

So the Virgin Mary was without sin? So Mary was born without Original Sin? Just because she was favored by God, does not mean she was without sin. This is one of the Roman Catholic Doctrines that we are going to have an issue with.

[/quote]

Yes, she was born without Original Sin. That’s fine, not sure why you have a problem with Mary being without Sin.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm[/quote]

How is it possible for Mary to be born without Original Sin? She had a Human Mother and a Human Father.[/quote]

“in the first instance of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin.”

Miracle.[/quote]

Who said that and when? It is not in the Bible any where.

911

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]OTS1 wrote:

Didn’t John Paul II say ex officio that a righteous non-christian could go to heaven?

[/quote]

I am not a big Pope fan by any stretch of the imagination, but if a man is Righteous even a non Christian he will go to heaven. I will say the Romans 3:10 states, "As it is written:
“There is no one righteous, not even one;” so basically no one is righteous except Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior.[/quote]

And the Virgin Mary.[/quote]

I hope your answer was in jest. If not please see the below questions.

So the Virgin Mary was without sin? So Mary was born without Original Sin? Just because she was favored by God, does not mean she was without sin. This is one of the Roman Catholic Doctrines that we are going to have an issue with.

[/quote]

Yes, she was born without Original Sin. That’s fine, not sure why you have a problem with Mary being without Sin.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm[/quote]

How is it possible for Mary to be born without Original Sin? She had a Human Mother and a Human Father.[/quote]

“in the first instance of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin.”

Miracle.[/quote]

Who said that and when? It is not in the Bible any where.[/quote]
No, and therein lies THE defining difference between what I believe and what they believe. I believe The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men

912

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]OTS1 wrote:

Didn’t John Paul II say ex officio that a righteous non-christian could go to heaven?

[/quote]

I am not a big Pope fan by any stretch of the imagination, but if a man is Righteous even a non Christian he will go to heaven. I will say the Romans 3:10 states, "As it is written:
“There is no one righteous, not even one;” so basically no one is righteous except Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior.[/quote]

And the Virgin Mary.[/quote]

I hope your answer was in jest. If not please see the below questions.

So the Virgin Mary was without sin? So Mary was born without Original Sin? Just because she was favored by God, does not mean she was without sin. This is one of the Roman Catholic Doctrines that we are going to have an issue with.

[/quote]

Yes, she was born without Original Sin. That’s fine, not sure why you have a problem with Mary being without Sin.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm[/quote]

How is it possible for Mary to be born without Original Sin? She had a Human Mother and a Human Father.[/quote]

“in the first instance of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin.”

Miracle.[/quote]

Who said that and when? It is not in the Bible any where.[/quote]

Says that in the Constitution Ineffabilis Deus, by Pope Pius IX on 8th of December 1854. No it is not in the Bible. However you can use the Bible to support it.

913

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]OTS1 wrote:

Didn’t John Paul II say ex officio that a righteous non-christian could go to heaven?

[/quote]

I am not a big Pope fan by any stretch of the imagination, but if a man is Righteous even a non Christian he will go to heaven. I will say the Romans 3:10 states, "As it is written:
“There is no one righteous, not even one;” so basically no one is righteous except Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior.[/quote]

And the Virgin Mary.[/quote]

I hope your answer was in jest. If not please see the below questions.

So the Virgin Mary was without sin? So Mary was born without Original Sin? Just because she was favored by God, does not mean she was without sin. This is one of the Roman Catholic Doctrines that we are going to have an issue with.

[/quote]

Yes, she was born without Original Sin. That’s fine, not sure why you have a problem with Mary being without Sin.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm[/quote]

How is it possible for Mary to be born without Original Sin? She had a Human Mother and a Human Father.[/quote]

“in the first instance of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin.”

Miracle.[/quote]

Who said that and when? It is not in the Bible any where.[/quote]
No, and therein lies THE defining difference between what I believe and what they believe. I believe The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men[/quote]

Where is that in the Bible. Where does it say in the Bible that the Bible is the only thing that can be used?

914

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Hey wait. Fuck you.

Your “literal” translation uses the word water, REPEATEDLY. Now, when I call that to task, suddenly you want to play the “Well, um, they just mean liquid of some sort.”

If the bible is -word for word- infallible, there should be no need for creative interpretations such as “Well, by water they actually meant matter which includes water, and other liquids, and solids, and gasses, etc.”

So, is it water, or were they incorrect in calling it water? [/quote]

LMAO seriously? read what I wrote . . . the water is a liquid, water is a fluid . . . what’s your problem? by simply pointing at the next verse (and he divided the water from the land) the implication is that the water contained more than just itself. One of water’s chracterestics is that it can contain many things, yet remains water . . . soooo . …did you have a point or you just arguing for argument’s sake?[/quote]

LMAO!!!

So now its water, but by water you mean semen, and by water you mean stuff that is water but is also other things and is water that contains other things.

So long as you can change the “translation” of the words to fit whatever you want, you’ll always be right.

If I flip heads…

915

[quote]cueball wrote:

[quote]NAUn wrote:

[quote]cueball wrote:

[quote]NAUn wrote:

[quote]cueball wrote:

[quote]NAUn wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
Have you ever noticed that the people who deny simple historical events in the Torah also believe in aliens?

I’ve noticed an amazing overlap.[/quote]

I don’t see how believing in aliens discredits anyone’s opinion, unless they claim to know for a fact there are aliens and get into that whole nonsense.[/quote]

How can you believe in aliens without physical proof of their existence? For those who don’t believe in God, many say this is the necessary requirement for belief.

[/quote]

Like many words in the English language, to believe has many variations. I don’t mean to say believe in the sense of “accepted as truth” but to believe as in “to suppose” based on the evidence presented. I’m not sure if you are just trying to be contrary or if you really can’t understand the difference. [/quote]

Conceding the possibility of existence is NOT the same as a belief in the existence. This would be akin to agnostic vs. believer.

[/quote]

I’m not going to argue semantics with you for no reason. Look in a dictionary or talk to an English professor if it is troubling you that greatly.
[/quote]

Oh, for crying out loud. Nothing is “troubling” me. Your expounding on the variations of the word believe and then talking down to me about my understanding is completely unnecessary. My initial question to you was no more than pointing out that alien “believers” do so with no physical proof. The same charge athiests give Christians. Which is where I believe Jewbacca was coming from.

I’m sorry if I struck a nerve. It wasn’t my intention.
[/quote]

I was pointing out the difference in how I, and most people who think aliens are probable, “believe” in aliens, and how people who believe in Christianity regard it as truth. It’s a different kind of belief, except for those who “claim to know for a fact there are aliens and get into that whole nonsense.”. In other words, I think that the alien conspiracy theorists are ridiculous, but they are the ones who believe in something in the same way people believe in Christianity.

So while Jewwy was drawing a comparison between people who doubt events in the bible with people who believe that aliens exist as a matter of fact, I would argue 1)that supposing aliens exist (as I attempted to indicate with my qualification of my statement about alien belief) is not exactly ludicrous and 2) that people who accept aliens wholeheartedly are more analogous in that belief to people who believe wholeheartedly in the bible than they are with people who doubt events in the bible. I think that’s an unfair way to try to discredit people for question the Exodus and other events in the bible.

That being said, I’m not trying to get into a debate about whether God is real or whether the Exodus happened. I like to think that God is there for people who need Him. What good would it do to try to convince someone God didn’t exist? People who do horrible things would be even more likely to do them if they didn’t believe in God and the people who have changed because of God or find a comfort in God that allows them to live better or happier lives would be worse off. And for what? My need to be right? No thanks.

I still find it interesting though, and like to be clear about people’s beliefs, hence why I’m participating in this thread.

916

Wow, lots of very inteligent folks posting. Christianity and becoming a Christian is not all that difficult. We can practice “religion” all we want, but its all about the Trinity, accepting it, and developing the relationship with Jesus. Remember, religion put Jesus on the cross.

Do you accept and recognize the Trinity? Have you repented of your sins? Have you been baptized in water? (Now get the baptism of the Holy Ghost!!! What an experience!!!)
You will see things much diferently!

917

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
No, and therein lies THE defining difference between what I believe and what they believe. I believe The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men[/quote]

Where is that in the Bible. Where does it say in the Bible that the Bible is the only thing that can be used?[/quote]
I knew when I posted the above from the Westminster Confession of Faith that this would be the immediate answer of any even decently informed Roman Catholic. I knew it would potentially swing the door open on the very large room that Sloth quite rightly foresaw we may end up in. I also fully realized that a quotation from an extra biblical confession would be construed by catholics as a resignation to tradition myself. I most assuredly knew that any and all internally biblical evidence for the authentically Christian view of scripture would be greeted with very long standing canned church responses which you are standing at the ready with an itchy button finger fully prepared to launch.

In other words I submitted that post fully aware that if not careful it could generate enormous heat and very little light much to the delight of our hostile unbelieving friends here. Then why did I do it?

I don’t know whether to hold you in reluctant respect for at least having convictions, as misplaced as they are, or contempt for allowing your worship of a church over Christ to induce you to clumsily abandon even the appearance of ecumenical diplomacy.(to be fair this was probably inevitable anyway and the more I think about it, may serve Jesus best in the long run) Maybe a bit of both, but in any case, if someone else is so led, let them go down this path with you. I decline.

I am however now compelled to state that the Roman church is itself the grandest of all object lessons in the spiritual horrors that are possible when men set sail on the pitching seas of human intellect unruddered and unanchored by the Word of Almighty God alone. The compass of “tradition” has led to a catalog of idolatrous and superstitious practices that genuinely rival the pagan nations that surrounded old testament Israel.

I am no Catholic who just doesn’t know it yet. I categorically and unequivocally, eyes wide open and fully aware, reject the Roman church and her pope as in any way representing Christ on earth. I will however repeat that that is not that same as declaring individual catholics damned in an ipso facto fashion due to their association with that church. The grace of my faith, THE faith, makes their salvation possible. If anybody has been paying attention, even the pagans, you have been preaching “THE Church”, I have been preaching Christ and Him crucified, the hope of glory.

Some on “my side” may even wince at this post thinking to themselves that I have by it made myself guilty of behaving far less diplomatically than yourself. Perhaps, but I cannot stand silent while the abominable God grieving practice of mariolatry is pushed directly into play here.

918

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]OTS1 wrote:

Didn’t John Paul II say ex officio that a righteous non-christian could go to heaven?

[/quote]

I am not a big Pope fan by any stretch of the imagination, but if a man is Righteous even a non Christian he will go to heaven. I will say the Romans 3:10 states, "As it is written:
“There is no one righteous, not even one;” so basically no one is righteous except Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior.[/quote]

And the Virgin Mary.[/quote]

I hope your answer was in jest. If not please see the below questions.

So the Virgin Mary was without sin? So Mary was born without Original Sin? Just because she was favored by God, does not mean she was without sin. This is one of the Roman Catholic Doctrines that we are going to have an issue with.

[/quote]

Yes, she was born without Original Sin. That’s fine, not sure why you have a problem with Mary being without Sin.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm[/quote]

How is it possible for Mary to be born without Original Sin? She had a Human Mother and a Human Father.[/quote]

“in the first instance of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin.”

Miracle.[/quote]

Who said that and when? It is not in the Bible any where.[/quote]

Says that in the Constitution Ineffabilis Deus, by Pope Pius IX on 8th of December 1854. No it is not in the Bible. However you can use the Bible to support it.[/quote]

What makes the Pope the be all and end all to what God is saying in his word? Peter, as you say the first Pope, messed up really bad, and Paul called him to the mat. Peter repented. Just becuase the Pope says something does not make it Biblical. It must match up to the inspired word of God. If it does not then it is Heresy plan and simple. The traditions of the Catholic Church are starting to sound like the Rules of the Elders to the Pharasees. Please do not put too many rules on the people. Just as Jesus said to the Pharasees. Think about it.

919

I know these differences run hot and deep; but aren’t there more pressing battles at the moment? Just sayin’ :slight_smile:

Shut up Katz.

920

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

I know these differences run hot and deep; but aren’t there more pressing battles at the moment? Just sayin’ :slight_smile: >>>[/quote]
I have semi silently agreed and attempted to view things just this way to this point. =] For weeks, through several threads.