[NECRO] Catholics aren't Christians, and other myths (apologetics thread)

60	19383

offline

Jacen96

3,087 posts

Bard

Posted October 15, '12 10:00pm UTC

He pope: the position of the pope is never once mentioned in he New Testament. In that verse where they claim to have proof for it, the word rock that's used to describe Peter means a small rock like a pebble, the word rock that Jesus said he would build his church on is like a foundation, a big rock, not a pebble. And hen they take that, say that he's setting up the position of he pope, and let their minds run free with ideas as to what he does.

In the original aramaic, both are called cephas, which means rock, the greeks had multiple rocks, but it did not seem right to give Peter a feminine word, so they made it the more masculine sounding one instead.

Anyways, Catholicism does have some pretty skewed teachings, I think. Take, for example, their tradition of transubstantiation is believed to transform the wine and the bread into the literal blood and flesh of Jesus. This occurs at every mass. So, at every mass (which could even take place every day - think, that's a lot of Jesus' flesh) they perform transubstantiation. Jesus was raised into heaven after his resurrection, so wouldn't his body be in heaven, technically? I'm not sure how that all works.

Also, Catholics pray to Mary, or through Mary. They believe that Mary was without sin, since she gave birth to Jesus, who was without sin. Wouldn't she be in part the Messiah, though? She couldn't be a normal person and have not sinned. It's human nature. Else, if she was truly perfect, wouldn't her heritage would have also been perfect, without sin? The Bible doesn't really support the fact of Mary being sinless, nor give any evidence of it. (Either way, praying to Mary or the saints would contradict the commandment to not pray to anything other than God. Reference.)

When Jesus said "This is my Body" he performed the very first transubstantiation, when he said to do so in memory of Him, he meant for the apostles (and their successors) to do so in the exact same manner. Saying the Eucharist is not required is also unbiblical, as Jesus said "unless one eats my flesh and drinks my blood, he shall not have life within him."

for your second point, Jesus said His Church is of the living, not the dead (might of used a different term), and when we pray to the saints, we are asking them, in the same way that you would ask your neighbor, to pray for us to God, since they are already in Heaven they are closer to God.

As for Mary being sinless, that is Church Doctrine, and we can believe it because of 2 Timothy chapter 3 verse 15, "the Church is the pillar and foundation (ground) of truth." Matthew chapter 18 verses 17 and 18, which shows the church in position of authority and gives it power to bind and loose things (like beliefs), Jesus also said in the petra vs petros verse that the gates of hell shall not prevail against His Church, indicating that the only Church that has existed from Peter up till now (THE CATHOLIC CHURCH) is the one true church.

Then there's also the part where they taxed the people so that they could get into heaven, or get their dead ancestors into heaven... I'm not so sure if they follow that through now, though.

Something that was caused because corrupt sinners got into positions of authority, and was abolished after the council of Trent (Catholic reformation or whatever it is called).

Sounds kind of relative, doesn't it? Plus, praying to the saints is sort of objective to God's nature - he is omniscient, and praying to the saints to get it heard better means that you probably think that God won't hear, and distances humanity from God. As well as being omniscient, he is omnipresent, so that doesn't really seem to fit.

The saints have already proven themselves worthy to be in Heaven, and who would you trust, the thief who recently repented after trying to steal everything you own, or the good man who always helped you in time of need.

Before you complain about the "idols" in Churches that we "worship", the statues are there to help us recall Jesus, Mary and every other person (Peter, Paul, St. Francis, St. Dominic, and others) that the Church has deemed fit to use as a model.

~~~Darth Caedus

[quote]He pope: the position of the pope is never once mentioned in he New Testament. In that verse where they claim to have proof for it, the word rock that's used to describe Peter means a small rock like a pebble, the word rock that Jesus said he would build his church on is like a foundation, a big rock, not a pebble. And hen they take that, say that he's setting up the position of he pope, and let their minds run free with ideas as to what he does.[/quote]\r\n\r\nIn the original aramaic, both are called cephas, which means rock, the greeks had multiple rocks, but it did not seem right to give Peter a feminine word, so they made it the more masculine sounding one instead.\r\n\r\n[quote]Anyways, Catholicism does have some pretty skewed teachings, I think. Take, for example, their tradition of transubstantiation is believed to transform the wine and the bread into the literal blood and flesh of Jesus. This occurs at every mass. So, at every mass (which could even take place every day - think, that's a lot of Jesus' flesh) they perform transubstantiation. Jesus was raised into heaven after his resurrection, so wouldn't his body be in heaven, technically? I'm not sure how that all works.\r\n\r\nAlso, Catholics pray to Mary, or through Mary. They believe that Mary was without sin, since she gave birth to Jesus, who was without sin. Wouldn't she be in part the Messiah, though? She couldn't be a normal person and have not sinned. It's human nature. Else, if she was truly perfect, wouldn't her heritage would have also been perfect, without sin? The Bible doesn't really support the fact of Mary being sinless, nor give any evidence of it. (Either way, praying to Mary or the saints would contradict the commandment to not pray to anything other than God. Reference.)[/quote]\r\n\r\nWhen Jesus said "This is my Body" he performed the very first transubstantiation, when he said to do so in memory of Him, he meant for the apostles (and their successors) to do so in the exact same manner. Saying the Eucharist is not required is also unbiblical, as Jesus said "unless one eats my flesh and drinks my blood, he shall not have life within him."\r\n\r\nfor your second point, Jesus said His Church is of the living, not the dead (might of used a different term), and when we pray to the saints, we are asking them, in the same way that you would ask your neighbor, to pray for us to God, since they are already in Heaven they are closer to God.\r\n\r\nAs for Mary being sinless, that is Church Doctrine, and we can believe it because of 2 Timothy chapter 3 verse 15, "the Church is the pillar and foundation (ground) of truth." Matthew chapter 18 verses 17 and 18, which shows the church in position of authority and gives it power to bind and loose things (like beliefs), Jesus also said in the petra vs petros verse that the gates of hell shall not prevail against His Church, indicating that the only Church that has existed from Peter up till now (THE CATHOLIC CHURCH) is the one true church.\r\n\r\n[quote]Then there's also the part where they taxed the people so that they could get into heaven, or get their dead ancestors into heaven... I'm not so sure if they follow that through now, though. [/quote] Something that was caused because corrupt sinners got into positions of authority, and was abolished after the council of Trent (Catholic reformation or whatever it is called).\r\n\r\n [quote]Sounds kind of relative, doesn't it? Plus, praying to the saints is sort of objective to God's nature - he is omniscient, and praying to the saints to get it heard better means that you probably think that God won't hear, and distances humanity from God. As well as being omniscient, he is omnipresent, so that doesn't really seem to fit. [/quote] The saints have already proven themselves worthy to be in Heaven, and who would you trust, the thief who recently repented after trying to steal everything you own, or the good man who always helped you in time of need.\r\n\r\n\r\nBefore you complain about the "idols" in Churches that we "worship", the statues are there to help us recall Jesus, Mary and every other person (Peter, Paul, St. Francis, St. Dominic, and others) that the Church has deemed fit to use as a model.\r\n\r\n~~~Darth Caedus

offline

Jacen96

3,087 posts

Bard

Posted October 15, '12 10:02pm UTC

"Act 3:21 He must remain in heaven until the time comes for God to restore everything, as he promised long ago through his holy prophets."

How can his actual flesh and blood be transubstantiated when he must remain in heaven?

Wouldn't that mean that he isn't Omnipresent?

p.s. so there are no posts for days, I get back and all of the sudden there is a whole page for me to respond to.

~~~Darth Caedus

offline

TheMostManlyMan

5,842 posts

Chamberlain

Posted October 15, '12 10:50pm UTC

@hahiha responding to me: it's not dead, it's just rather obscure relatively speaking

offline

EmperorPalpatine

9,439 posts

Jester

Posted October 16, '12 12:40am UTC

it's not dead, it's just rather obscure relatively speaking

The actual original following died off long ago, mainly wiped out by the influence of the RCC. About 300 years ago, restorationist groups started popping up claiming to follow the ways of Jesus and the early church more directly.

offline

MageGrayWolf

9,462 posts

Farmer

Posted October 16, '12 3:00am UTC

When Jesus said "This is my Body" he performed the very first transubstantiation, when he said to do so in memory of Him, he meant for the apostles (and their successors) to do so in the exact same manner. Saying the Eucharist is not required is also unbiblical, as Jesus said "unless one eats my flesh and drinks my blood, he shall not have life within him."

So you believe you're preforming actual cannibalism through magical means rather than just ritualistic cannibalism?

offline

TheMostManlyMan

5,842 posts

Chamberlain

Posted October 16, '12 6:45am UTC

The actual original following died off long ago, mainly wiped out by the influence of the RCC. About 300 years ago, restorationist groups started popping up claiming to follow the ways of Jesus and the early church more directly.

No. I guess it's kinda hard to follow because the church of the bible is not a denomination, they are independent of other churches for their beliefs. The church of which I speak is "the" "church of Christ" but as I said, nondenominational so you can't judge all of them by what one or two of them believe, there are many churches with that name ( and it doesn't have to be that exactly, it could be something like "Christ's church&quot that have very different views which can make them harder to trace. Some follow the bible very strictly and others don't. But they are around, and I'm sure (in my mind) that there have always been at least one church like that since Jesus' death

offline

Jacen96

3,087 posts

Bard

Posted October 16, '12 2:12pm UTC

I believe I heard that transubstantiation was officially first practiced in the 1200's, during the Dark Ages... Interesting.

oh really

But God being omnipresent, that wouldn't matter. Besides, the verse that I mentioned earlier, the saint who was bowed to by John - how could you explain what he said?

The bowing implies worship, and we do not worship the saints.

He also said, "I am the vine," and "I am the door." Perhaps it was a metaphor?

It could go the other way too - if it was a metaphor, he basically said if you don't take part in communion or remember the last supper (which was the main purpose of it - in rememberance of him) you would have no part with him.[quote] Liturgical remembering

When we ârememberâ Jesus at the Eucharist, we are not simply recalling past events; liturgical remembering makes us present to the event. Notice how the word remember is used in the crucifixion account in Lukeâs Gospel: When one of the criminals crucified with Jesus asked him to âremember me when you come into your kingdomâ he wasnât asking Jesus simply to âthink about himâ as we might remember people that we met on vacation last summer. He was asking the Lord to remember him in the biblical/ liturgical sense of the word. He was asking to be remembered, that is, to become really present in heaven with Jesus. We can see that this is how Jesus understands remembering. Jesus responds, âAmen, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradiseâ (Luke 23:42-43; italics added).

[/quote]

source

I don't deny that; they are for remembrance, and I respect that - just like the cross, or the painting of the Last Supper, or the fish. I do not believe the doctrine of praying to them that backs it.

If you were sick, would you ask your neighbor to pray for you, and would he do so, the answer is almost always yes.

That is what we are doing when we pray to the saints, asking them to ask God on our behalf.

Again, how does this relate? It sounds like you're basing your fact mostly on the fact that the Catholic church (apart from the Church that is the Bride of Christ itself) is true in all, which is not the assumption we're making here, and is even what we're trying to prove with or against.

The Catholic Church is the only church able to claim descent all the way from the apostles, and most doctrines are tied to the bible.

Yes, but what is the proof or logic that Mary was sinless? Certainly it must have been stated in the Bible if it were true, otherwise we might as well assume it to be false.

The Pope is infallible, meaning he has the Holy Spirit to guide him to prevent him from making mistakes (in matters of faith and morals), this goes back to the "gates of hell not prevailing" and what he declares to be true for faith and morals, we accept on the principle of infallibility. more on infallibility

No. I guess it's kinda hard to follow because the church of the bible is not a denomination, they are independent of other churches for their beliefs. The church of which I speak is "the" "church of Christ" but as I said, nondenominational so you can't judge all of them by what one or two of them believe, there are many churches with that name ( and it doesn't have to be that exactly, it could be something like "Christ's church&quot that have very different views which can make them harder to trace. Some follow the bible very strictly and others don't. But they are around, and I'm sure (in my mind) that there have always been at least one church like that since Jesus' death

I have a question, do you believe in Sola Scriptura, if so, can you explain the differing beliefs of Martin Luther and today's protestants?

So you believe you're preforming actual cannibalism through magical means rather than just ritualistic cannibalism?

I am not sure quite how to explain it, but I can tell you, the Eucharist is not cannibalism, because we are not actually consuming his actual flesh in the way a cannibal does, but in the forms of bread and wine.

~~~Darth Caedus

[quote]I believe I heard that transubstantiation was officially first practiced in the 1200's, during the Dark Ages... Interesting. [/quote]\r\n[url=http://www.christianitytoday.com/ch/news/2006/sep7.html]oh really[/url]\r\n\r\n[quote]But God being omnipresent, that wouldn't matter. Besides, the verse that I mentioned earlier, the saint who was bowed to by John - how could you explain what he said? [/quote] The bowing implies worship, and we do not worship the saints.\r\n\r\n[quote] He also said, "I am the vine," and "I am the door." Perhaps it was a metaphor?\r\n\r\nIt could go the other way too - if it was a metaphor, he basically said if you don't take part in communion or remember the last supper (which was the main purpose of it - in rememberance of him) you would have no part with him.[quote] Liturgical remembering\r\n\r\nWhen we â��rememberâ�� Jesus at the Eucharist, we are not simply recalling past events; liturgical remembering makes us present to the event. Notice how the word remember is used in the crucifixion account in Lukeâ��s Gospel: When one of the criminals crucified with Jesus asked him to â��remember me when you come into your kingdomâ�� he wasnâ��t asking Jesus simply to â��think about himâ�� as we might remember people that we met on vacation last summer. He was asking the Lord to remember him in the biblical/ liturgical sense of the word. He was asking to be remembered, that is, to become really present in heaven with Jesus. We can see that this is how Jesus understands remembering. Jesus responds, â��Amen, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradiseâ�� (Luke 23:42-43; italics added).[/quote] [/quote]\r\n\r\n[url=http://www.americancatholic.org/Newsletters/JES/aq0605.asp]source[/url]\r\n\r\n[quote]I don't deny that; they are for remembrance, and I respect that - just like the cross, or the painting of the Last Supper, or the fish. I do not believe the doctrine of praying to them that backs it.[/quote] If you were sick, would you ask your neighbor to pray for you, and would he do so, the answer is almost always yes.\r\n\r\nThat is what we are doing when we pray to the saints, asking them to ask God on our behalf.\r\n\r\n[quote]Again, how does this relate? It sounds like you're basing your fact mostly on the fact that the Catholic church (apart from the Church that is the Bride of Christ itself) is true in all, which is not the assumption we're making here, and is even what we're trying to prove with or against.[/quote] The Catholic Church is the only church able to claim descent all the way from the apostles, and most doctrines are tied to the bible.\r\n\r\n[quote]Yes, but what is the proof or logic that Mary was sinless? Certainly it must have been stated in the Bible if it were true, otherwise we might as well assume it to be false. [/quote] The Pope is infallible, meaning he has the Holy Spirit to guide him to prevent him from making mistakes (in matters of faith and morals), this goes back to the "gates of hell not prevailing" and what he declares to be true for faith and morals, we accept on the principle of infallibility. [url=http://www.the-highway.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/posts/18587/Papal_Infallibility_Catholic_D.html]more on infallibility[/url]\r\n\r\n[quote]No. I guess it's kinda hard to follow because the church of the bible is not a denomination, they are independent of other churches for their beliefs. The church of which I speak is "the" "church of Christ" but as I said, nondenominational so you can't judge all of them by what one or two of them believe, there are many churches with that name ( and it doesn't have to be that exactly, it could be something like "Christ's church") that have very different views which can make them harder to trace. Some follow the bible very strictly and others don't. But they are around, and I'm sure (in my mind) that there have always been at least one church like that since Jesus' death[/quote] I have a question, do you believe in Sola Scriptura, if so, can you explain the differing beliefs of Martin Luther and today's protestants?\r\n\r\n[quote]So you believe you're preforming actual cannibalism through magical means rather than just ritualistic cannibalism?[/quote] I am not sure quite how to explain it, but I can tell you, the Eucharist is not cannibalism, [url=http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=685136]because we are not actually consuming his actual flesh in the way a cannibal does, but in the forms of bread and wine.[/url]\r\n\r\n~~~Darth Caedus

offline

MageGrayWolf

9,462 posts

Farmer

Posted October 16, '12 2:30pm UTC

I am not sure quite how to explain it, but I can tell you, the Eucharist is not cannibalism, because we are not actually consuming his actual flesh in the way a cannibal does, but in the forms of bread and wine.

Transubstantiation is where that bread and wine literally turns into blood and flesh. Even if it doesn't that is what it's meant to represent which would still make it ritualistic cannibalism. And of course what's so cannibalistic about eating someone's flesh.

offline

Jacen96

3,087 posts

Bard

Posted October 17, '12 1:21am UTC

rathar than just writing it all down, I will give you this link for an in-depth answer to your question.

The reason infallibility wasn't officialy defined until the first Vatican council was because it wasn't challenged until then, but it has been around for as long as the church has been around.

since you apparently ignored my last link.

please answer the sola scriptura question.

~~~Darth Caedus

offline

Jacen96

3,087 posts

Bard

Posted October 17, '12 4:33am UTC

God would not accept us if we hadn't already confessed of our sins and He forgave us of them, making us perfect at heart (here on earth), so that statement is unsound. Perhaps someone might pray a righteous prayer who is not a Christian, but I don't think we are considering that here.

Those in Heaven have become free from sin, as sin is not allowed in Heaven, so we can safely assume that they can not lie, and thus, can be trusted to tell a honest, and direct appraisal of our need for help.

this applies to first point.

as for saints being able to hear our prayers, Heaven is not the same thing as Earth, its time is different, and one could probably say that every saint is at every point in history at the same time because of that fact. And since they are glorified, why would they not be able to understand languages other than their first language?

I did not answer the Sola Scriptura question since it was not me who you quoted, but if you're asking me, I might as well reply. Yes, I believe in the Sola Scriptura, as I think that the Protestant beliefs follow what the Scripture says at heart, what makes logical sense, apart from doctrine or dogma that relies only partially on what the Bible says and the other part on what other humans may say.

Martin Luther, while he may have realized that some parts of the beliefs of Catholicism weren't truly agreeable, held on to some certain beliefs that he didn't exactly want to part with that the Protestants did not believe they should participate in, or found them circumstantial, as I have. While I do agree with the Lutherans that the Bible was written through the authors by the Holy Spirit, I do not believe that the liturgical practices are necessary or even should be practiced present day. I'm not exactly sure what you are asking in this case, so I'll leave it at that unless you ask further.

Then you must also believe that you cannot interpret the Bible without help, but if you operate without Sacred Tradition as well, that is what you are doing.

to add in some more.

works are required for salvation, as shown when Jesus says in James 2:14-17 "What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, âGo in peace, be warmed and filled,â without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead." and other verses as well

purgatory referenced in the bible as well

references to books in the apocrypha in the accepted canon of KJV protestents.
Matt. 6:19-20 - Jesus' statement about laying up for yourselves treasure in heaven follows Sirach 29:11 - lay up your treasure.

Matt.. 7:12 - Jesus' golden rule "do unto others" is the converse of Tobit 4:15 - what you hate, do not do to others.

Matt. 7:16,20 - Jesus' statement "you will know them by their fruits" follows Sirach 27:6 - the fruit discloses the cultivation.

Matt. 9:36 - the people were "like sheep without a shepherd" is same as Judith 11:19 - sheep without a shepherd.

Matt. 11:25 - Jesus' description "Lord of heaven and earth" is the same as Tobit 7:18 - Lord of heaven and earth.

Matt. 12:42 - Jesus refers to the wisdom of Solomon which was recorded and made part of the deuterocanonical books.

Matt. 16:18 - Jesus' reference to the &quotower of death" and "gates of Hades" references Wisdom
16:13.

Matt. 22:25; Mark 12:20; Luke 20:29 - Gospel writers refer to the canonicity of Tobit 3:8 and 7:11 regarding the seven brothers.

Matt. 24:15 - the "desolating sacrilege" Jesus refers to is also taken from 1 Macc. 1:54 and 2 Macc. 8:17.

Matt. 24:16 - let those "flee to the mountains" is taken from 1 Macc. 2:28.

Matt. 27:43 - if He is God's Son, let God deliver him from His adversaries follows Wisdom 2:18.

Mark 4:5,16-17 - Jesus' description of seeds falling on rocky ground and having no root follows Sirach 40:15.

Mark 9:48 - description of hell where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched references Judith 16:17.

p.s. what is with random quotation marks in the first paragraph?

~~~Darth Caedus

[quote]God would not accept us if we hadn't already confessed of our sins and He forgave us of them, making us perfect at heart (here on earth), so that statement is unsound. Perhaps someone might pray a righteous prayer who is not a Christian, but I don't think we are considering that here.[/quote] Those in Heaven have become free from sin, as sin is not allowed in Heaven, so we can safely assume that they can not lie, and thus, can be trusted to tell a honest, and direct appraisal of our need for help.\r\n\r\nthis applies to first point.\r\n\r\n\r\nas for saints being able to hear our prayers, Heaven is not the same thing as Earth, its time is different, and one could probably say that every saint is at every point in history at the same time because of that fact. And since they are glorified, why would they not be able to understand languages other than their first language?\r\n\r\n[quote]I did not answer the Sola Scriptura question since it was not me who you quoted, but if you're asking me, I might as well reply. Yes, I believe in the Sola Scriptura, as I think that the Protestant beliefs follow what the Scripture says at heart, what makes logical sense, apart from doctrine or dogma that relies only partially on what the Bible says and the other part on what other humans may say.\r\n\r\nMartin Luther, while he may have realized that some parts of the beliefs of Catholicism weren't truly agreeable, held on to some certain beliefs that he didn't exactly want to part with that the Protestants did not believe they should participate in, or found them circumstantial, as I have. While I do agree with the Lutherans that the Bible was written through the authors by the Holy Spirit, I do not believe that the liturgical practices are necessary or even should be practiced present day. I'm not exactly sure what you are asking in this case, so I'll leave it at that unless you ask further.[/quote] Then you must also believe that you cannot interpret the Bible without help, but if you operate without Sacred Tradition as well, that is what you are doing.\r\n\r\n\r\nto add in some more.\r\n\r\nworks are required for salvation, as shown when Jesus says in James 2:14-17 "What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, â��Go in peace, be warmed and filled,â�� without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead." [url=http://www.openbible.info/topics/good_works]and other verses as well[/url]\r\n\r\npurgatory referenced in the [url=http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/Articles/the_bible_teaches_purgatory.pdf]bible as well[/url]\r\n\r\n\r\n[quote]references to books in the apocrypha in the accepted canon of KJV protestents.\r\nMatt. 6:19-20 - Jesus' statement about laying up for yourselves treasure in heaven follows Sirach 29:11 - lay up your treasure.\r\n\r\nMatt.. 7:12 - Jesus' golden rule "do unto others" is the converse of Tobit 4:15 - what you hate, do not do to others.\r\n\r\nMatt. 7:16,20 - Jesus' statement "you will know them by their fruits" follows Sirach 27:6 - the fruit discloses the cultivation.\r\n\r\nMatt. 9:36 - the people were "like sheep without a shepherd" is same as Judith 11:19 - sheep without a shepherd.\r\n\r\nMatt. 11:25 - Jesus' description "Lord of heaven and earth" is the same as Tobit 7:18 - Lord of heaven and earth.\r\n\r\nMatt. 12:42 - Jesus refers to the wisdom of Solomon which was recorded and made part of the deuterocanonical books.\r\n\r\nMatt. 16:18 - Jesus' reference to the "power of death" and "gates of Hades" references Wisdom\r\n16:13.\r\n\r\nMatt. 22:25; Mark 12:20; Luke 20:29 - Gospel writers refer to the canonicity of Tobit 3:8 and 7:11 regarding the seven brothers.\r\n\r\nMatt. 24:15 - the "desolating sacrilege" Jesus refers to is also taken from 1 Macc. 1:54 and 2 Macc. 8:17.\r\n\r\nMatt. 24:16 - let those "flee to the mountains" is taken from 1 Macc. 2:28.\r\n\r\nMatt. 27:43 - if He is God's Son, let God deliver him from His adversaries follows Wisdom 2:18.\r\n\r\nMark 4:5,16-17 - Jesus' description of seeds falling on rocky ground and having no root follows Sirach 40:15.\r\n\r\nMark 9:48 - description of hell where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched references Judith 16:17.[/quote]\r\n\r\n\r\np.s. what is with random quotation marks in the first paragraph?\r\n\r\n~~~Darth Caedus

offline

Jacen96

3,087 posts

Bard

Posted October 17, '12 4:43am UTC

sorry for double post, but books that have been labeled as apocrypha have been found, written in Jewish and Aramaic in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

~~~Darth Caedus

offline

EmperorPalpatine

9,439 posts

Jester

Posted October 17, '12 5:18pm UTC

I would prefer if you didn't give me something to download. Do you have an actual link to provide?

The article basically says that this is the main biblical support of purgatory. That seems like a stretch. I think the scripture is merely a metaphor saying that if you make yourself more like Jesus, you will be more spiritually resolute than one who did not.

offline

Jacen96

3,087 posts

Bard

Posted October 18, '12 1:59am UTC

he alone has the infallible principles of the Church?

The entire Church is infallible in its teachings, (I don't mean what the parish priest says, goes, but when a group of Church leaders get together and decree something, it is infallible. The pope also has this ability, with this shown when PETER, not the group of apostles but just Peter, decrees that circumcision is not required.)

Aye. Somewhere in Revelations, it basically says that the more good works you may do, the more jewels you will earn on your crown. You can still be saved through salvation itself, though. (And it's not like that should be our only goal - that's rather low morally [or presumptuous, as the reference below says].) That passage seems to back that up nicely.

Really, a fundamentalist who believes works are required for salvation, that is surprising.

Purgatory is referenced by other verse relating to being saved or purified by fire (shown in 1 Corinthians 3:15).

Read above.

The argument protestents use is that the apocrypha were never written in Jewish, but the dead sea scrolls say otherwise.

also, Jewish books were written before New Testement, so the references were not put in while the books were being written.

~~~Darth Caedus

[quote]he alone has the infallible principles of the Church?[/quote] The entire Church is infallible in its teachings, (I don't mean what the parish priest says, goes, but when a group of Church leaders get together and decree something, it is infallible. The pope also has this ability, with this shown when PETER, not the group of apostles but just Peter, decrees that circumcision is not required.)\r\n\r\n[quote]Aye. Somewhere in Revelations, it basically says that the more good works you may do, the more jewels you will earn on your crown. You can still be saved through salvation itself, though. (And it's not like that should be our only goal - that's rather low morally [or presumptuous, as the reference below says].) That passage seems to back that up nicely.[/quote] Really, a fundamentalist who believes works are required for salvation, that is surprising.\r\n\r\nPurgatory is referenced by other verse relating to being saved or purified by fire (shown in 1 Corinthians 3:15).\r\n\r\n[quote]Read above.[/quote] The argument protestents use is that the apocrypha were never written in Jewish, but the dead sea scrolls say otherwise.\r\n\r\nalso, Jewish books were written before New Testement, so the references were not put in while the books were being written.\r\n\r\n~~~Darth Caedus

offline

Jacen96

3,087 posts

Bard

Posted October 18, '12 3:51am UTC

"it basically says that the more good works you may do, the more jewels you will earn on your crown. You can still be saved through salvation itself, though."

James 2:14-26

14 What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, âDepart in peace, be warmed and filled,â but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? 17 Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

18 But someone will say, âYou have faith, and I have works.â Show me your faith without your[a] works, and I will show you my faith by my[b] works. 19 You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believeâ"and tremble! 20 But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead?[c] 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? 22 Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? 23 And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, âAbraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.â[d] And he was called the friend of God. 24 You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.

25 Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?

26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

You mean Hebrew? I'm pretty sure that Jewish isn't a language. In that case, yes, they're right :P

yes, I mean Hebrew, but my point is that the whole argument of Jerome not having a Hebrew version, has been ruined by the discovery of these books in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Perhaps, though corruption can still occur. History.

Everyone is a sinner, and some more so than others, and those can get into positions of authority, even some popes had beliefs that differed from the true belief, but they could not pronounce them as doctrine. The problem comes from when the bishops with heretical beliefs force their congregation to accept them, and that is why there are 38000 different denominations nowadays.

~~~Darth Caedus

[quote]"it basically says that the more good works you may do, the more jewels you will earn on your crown. You can still be saved through salvation itself, though." [/quote]\r\n\r\nJames 2:14-26\r\n\r\n14 What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, â��Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,â�� but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? 17 Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.\r\n\r\n18 But someone will say, â��You have faith, and I have works.â�� Show me your faith without your[a] works, and I will show you my faith by my[b] works. 19 You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believeâ�"and tremble! 20 But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead?[c] 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? 22 Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? 23 And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, â��Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.â��[d] And he was called the friend of God. 24 You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.\r\n\r\n25 Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?\r\n\r\n26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.\r\n\r\n[quote]You mean Hebrew? I'm pretty sure that Jewish isn't a language. In that case, yes, they're right :P [/quote] yes, I mean Hebrew, but my point is that the whole argument of Jerome not having a Hebrew version, has been ruined by the discovery of these books in the Dead Sea Scrolls.\r\n\r\n[quote]Perhaps, though corruption can still occur. History.[/quote] Everyone is a sinner, and some more so than others, and those can get into positions of authority, even some popes had beliefs that differed from the true belief, but they could not pronounce them as doctrine. The problem comes from when the bishops with heretical beliefs force their congregation to accept them, and that is why there are 38000 different denominations nowadays.\r\n\r\n~~~Darth Caedus

offline

TheMostManlyMan

5,842 posts

Chamberlain

Posted October 18, '12 4:36am UTC

I have a question, do you believe in Sola Scriptura, if so, can you explain the differing beliefs of Martin Luther and today's protestants?

I'm afraid I don't know what "sola scriptura" is. Protestants meaning that they don't agree with the Catholic Church? Assuming so you can't put them all into a single category, a single belief set. As you said, there are about 38,000 different denominations and who knows how many undenominationsl churches. So wouldn't that make about 38,000 different denominational protestant churches and X number of nondenominational churches, with extremely different beliefs sometimes? Like Mormons to 7th day Adventists to Lutherans to baptists.

Categories

Quests

Community

Forums → WEPR → [NECRO] Catholics aren't Christians, and other myths (apologetics thread)