Fre3dombear said:
ShooterTX said:
FLBear5630 said:
FLBear5630 said:
ShooterTX said:
FLBear5630 said:
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
FLBear5630 said:
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
FLBear5630 said:
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
FLBear5630 said:
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
FLBear5630 said:
ShooterTX said:
FLBear5630 said:
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
FLBear5630 said:
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
FLBear5630 said:
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Quote:
Exactly, you just don't get it No one can explain it. We will not agree.
We can't even agree on the Bible. You relate everything to scripture, Sola Scriptura. Catholics don't. We say the Latin Vulgate is authoritative, you say the KJ. You constantly quoting the KJ verses as proof means nothing, it is not authoritative to Catholics. Scripture is only part of the equation. Without the oral and Church tradition it is Bible Study. I actually feel bad for you., seems very empty only part of God's message.
No, I don't get it because you don't make any sense. You still aren't making sense. Who quoted the KJ?
Latin Vulgate? What does it say that is different than what I quoted? Isn't the Vulgate the work of Jerome, who believed that the apocrypha are not part of canon Scripture, yet Roman Catholicism holds that they are?
Church tradition? You mean fallible, man-made tradition that does not trace back to Jesus and the apostles? By what divine revelation did these traditions come from? How do you know? You don't, yet you're putting it on the same level of authority as Scripture, which we DO know is the infallible word of God. This is why sola scriptura, and abandoning it is the primary reason for all your church's mistakes. That's why you've been led to errant beliefs, even to the point of sheer heresy and idolatry.
Once again, you believe in Sola Scriptura. A document that is written by men. We say divinely inspired, so that makes it not of mans making? How is believing a document written by literally hundreds over hundreds of years and voted on in numerous Catholic councils to be "following God's instructions", but following the oral and Church traditions is not!
If you believe in Sola Scriptura, have at it. Sit around your Church Council and have as many little Council of Nicea's as you like. Argue the meaning of a Hebrew, Greek, Latin word ad nauseum. More power to you. Although I think Christ would say you missed the bigger point, but that is just me.
Just don't tell me my believes are wrong. But you can't do that. You have to attack the Catholics in a thread celebrating the naming of a new leader of our Church. No one said a word about your believes, you and your ilk attacked the naming of a new Church leader. Poor form.
We say Scripture is divinely inspired, because Jesus rose from the dead. That pretty much puts a stamp of approval from God on Jesus; it's God saying that everthing Jesus did and said is coming straight from him.
This person Jesus, then, told his disciples they would remember perfectly everything he did and said to tell the world: "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you." John 14:26
Thus, Jesus, who had the full stamp of approval from God by his resurrection, in turn gave his full stamp of approval over everything his apostles said and did. Thus, the tradition of the original apostles is the divinely inspired, infallible word of God.
Where do we learn this tradition of the original apostles? Only in Scripture. The only thing the church has that we know came from the original apostles is in the New Testament, thus it is the only thing in the church's possession that is the word of God, thus it is the only infallible rule of faith for the church. Thus, sola scriptura.
Where do Roman Catholic traditions that are not in the Bible come from? Who knows, and when they do know, they can't prove it came from Jesus or the apostles. Neither do they have any kind of divine stamp of approval on it. This most certainly can NOT be relied upon as an infallible rule of faith.
Did the writings of the apostles have to be "voted on in numerous Roman Catholic councils" in order to be accepted as the divine word of God by the early church? NO. The Gospels were already circulated among the first churches as being the infallible word of God. The letters of Paul, Peter, James, etc. were all viewed as Scripture in the early church and circulated among them - hundreds of years before any Roman Catholic council decreed them as such.
"We say Scripture is divinely inspired, because Jesus rose from the dead. That pretty much puts a stamp of approval from God on Jesus; it's God saying that everthing Jesus did and said is coming straight from him."
I get that. I am saying that if that is true for those Councils, it is true for the non-Bible councils on decisions the Church makes. You are cherry picking what is "devine" and what is not. Catholics believe that Holy Spirit plays just as big a role in dogmatic decisions as in the choosing the Bible books. As I said, it comes down to Faith. Do you believe? There are no absolutes, there are no guidebooks that don't have as aspect of Faith attached.
By the way, I said that I put the Gospels as the most important books in the New Testament. Much more so than Paul's letters.
You say who knows where decisions come from, each decision is just as documented as the choosing the Bible verses, probably more so.
My question to you is how can you just decide NOT to listen every other Church council, but the ones that chose the Bible books in your version of the Bible? All the others mean nothing, because an Augustinian Monk and his German Noble backers were pissed at Rome? How is that different than Henry the 8th? Seems cherry picking to me. There are some things I don't agree, such as Mary body and soul in heaven or speculating on the sexual habits of Christ's mother. Does it really matter? But, you take the good with the bad, there is no perfect. Or Faith would mean nothing if there was no doubt.
You didn't understand what I said. Again, councils did not determine the authority of the Gospels and letters of Paul, James, Peter, etc. The Christians of the early church did, hundreds of years before any council formally declared it. How did they know? Yes, the Holy Spirit was involved, but in the manner of helping them recognize the authenticity and reliability of the authorship of those writings. Jesus gave infallible authority to his first hand apostles, thus if the writing was truly authored by them, it was to be considered the infallible word of God. People did NOT "vote" to decide on the apostle's infallibility, Jesus had already decided that.
Councils were not given infallibility by Jesus. Councils are made up of fallible men, hopefully being led by the Holy Spirit (but that's no guarantee), who must rely on the infallibility of the original apostles as declared by Jesus, not on their own declaration of infallibility because of their claim of being led by the Holy Spirit. We only know that what comes out of Councils is the work of the Holy Spirit if it is agreement with Scripture. That is the standard of measure. What Roman Cathoicism does, and what you've bought in to, is the idea that fallible men claiming to be led by the Holy Spirit is just as infallible of an authority as Scripture. But as I keep saying, Jesus didn't give infallible authority to men outside of his apostles, that we know of. If you abandon sola scriptura, and you allow another standard of measure outside of what God guaranteed (Scripture), you're opening yourself up to compromise of God's truth and huge errors. As we have seen, this is exactly what has led to heresy and idolatry in the Roman Catholic Church. And the worst of it is, her adherents don't (or won't) even recognize or acknowledge it, because they have been conditioned (upon threat of being sent to Hell, btw) to consider the tradition of fallible men to be just as infallible as Scripture. I really hope I've shown you, in logical and biblical manner, that this isn't the case.
The original Apostles were dead when the Gospels were written. By the way, no one on here has had ANY issues with the Gospels. Outside of some Church leadership stuff the one thing we all seem to agree on IS the Gospels. Maybe we all should focus there. It is the other Books that seem to cause the problems. One persons opinion.
You keep missing my one overarching point. We are on the same side. We are arguing details. The Catholic Church, for all the mistakes it has made, still works with other Religions on education, health and other social aspects. I loved Church/Services in the Army in the field. Set up on a Jeep, just the sacraments and a bible reading. Sometimes it was a Priest, many times we had a Lutheran Pastor. It boiled religion down to the basics. I never felt closer to God and Christ than in the field in the Army receiving Communion off a Humvee hood or jumping out of a plane. That will cut through the Religious BS really quick....
There are truly hateful people out there. Maybe all of us should worry less about the details and more about living as Christ said. I am at the front of the line.
It may piss you and Shooter off, but these conversations are good. The more you talk the more you understand each other. Once again, one persons opinion.
I am not pissed off... sorry if anyone got that conclusion.
I am very sad that so many who call upon the name of Jesus, do not acknowledge the inspired Word of God as the inspired Word of God.
But I am not pissed off. These conversations are very good. I do want to understand why Catholics worship Mary, but don't call it idolatry. Why they don't accept the authority of scripture, but do accept the authority of a simple mortal man instead... even though catholics will almost always admit that previous Pope's have made mistakes.
We answered that early on. Catholics honor Jesus's mother and ask for intervention, not worship. There are several times in the Gospels where people asked Mary to intervene and he listened, Wedding at Cana for example. The Scriptures call for honoring Mary, see Gabriel's intro. Personally, I don't get into Mary stuff. But that is the Catholic view. Is it enough to abandon my faith or religion because others get into Mary as an intermediary? No.
I have a hard time praying to Jesus rather than God or going to Mass on Sunday vs the Sabbath. The Bible says there is no God but I am and the Sabbath is on Saturday. Yet, those and all the dietary stuff were set aside. Since there are no degrees of sin, we are all F-ed IF we were supposed to follow the Old Testimant too.
Who knows, you do your best. We can be certain all we want, but we won't know until the end if we were right.
If you don't believe in the sinlessness Mary, her perpetual virginity, and her bodily ascension, you are anathematized to Hell by your own Church. You don't seem to have any idea what Roman Catholicism is. Since you have a "hard time" praying to Jesus, apparently you don't know what Christianity is either. So how is it that you lecture others on "missing the point" of Jesus?
Hit a nerve, huh ...
Sorry, I guess I am misreading your posts. Maybe I am taking from it what I want, like you are with mine.
There is nothing your Church says that gives you pause or you don't understand as well as others? Nothing that some people in your congregation seem to connect with more than you? Some ideas that really appeal to you,ore than.l others. It is one blase, all the same level believe and feeling?
Mary? Non-issue. Don't see how it really impacts my relationship with God. Seems to bother the hell out of you.
Where I seem to diverge from you is that I believe Jesus came for the not perfect, those that are lost, those that don't go to Church or believe everything at same level they are told. Christ is in the ghetto with the junkies, prostitutes and thieves. The trans and homosexuals that need help. Not the main stream. I liked Francis message. You guys don't seem to. That is where I think Christ would be today, not in a suit in Church. I love the Catholic faith because it is big enough for you and me. Other denominations, not so much.
By the way, you took quite a few shots at me over the last few days. Insulting my believes in a Pope Leo thread. I make one comment on how I hope your narrow view doesn't derail you and you get pissy???
If anyone's got their nerve hit, it's you. I'm bringing up a perfectly fair point. You obviously don't understand what Roman Catholicism teaches, and you admitted things like you don't like Paul who wrote half the New Testament, and you have a "hard time" praying to Jesus instead of God. And now you're saying you "like Francis' message". These things fairly put your status as a true Christian under question imo, and I'll bet even the Roman Catholics here will agree. So how does this make you an adequate judge whether someone has "missed the point" on Jesus? And I'm still interested in your answer - what is it that you think I'm missing about Jesus' message, exactly? I agree with you that Jesus came for the lost - but in what way? I have a feeling I'm not going to agree with what you say here, just call it a hunch. You have "liberal, pro-LGBT Christian who compromises the gospel to suit your sensibilities" written all over you, but hey, I could be wrong. What's your answer?
Pro? There is a huge difference between pro-lgbt and saying that is who needs help. The sinner is who needs religious support. The person living a holy life and going to church every Sunday is covered. If we don't make those people welcome, we are abandoning them. Sorry, my read of Christ is he would be with those people that need help. That is not pro-lgbt. You don't see that? Huh...
You know whether you or other Catholics believe I am Christian enough doesn't enter into the equation. I will put my doubts and inclusion against your Regcock following of the Bible in the end any day. I know a Pharisee when I see one.
Pharisee! There it is! If I had a dollar for every time I've been called that merely for standing up for biblical principles and the true gospel..... Evidently, telling people that you can't make the gospel into what fits your agenda is being a Pharisee. If so, I guess I am one. And every Christian should be one, too. I'm starting to see why you hate Paul and half the New Testament.
You're being cryptic here - HOW do LGBT people need religious help and support? What does that entail? What does "welcoming" them to your church look like? If living a "holy life" covers you, how can that apply to them - is the LGBT lifestyle "holy" in your view? Going to church every weekend covers you? Do you really think all this is the gospel of Jesus Christ?
You think that someone living in sin just turns off the valve? One day wakes up bright eyed and I am converting NOW? Maybe if you are Christ and they look in your eye, yeah then I agree. Christ didn't need human help. Or maybe if your source of reference is only reading. But us mortals have to go through a process with people.
It has to be a process. It has to be about establishing trust. Just telling them to repent and come back when you got it licked is not a realistic few. If someone is gay, there are other issues that have to be addressed. I believe most people that gravitate to those lifestyles are looking for acceptance. Standing up for biblical principles and the true gospels without working with the people to feel acceptance is exactly what the Pharisees did. And exactly why many of these people go these lifestyles. They were not accepted into the normal social and religious circles.
I am furious with the Catholic Church with its treatment of Divorcees and the LGGBT. The Sacraments are about healing and bring God into your life. Keeping them away from those that need it the most? Seems counterproductive to me. You can include people without condoning the act. Christ was about the Shepard going after the one stray. God has always been about bringing the wayward back and celebrating. Paul turned it into an accounting exercise...
But what does this process entail, say, for LGBT people? Do you validate their lifestyle in any way?
There is a need to reach out to the lost, like unrepentant LGBT people, I fully agree. But the church is for the body of believers. It is not to include those who don't believe, or those who continue in an unrepentant sinful lifestyle (which indicates unbelief). We definitely should reach out and minister to these people, but only outside of church, and then invite them to your chuch if they come to repentance and belief. I have a feeling this is not the process you're talking about, though.
By the way, if you tell your church that you don't believe all the Mary stuff as you say, if they're adherent to the doctrine of Roman Catholicism, they are obligated to remove you from church as well. Because those beliefs are required. So all your "Mary stuff is BS" isn't really, at least in Roman Catholicism. It's a dogma - they tie your salvation to it. That's why I find it curious that you don't know, or don't seem to even care to know, the vital doctrines of the church you belong to. If you don't believe that you go to Hell because you don't believe in the Mary stuff, how can you believe that your church is true? And if you don't believe your church is true, why do you feel it is important to minister to LGBT people into your church, that you don't think is even true?
At some point don't you have to believe that someone that is showing up to Church and not making a public display of themselves is on the level? Are we supposed to be the religious police? If they are trying to get over on the Church, why? If they make displays, I would expect the Priest to speak with them, the same if my wife and I were inappropriate. But at the end of the day, it is between them and God. I believe it is our job to give everyone the chance, what they do is up to them.
And no, the act IS a sin and even Francis didn't condone that!
Dogma is not my salvation. There are some things that I don't get. I logically can't make sense of. But, if logic was the driving force you wouldn't be religious. The whole thing is built around faith and obedience. Push comes to shove, I would pray for understanding that I do not have. Would I leave the Church over it? No. Not that big of an impact on my life whether Mary was a virgin forever or Jesus had a brother. Chalk it up to not getting it and move on. It seems to give you more of an issue. I also believe it is our duty to question and push from within, not cut and run if there is something I disagree with.
Sorry I didn't read through the entire thread before I jumped in. But I do want to say that I'm glad you won't leave behind your faith in Christ because you disagree about Mary.... but that isn't the point. The point is that the Catholic Church has said that you are going to hell because of your disagreement about their teachings on Mary having sex.
I totally agree with you that it is a very silly argument, but that's the point. We all know that there is no way Mary lived her whole life, married to a good man like Joseph, and they never had sex?? No way! That is just insane to suggest or believe. So why are Catholics trying to condemn you to hell for not believing it? Why is it so important to the Vatican? THAT is the question you are not asking, and you should be asking.
Protestants don't look down on Mary for having sex with her husband, and having children. Why would we? This is a very honorable and good thing to do. Psalm 31 is a great example of how God loves moms and Mary would most likely be in that category. Why do catholics believe that if Mary had sex and gave birth to other children, it would have made her less worthy or somehow sinful?
I am glad that you have a desire to help those in need. I agree that Jesus would be doing the same. I would suggest that he would not turn his back on Christians in order to do this, as you seem to suggest. Christ would first go to the churches and challenge Christians to go with him to help those in need and to bring the gospel to them. He might also rebuke the churches for not doing this before his arrival too. In reality, this is a moot point since Christ will not return to earth for any other reason than to bring about the End of Days. He will be returning as a conquering King, not a servant to the lost... that time will have passed.
TIme out, let's be clear I have some issues with the logic. Do I know? No. Do you know? No. Unless you were there you have no idea. There is a huge jump between doubting the logic and knowing. No one should change their believes on things they can't know. So, if you want to have an honest discussion, I am game. You want to play Party line, I can do that too.
I also agree with Francis and his hope that Hell is empty. That people really don't want to be separated from God when the rubber meets the road. But, seems like you guys really want people there.
I don't want people to go to Hell. That is why I tell people about Jesus.
That is why I have travelled to Asia to tell Budhist and Muslims the Gospel and lead them to Christ and disciple them and help them start local churches.
That is also why I talk to people I meet at the park, the BBQ place, the coffee house...
I don't want people to go to Hell, but sadly there are millions who have already passed away and are there now. To say otherwise is to directly contradict the Bible and the teachings of Jesus Christ.
It's a nice thought, but it is totally un-Christian to teach that Hell is empty. We cannot deny the validity of the teachings of Christ, even when it is sad or upsetting. Hell is horrible.. and it should motivate us to spread the Good News even more.
It is a false religion to claim that there is no Hell or that Hell is empty. To deny the teachings of Christ is to deny Christ Himself. If Hell is not a reality, then why exactly did Christ die on the cross?
So much confused here on your post. On Mary's perpetual virginity, that is a tradition and we are called explicitly in the Bible to follow traditions. It's no more logical to say "no way! She slept with Joseph daily!" So I'm comfortable leaning on tradition. You have no way to prove you're right. I have tradition. Advantage Catholic tradition.
Next, Let's take for example Jesus as an only child. John 19:26-27 is the best evidence for this. Also I've seen you say "but but but Jesus never even calls her mother" and yet the Bible explicitly says she is his Mother. There's also reasons Jesus calls her "woman". That said these inspired words are the best evidence of Jesus being Mary's only child:
Therefore, when Jesus had seen his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, 'Woman, behold your son.'
Next, he said to the disciple, 'Behold your mother.' And from that hour, the disciple
accepted her as his own.
I never said that Jesus never called Mary his mother.... you must be getting me confused with someone else.
And by the way, Jesus rebuked the Pharasees for following their own traditions, rather than following the scriptures... so no, we are actually told explicitly to NOT follow the traditions of man.
26 When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to her, "Woman,[
a] here is your son,"
27 and to the disciple, "Here is your mother." From that time on, this disciple took her into his home. - There is absolutely NOTHING in the passage to prove or give any evidence that Jesus was an only child... especially when you see this obvious passage here:
Matthew 13: 55-56
55 "Isn't this the carpenter's son? Isn't his mother's name Mary, and aren't his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?
56 Aren't all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?" - this passage blatantly states that Mary and Joseph had other children. No where in any of the scriptures do we see anything to suggest otherwise. We have multiple passages that refer to his brothers.
Matthew 12:46
46 While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. - here is another one for you.
Mark 3:31
31 Then Jesus' mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone in to call him. - here is the same story told by Mark.
Luke 8:19
19 "Now Jesus' mother and brothers came to see him, but they were not able to get near him because of the crowd"
John 2:12
12 "After this he went down to Capernaum with his mother and brothers and his disciples. There they stayed for a few days"
John 7:3
3 "Jesus' brothers said to him, "Leave Galilee and go to Judea, so that your disciples there may see the works you do"
Acts 1: 13-14
13 When they arrived, they went upstairs to the room where they were staying. Those present were Peter, John, James and Andrew; Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew; James son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James.
14 They all joined together constantly in prayer, along with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers.
Here we see multiple passages written by multiple authors inspired by the Holy Spirit... and yet none of them support the Catholic false teaching that Mary never had any other children.
Are you saying that the Holy Spirit got it wrong.. but hundreds of years later, some Catholic bishop got it right?
And why did the Catholic church wait over one thousand five hundred years to finally announce that Mary lived a sinless life? If it was truly a church tradition that traces back to the first Christians... then it would have been common knowledge and it would have been declared in the very first councils & meetings.
The most important part is that NOTHING that is stated without direct scriptural support, can be considered to be from God. If I am to say something like "Jesus is love", then I must back that up with scripture like the books of John. If I was to say "Jesus was a vegan" it would be an obvious lie as it would have been a sin for Jesus to not take part in the Holy Festivals and eat the foods including meat.
So the idea that some guy in the 1500s can suddenly declare that Mary was without sin, even though it is directly contrasted by multiple scriptures... well... it's just as foolish as saying that Jesus was a vegan.
