Catholics are not Christians?

[GtPrOjEcTX]

Originally posted by: Stefan
The Catholic church as you know it, is the SAME church that existed when Jesus was around. When Jesus was around, the church was united as one. It wasn't until 300 years later (this according to your time frame - I don't know exact dates) that it became "The Catholic Church" (Catholic meaning "True" or "Universal" or "United") separate from other denominations when all of these people started to branch off because they didn't like the rules they had to follow.

The Roman Catholic denomination is the first church of Jesus Christ. Every other Christian denomination is merely a branch off of the Roman Catholics.

So much for pondering on what I had said in this post...

Originally posted by: Stefan

Originally posted by: GtPrOjEcTX
Mattew 16:
13: Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesare'a Philip'pi, he asked his disciples, "Who do men say that the Son of man is?"
14: And they said, "Some say John the Baptist, others say Eli'jah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets."
15: He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"
16: Simon Peter replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
17: And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.
18: And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.
19: I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

He is not telling Peter that Peter is the rock on which he will build His church, he is stating that the fact that his comment, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." is the rock that he will build His church. This is further reinforced but the second part of the sentence where Jesus says, "the powers of death shall not prevail against it." This foreshadows his death on the cross and resurrection 3 days later. He is the son of God and death will not overpower him.

I didn't mean anything by quoting him and not you, so please don't take it to be offensive lemme take in what you've just said.

The Catholic Church is NOT the same church. Was the word "Catholic" ever even mentioned in the entire Bible once? No. Was there ever discussion that Peter would be the Pope? No (read the above quote post).

The Catholic Church was created this way in simple terms:

A bunch of churches (different congregations of Christ's church) existed. The heads of these churches (elders/biships/whatever you wish to call them) thought themselves that they should come together and discuss their situations at their own congregations. Well, with this other group together there had to be a leader, thus this leader of the leaders was created and known today as the Pope. Peter was not Pope, (Pope was never mentioned once in the Bible either). Peter did not give another person the title of Pope to continue. Also, the Pope is also refered to as the "Holy Father". Blasphemy. The only person ever called Holy Father in the entire bible was God himself from Jesus in prayer. How dare a man take that title from God?

Next point: There is no need for the Catholic church to still goven what is right and wrong. Here are verses to back me up:

Galations 1:6 I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel,
7 which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ.
8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed.
9 As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.

It sound like with the Catholic church and their "clergy" changing the rules as ages pass, they are preaching a different gospel and should be accursed.

That's why people like me go back to the original word to what Jesus and the apostles taught and follow it the best we can as that is what we are commanded to do in the above verses.

Conclusion: Catholic Church was not the first church. It was created by man who thought change was necessary, even though they were told that if they change the gospel, they would be accursed.

 

[Netopia]

even the word Name has SUCH a different context and meaning now then it did then.

we no longer have reverence for the idea of name, i'm not sure if we even understand what name means the way they used it back then.

Yup.... a person's name was special... but more than that, something our society seems to have forgotten (look at the divorce rate) a person's WORD was something held as sacred.

I find it interesting that in Revelation it says that God will give to each a small stone and on that stone is written our secret name... known before that point to only God. Interesting... God has a unique and individual name for each of us just like our DNA or fingerprints are unique, when God thinks of us He calls us by name... but not our name here but our real an unique name. Wonder what it sounds like... if it's anything like an Earthly language... what it means....

Joe

 

[Netopia]

oh ya, also, there is a reason why it's called judeo christianity, all christianity is just a sect of judaism.

Got to argue with you on that one. An offshoot is much more accurate... a sect sounds as if we believe in the same tenents overall, which is untrue. It's sort of like saying that Islam is a sect of Judaism... it just isn't true. It is ABSOLUTELY true though that both Christianity and Islam have their roots in Judaism.

Joe

 

[Netopia]

Didn't Constantine also change the sabbath from Saturday to Sunday?

<----- future seventh-day adventist

Man cannot change what God has ordained. Also, the Sabbath is no longer recognized as a "day of the week" if one reads the New Testement. Now our Sabbath Rest is eternal, not physical. Read Hebrews and it's pretty clear. Christians no longer worship on the Sabbath, but on the first day of the week.... our true Sabbath awaits.

Joe

 

[Netopia]

Catholics do not pray to saints or Mary or anyone, they ask the souls of the saints to pray on their behalf.

Question... why then in the Old Testement did God make the sin of trying to communicate with the dead punishable by death? And now you're telling me that God WANTS us to communicate with them? Doesn't that seem a little bizzarre? I don't see God saying in the Old Testement to not commit adultery but now in the new telling us to become swingers!

Joe

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Netopia


Yup.... a person's name was special... but more than that, something our society seems to have forgotten (look at the divorce rate) a person's WORD was something held as sacred.

I find it interesting that in Revelation it says that God will give to each a small stone and on that stone is written our secret name... known before that point to only God. Interesting... God has a unique and individual name for each of us just like our DNA or fingerprints are unique, when God thinks of us He calls us by name... but not our name here but our real an unique name. Wonder what it sounds like... if it's anything like an Earthly language... what it means....

Joe

Umm...yeah...right. God has a physical stone with the "name" of each of the ~6,000,000,000 people alive today and the countless millions who've gone before us.

Ok, people....the Book of Revelation was never meant to be taken literally. It's purely symbolic!

 

[FoBoT]

Originally posted by: djplayx714
Here is one startling thing that Christians argue with me over. They tell me that Jesus Christ is God.

Now if I remembered the hierarchy correctly enough it was God and then his son Jesus, etc etc. So it didnt sound at all reasonable to me that the son of God is actually God. I actually by natural reaction thought "BLASPHEMY!". I dont really know if I'm right or wrong since there are so many contradictions and such in the general religion so any insight would be nice.

this is the "trinity rift" in christantiy

one school says they are one in sprit, but actually seperate beings

the other school of thought is that they are literally one being, and references to them being seperate are figurtive

so it depends on who you ask

 

[BigToque]

Originally posted by: GtPrOjEcTX

Originally posted by: Stefan
The Catholic church as you know it, is the SAME church that existed when Jesus was around. When Jesus was around, the church was united as one. It wasn't until 300 years later (this according to your time frame - I don't know exact dates) that it became "The Catholic Church" (Catholic meaning "True" or "Universal" or "United") separate from other denominations when all of these people started to branch off because they didn't like the rules they had to follow.

The Roman Catholic denomination is the first church of Jesus Christ. Every other Christian denomination is merely a branch off of the Roman Catholics.

So much for pondering on what I had said in this post...

Originally posted by: Stefan

Originally posted by: GtPrOjEcTX
Mattew 16:
13: Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesare'a Philip'pi, he asked his disciples, "Who do men say that the Son of man is?"
14: And they said, "Some say John the Baptist, others say Eli'jah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets."
15: He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"
16: Simon Peter replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
17: And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.
18: And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.
19: I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

He is not telling Peter that Peter is the rock on which he will build His church, he is stating that the fact that his comment, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." is the rock that he will build His church. This is further reinforced but the second part of the sentence where Jesus says, "the powers of death shall not prevail against it." This foreshadows his death on the cross and resurrection 3 days later. He is the son of God and death will not overpower him.

I didn't mean anything by quoting him and not you, so please don't take it to be offensive lemme take in what you've just said.

The Catholic Church is NOT the same church. Was the word "Catholic" ever even mentioned in the entire Bible once? No. Was there ever discussion that Peter would be the Pope? No (read the above quote post).

The Catholic Church was created this way in simple terms:

A bunch of churches (different congregations of Christ's church) existed. The heads of these churches (elders/biships/whatever you wish to call them) thought themselves that they should come together and discuss their situations at their own congregations. Well, with this other group together there had to be a leader, thus this leader of the leaders was created and known today as the Pope. Peter was not Pope, (Pope was never mentioned once in the Bible either). Peter did not give another person the title of Pope to continue. Also, the Pope is also refered to as the "Holy Father". Blasphemy. The only person ever called Holy Father in the entire bible was God himself from Jesus in prayer. How dare a man take that title from God?

Next point: There is no need for the Catholic church to still goven what is right and wrong. Here are verses to back me up:

Galations 1:6 I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel,
7 which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ.
8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed.
9 As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.

It sound like with the Catholic church and their "clergy" changing the rules as ages pass, they are preaching a different gospel and should be accursed.

That's why people like me go back to the original word to what Jesus and the apostles taught and follow it the best we can as that is what we are commanded to do in the above verses.

Conclusion: Catholic Church was not the first church. It was created by man who thought change was necessary, even though they were told that if they change the gospel, they would be accursed.

You know what I think... I think that it's obvious that nobody here has this thing figured out the "right way". I bet you everyone in heaven is waiting for us to realize something. Who knows what it is, but I'm sure it's something easy that everyone can agree on where people are not arguing over the meanings of passages. If there is a God, the "right way" would unite everyone with something that they would ALL agree on once they figured it out. They just have to figure it out.

Anyway, I guess I just get tired of going back and forth. I'm kinda stuck in the middle, looking for answers to a thousand questions at once, then getting twice as many answers and four times as many questions as I had in the first place.

 

[Netopia]

Umm...yeah...right. God has a physical stone with the "name" of each of the ~6,000,000,000 people alive today and the countless millions who've gone before us.

Ok, people....the Book of Revelation was never meant to be taken literally. It's purely symbolic!

Don't know if the stone if physical and litteral or not... but I presume it is.

Let's say that there were 100,000,000 people.... a super-computer with a large database could handle that many records, why would you think that a God who is supposed to be omnipotent and omniscient be incapable of that?

Joe

 

[DougK62]

Can we put this to rest yet? No one is going to change their stance. You're all splitting hairs to get the Bible to read the way that you want it to. Nearly every passage that I've seen quoted in this thread can be interpreted in more than one way.

 

[LAUST]

You can change an opinion or an idea, but you can't change a belief thats for sure, they have to do that on their own.

 

[SagaLore]

Christians = Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox

Then each group has their own denominations, I'm only familiar with protestant however:

Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian, Pentecostal, Trinitarian etc.

And then each one of those tend to have subgroups or classifications, like Charismatic Pentecostal, or Contemporary Baptist, etc.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Netopia

Umm...yeah...right. God has a physical stone with the "name" of each of the ~6,000,000,000 people alive today and the countless millions who've gone before us.

Ok, people....the Book of Revelation was never meant to be taken literally. It's purely symbolic!

Don't know if the stone if physical and litteral or not... but I presume it is.

Let's say that there were 100,000,000 people.... a super-computer with a large database could handle that many records, why would you think that a God who is supposed to be omnipotent and omniscient be incapable of that?

Joe

Because, if you sit and think about it...really think about it...what is the point of this omnipotent/omniscient being to have in his physical presence 7billion stones with unique names on each? And what about the other systems of life that surely must exist in this universe. Surely we can't be alone? No proof you say? Well, no proof God exists either, right? Yet you still believe.

 

[Netopia]

this is the "trinity rift" in christantiy

one school says they are one in sprit, but actually seperate beings

the other school of thought is that they are literally one being, and references to them being seperate are figurtive

so it depends on who you ask

You know... the evidense goes back to before man was created:

Genesis 1:26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [2] and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

Notice... GOD=singular | us=plural | our=plural possessive | image=singular | likeness=singular

One God... multiple "persons" all partakers of the same singular "image" and "likeness".

God made man. In the first chapter of John it says that The Word (later incarnated as Jesus) made man. They are one in them same and yet seperate. We have an example in science... is light made of particle or energy? Well... it's made of 100% particles (photons)... and yet it is arguably made of 100% energer. How can it be 100% + 100% only equals 100%?
How is it that it can be two different things but both are true? However you answer that question... apply it to your understanding of how it can be true with God and you'll have moved a "little" bit toward better understanding of Him.

Why do I say a "little" bit? If He is infinite, we could learn for all eternity and there would still be an infinite amount left to be learned.

Joe

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: Gr1mL0cK
It all depends on what you define as "christian". If you simply mean someone who believes in Christ, than yeah they are Christian.

But when I think of "Christian" nowadays I think of a Protestant (though I don't hear anyone calling themselves that.) They do not pray to saints or the virgin mary, do not recieve communion (and baptism I believe). Etc etc.

Theres lots of differences.

Protestant Christians still practice communion and baptism.

We just don't pray or confess to anybody but God through Jesus. We don't worship anybody but God and Jesus.

I know this is going to head down the wrong path... but I don't understand how the Catholic church convinced themselves that they should elevate men/sinners (prophets, saints, mary, priests) and Angels to a level of worship. Kind of contradicts the whole don't pray to idols part. And as far as "virgin" Mary is concerned, Jesus did have brothers that were not virgin conceived... I have a feeling this has to do with those extra books in the catholic bible.

 

[Netopia]

You know what I think... I think that it's obvious that nobody here has this thing figured out the "right way". I bet you everyone in heaven is waiting for us to realize something. Who knows what it is, but I'm sure it's something easy that everyone can agree on where people are not arguing over the meanings of passages. If there is a God, the "right way" would unite everyone with something that they would ALL agree on once they figured it out. They just have to figure it out.

I think is probably is something INCREDIBLY simple... those who truly believe that Jesus Christ is Lord and those who don't. I don't think God would have gone to the Cross for us and then made it some sort of complicated guessing game to figure out how to take advantage of it... that would be foolish. The Bible tells us that in the end, EVERY knee will bow and EVERY tongue confess that JESUS CHRIST IS LORD... and then those that are saved will be seperated from those that aren't.

Joe

 

[Netopia]

Because, if you sit and think about it...really think about it...what is the point of this omnipotent/omniscient being to have in his physical presence 7billion stones with unique names on each? And what about the other systems of life that surely must exist in this universe. Surely we can't be alone? No proof you say? Well, no proof God exists either, right? Yet you still believe.

I left one thing out... omnipresent. If God is omnipresent, then EVERYTHING is in His presense at all times... so what's the difference if there are 7billion or 7 billion billion stones.... if He is infinite, then it's not like anything is difficult or "crowding" Him. Maybe there aren't physical stones... that would be find with me too.... the stones aren't the real issue, our believe or rejection of Him is what's important.

You are right about no SCIENTIFIC proof. There was proof enough for the ancients and they understood that knowledge can be had just because something makes sense... without having to have a measurable outcome. But ultimately it comes down to "faith" no matter which we believe, right?

Joe

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Netopia

You know what I think... I think that it's obvious that nobody here has this thing figured out the "right way". I bet you everyone in heaven is waiting for us to realize something. Who knows what it is, but I'm sure it's something easy that everyone can agree on where people are not arguing over the meanings of passages. If there is a God, the "right way" would unite everyone with something that they would ALL agree on once they figured it out. They just have to figure it out.

I think is probably is something INCREDIBLY simple... those who truly believe that Jesus Christ is Lord and those who don't. I don't think God would have gone to the Cross for us and then made it some sort of complicated guessing game to figure out how to take advantage of it... that would be foolish. The Bible tells us that in the end, EVERY knee will bow and EVERY tongue confess that JESUS CHRIST IS LORD... and then those that are saved will be seperated from those that aren't.

Joe

You're on the right track there. Now, if people would just get over themselves and stop taking EVERYTHING in the Bible in the most literal terms and arguing over every little piece of trivia in there, the world might become a better place.

Trouble is, too many egos are in the way.

 

[shuan24]

Originally posted by: minendo

Originally posted by: Stefan
In this thread here

Flyermax2k3 stated that Catholics were not Christians. Nobody really seemed to refute that statement and I'm a little curious to know why. It was my understanding that Jesus Christ started the first Catholic Church and appointed Peter as the first pope. This would seem to say that not only were Catholics Christian, but also that they were the very first Chrisitans. Am I mistaken?

G-D boy does not know what the fcuk he is talking about.

I think you mean L-rd boy?

:beer:

 

[Netopia]

Trouble is, too many egos are in the way.

I for one want to be the one who's RIGHT!

Not so that I can say I told you so... but because it's my desire to know what real truth is... and only then will I be "right" about anything.... and even then, my knowledge would be invisible compared to what there is that is capable of being known. I am but an egg!

Joe

 

[Netopia]

I think you mean L-rd boy?

LOL!

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Netopia

Because, if you sit and think about it...really think about it...what is the point of this omnipotent/omniscient being to have in his physical presence 7billion stones with unique names on each? And what about the other systems of life that surely must exist in this universe. Surely we can't be alone? No proof you say? Well, no proof God exists either, right? Yet you still believe.

I left one thing out... omnipresent. If God is omnipresent, then EVERYTHING is in His presense at all times... so what's the difference if there are 7billion or 7 billion billion stones.... if He is infinite, then it's not like anything is difficult or "crowding" Him. Maybe there aren't physical stones... that would be find with me too.... the stones aren't the real issue, our believe or rejection of Him is what's important.

You are right about no SCIENTIFIC proof. There was proof enough for the ancients and they understood that knowledge can be had just because something makes sense... without having to have a measurable outcome. But ultimately it comes down to "faith" no matter which we believe, right?

Joe

Proof enough for the ancients? Hunh? It's the exact opposite, actually. Think about it. The Greeks and Romans knew nothing of science so they had Gods for everything in nature to explain the whys and hows. The Hebrews weren't much different but they were monotheistic and used one God to explain everything. Their only source for an explanation was an all-knowing, omnipresent Being. They needed an answer for their questions and to help them come to grips with what would happen after they died.

Look through the Old Testament and you'll find the myriad stories (yes...stories...akin to myths) to explain things.

The reason I follow the scientific method instead of blind faith in some God is that there is at least some concrete evidence to explain things. Science doesn't have all of the answers....yet.


edit: spelling...

 

[Netopia]

The reason I follow the scientific method instead of blind faith in some God is that there is at least some concrete evidence to explain things. Science doesn't have all of the answers....yet.

At the most basic level, if you can't admit to yourself that you work off of faith, then you're deluding yourself.

Tell you what... prove concretely that anything outside of your own mind exists and then get back to me. If you cannot do that, then you are basing everything else you beleive to be true on a premise based on faith.

Joe

 

[matt426malm]

Originally posted by: Netopia

The reason I follow the scientific method instead of blind faith in some God is that there is at least some concrete evidence to explain things. Science doesn't have all of the answers....yet.

At the most basic level, if you can't admit to yourself that you work off of faith, then you're deluding yourself.

Tell you what... prove concretely that anything outside of your own mind exists and then get back to me. If you cannot do that, then you are basing everything else you beleive to be true on a premise based on faith.

Joe

Of course we will never be truly objective. I'm probably not going to explain this all that well, I read this somewhere I forgot where.

I imagine my mind/reality as a box (the edges of the box are defined by your own reality), objective would then be outside this box or without needing faith. For you to be truly objective, or to objectively prove that you exist with your own mind, that would mean that your box is going to travel outside itself. This is not possible for science or religon.

Science would be trying to remain realitivly objective within your own subjective reality. Just becuase we can't be absolutely objective is no excuse not to be as objective as possible. Even if that attempt doesn't go very far, it is something. That's why I will take science over religon any day, you of course are free to do whatever you want.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Netopia

The reason I follow the scientific method instead of blind faith in some God is that there is at least some concrete evidence to explain things. Science doesn't have all of the answers....yet.

At the most basic level, if you can't admit to yourself that you work off of faith, then you're deluding yourself.

Tell you what... prove concretely that anything outside of your own mind exists and then get back to me. If you cannot do that, then you are basing everything else you beleive to be true on a premise based on faith.

Joe

Guess the concept of a fact is foreign to you?

I don't need to prove the fact earth orbits around the sun. It's been PROVEN.

I don't need to prove the fact that y = 3 if x = 4 and x + y = 7. It's a fact.

Sure, things like evolution and relativity are just theories but they are based on sound foundations and evidence.

God is solely the concoction of man's mind.