Catholics are not Christians?

[glen]

"Sola scriptura," Scripture alone, is a new Protestant idea that was not around during the early church.
It is the difference between Protestants and Anglicans or Catholics or Orthodox Christians. The early church existed before the Bible. They still believe the Church has to guide the interpretation of the Bible whereas Protestants do not believe this. Why not if it is the original intent? Because they rebelled agaoinst the Church government, thus without the Church, they are left with only the Bible as authority.

 

[Rio Rebel]

Sola Scriptura is not THE difference, it is A difference.

Catholics and Protestants have been fighting a long, long time. The theologians, the soldiers, the inquisitors, the reformists...thousands and thousands of people have argued, fought, and died over this split.

About the only thing we've learned here is that computer geeks aren't any closer to solving the differences.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Yzzim

Originally posted by: 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!

Have a verse to back that up?

Are you saying the letters to the seven churches are purely symbolic too?

A verse from Book of Revelation?

Sure...every single one of them.

Revelation was meant to give the early Christians hope. They were being persecuted by the Romans for their beliefs. Remember how you were taught they were fed to the lions in the coliseum? They needed hope for the future. That one day there would come a time when all people would have to face God. Those who believed would be saved.

Revelation is nothing more than that. A book of verses to give them hope. This is what I was taught in Scripture classes in high school.

Here ya go:

http://www.scripturessay.com/q28.html

Most people have difficulty in understanding the book of Revelation. The highly figurative language of this book has caused many to believe that its contents are largely unintelligible, and for that reason it has often been abandoned by the readers in general. Others who read this book do not keep in mind for whom the book was actually written and under what circumstances the signified message was delivered. The symbolic language of Revelation was not difficult to understand for those who had actually received the message in the beginning, because they understood the meaning of these symbols, but this causes many today to misunderstand and misapply its teaching. All kinds of sensational things are being taught today from the book of Revelation which are not true, and many are being misled into falsehood by such sensational teachers.

From the very first page of the book one can clearly see that the message was directed to the seven churches in Asia Minor, where Christians were being killed, exiled, and robbed of all their properties for refusal to renounce their religion. The message was to give them hope and courage. The message was not restricted to the seven churches alone, since the number seven is often used in Revelation symbolically for completeness or perfection. These seven churches were selected by the Lord to be representative of all churches because the conditions reflected in those seven churches were also to be found in all other churches of Christ as well. No doubt its first message was for them, yet it message is for God's people everywhere and in every age.

The emperor Domitian had introduced the law of emperor worship. He had images of himself erected throughout the empire to make his worship more convenient for all people everywhere. Worship of him was compulsory. Each person was to burn a pinch of incense on the altar to the godhead of Caesar. Having done so, the person was given a certificate showing that he had performed his religious duty. Every Roman citizen had to do that and receive that certificate. Any who refused to comply was considered to be one who opposed the emperor. We can readily see how difficult and trying it must have been for one to be a Christian in Rome. to show their loyalty and faithfulness to the emperor all that Christians had to do was to burn a pinch of incense and say, "Caesar is Lord." But no true Christian would do that, because their Lord was Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ alone. They would give no man the name of the Lord (Matthew 10:32-33). So....Christians refused to go through the form of Caesar worship, and therefore they were outlaws. for their disloyalty to the emperor they were put in prison, beaten and persecuted, and many were even put to death.

To his followers the Lord Jesus Christ had promised that if they would be faithful to Him until death He would give them the crown of life.

 

[Netopia]

I really think that people ignore me. Respond to my post please, as it clarifies a LOT.

I know I have. Your seem to somewhat hard headed and don't seem to grasp or even wish to grasp the ENTIRITY of Scripture, but instead, stand on single verses to defend legalistic viewpoints.

I don't have time for that... neither did Jesus in His day.

Joe

 

[Netopia]

Revelation is nothing more than that. A book of verses to give them hope. This is what I was taught in Scripture classes in high school.

You do, of course, have scientific PROOF of that, right? You wouldn't be just spouting opinion, would you?

Joe
who's waiting for PROOF of the same kind as is oft asked of him.

 

[conjur]

I've given you the proof. It's not my fault you're too blind to see it.

 

[Rio Rebel]

High school scripture classes? Why didn't you say so?

Unless someone comes along who actually wrote a term paper on it, I'd say you must be the leading expert on the Bible around here.

 

[microphobia]

this stuff is all bogus.. religion is great, the essence of it anyway. imo, all religions profess the same thing peace, well- being, faith, etc.. all the stuff in between such as which book is real and which is bogus or whether or not saints exist (the list goes on) is trivial. unfortunately its because of these trivial differences that people choose to kill and hate. btw, im catholic, big deal.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Rio Rebel
High school scripture classes? Why didn't you say so?

Unless someone comes along who actually wrote a term paper on it, I'd say you must be the leading expert on the Bible around here.

Think about it. Think of all of the works of literature from ancient times in other cultures. They are largely symbolic and full of imagery. Why should the Hebrew works in the Bible be any different?

 

[Rio Rebel]

I HAVE thought about it. Through a short stint in Seminary and a Master's degree in Philosophy. And like the thousands before me, I really don't know for sure where the Bible is to be taken literally and where it is figurative. I can speculate in some places, but not with very much certainty.

Maybe that very point is why we have so many denominations.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Rio Rebel
I HAVE thought about it. Through a short stint in Seminary and a Master's degree in Philosophy. And like the thousands before me, I really don't know for sure where the Bible is to be taken literally and where it is figurative. I can speculate in some places, but not with very much certainty.

Maybe that very point is why we have so many denominations.

Bingo.

And, it's rather obvious which ones are to be take literally (the bulk of the New Testament, and things in the Old Testament that actually make sense.) Things to be taken as symbolic are, obviously, areas where there were no human eyewitnesses (Genesis, Noah, Revelation.)

 

[GtPrOjEcTX]

Noah had no eye witnesses?

 

[Rio Rebel]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Rio Rebel
I HAVE thought about it. Through a short stint in Seminary and a Master's degree in Philosophy. And like the thousands before me, I really don't know for sure where the Bible is to be taken literally and where it is figurative. I can speculate in some places, but not with very much certainty.

Maybe that very point is why we have so many denominations.

Bingo.

And, it's rather obvious which ones are to be take literally (the bulk of the New Testament, and things in the Old Testament that actually make sense.) Things to be taken as symbolic are, obviously, areas where there were no human eyewitnesses (Genesis, Noah, Revelation.)

If it's so obvious, why have so many men (wiser than you or me) disagreed about it? Millions of Catholics believe that Jesus was to be taken literally when he said "This is my body." Millions of Protestants believe it is symbolic. And among those millions, on both sides, are men who put both of us to shame on their knowledge and understanding of the Bible.

It's many things, but it ain't obvious.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: GtPrOjEcTX
Noah had no eye witnesses?

Nope...the ark is pure allegory.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Rio Rebel

If it's so obvious, why have so many men (wiser than you or me) disagreed about it? Millions of Catholics believe that Jesus was to be taken literally when he said "This is my body." Millions of Protestants believe it is symbolic. And among those millions, on both sides, are men who put both of us to shame on their knowledge and understanding of the Bible.

It's many things, but it ain't obvious.

Because those wiser men typically find themselves in positions of power within the organization of their own faiths and it behooves them to maintain the basis of their faith, lest the organization itself disintegrate.

Even in my Catholic upbringing I never thought the "This is my body, this is my blood." was literal. I could never find it in me to believe that. My sister does, though. She's since converted to Greek Orthodox. Myself, obviously, have gone the opposite route toward atheism.

 

[Rio Rebel]

Not a good answer. Most theologians are not church leaders, and have no horse in that race. They are typically more like other academicians and value academic integrity.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Rio Rebel
Not a good answer. Most theologians are not church leaders, and have no horse in that race. They are typically more like other academicians and value academic integrity.

That may be. But, think of it this way then. Do theologians not typically belong to a certain denomination? They will exert a bias into their reading of the Bible based upon the way they were taught. Sort of like a Democratic economist will be the polar opposite of a Republican economist despite reviewing the same economic indicators.

But, the Bible remains a largely symbolic work. The ancient Hebrews were no different from other cultures in that respect. Were the Bible more like a history book, then the differences in interpretation would be non-existent. However, because of the vast amount of imagery and symbolism, the Bible opens itself to a multitude of interpretations.

 

[Rio Rebel]

Then it sounds like you've reversed your position - if it's open to a multitude of interpretations, then it's not obvious.

My only point is that very bright people disagree all the time on interpreting the Bible, and it does no good to paint one side as ridiculous or foolish.

 

[EXman]

Fundy's think the way to Jesus for a Catholic is not right. A whole lot more but I'm not a Fundy have 3 friends that are though.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Rio Rebel
Then it sounds like you've reversed your position - if it's open to a multitude of interpretations, then it's not obvious.

My only point is that very bright people disagree all the time on interpreting the Bible, and it does no good to paint one side as ridiculous or foolish.

Well...must be because I'm tired tonight. Not getting my point across.

The symbolism is obvious in the Bible. However, the complexity of that symbolism and the vast amount of it is what leads to the various interpretations. It's those that don't see any of the symbolism but, rather, take everything in the Bible as pure fact that are the dangerous ones. The ultra-fundamentalists who are convinced the earth was created in seven days, that the first humans were named Adam and Eve and spoke a language, that an ark existed, that the waters of the Red Sea were parted. They are the truly clueless ones. That is irony.

 

[BigToque]

Originally posted by: GtPrOjEcTX

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.

I really think that people ignore me. Respond to my post please, as it clarifies a LOT.

I talked to my GF today about this, and I was told that Catholics have never changed the gospel. Everything they teach from the bible is the way it has always been. The only other things they do are teaching other things, that are not in the bible. (If this doesn't make sense, I'll get a clarification from my GF tomorrow. I forget her exact words.)

 

[GtPrOjEcTX]

Originally posted by: Stefan
I talked to my GF today about this, and I was told that Catholics have never changed the gospel. Everything they teach from the bible is the way it has always been. The only other things they do are teaching other things, that are not in the bible. (If this doesn't make sense, I'll get a clarification from my GF tomorrow. I forget her exact words.)

of course, she's catholic and that's what she has been raised to believe. truth is if she read the bible for herself she would find things that her faith is doing that are no where mentioned in the bible.

My dad was raised Catholic. He was Catholic until his mid-20's when he decided to read the bible for himself and see if what he was doing was right. It wasn't and he converted to what he is now.

 

[Stojakapimp]

Originally posted by: GtPrOjEcTX

Originally posted by: Stefan
I talked to my GF today about this, and I was told that Catholics have never changed the gospel. Everything they teach from the bible is the way it has always been. The only other things they do are teaching other things, that are not in the bible. (If this doesn't make sense, I'll get a clarification from my GF tomorrow. I forget her exact words.)

of course, she's catholic and that's what she has been raised to believe. truth is if she read the bible for herself she would find things that her faith is doing that are no where mentioned in the bible.

My dad was raised Catholic. He was Catholic until his mid-20's when he decided to read the bible for himself and see if what he was doing was right. It wasn't and he converted to what he is now.

But you have to understand that Tradition came before the Bible. Catholics are a whole lot more traditional than Protestants, although Catholics periodically do alter some things. It all comes down to Sola Scriptura. If you teach that the Bible is the only thing necessary to learn about your faith and fully participate in a Christian life, then of course you are going to have some 200+ divisions (Protestantism). But it cannot be scripture alone. Without the Church and it's teachings, people will make up what they want to believe.

Just realize that Tradition came first...not the Bible. A lot of people tend to forget that the Bible as we know it today didn't even exist until the 4th Century, when the Orthodox Church at the Council of Carthage decided what books were to go in

 

[GtPrOjEcTX]

Originally posted by: Stojakapimp

Originally posted by: GtPrOjEcTX

Originally posted by: Stefan
I talked to my GF today about this, and I was told that Catholics have never changed the gospel. Everything they teach from the bible is the way it has always been. The only other things they do are teaching other things, that are not in the bible. (If this doesn't make sense, I'll get a clarification from my GF tomorrow. I forget her exact words.)

of course, she's catholic and that's what she has been raised to believe. truth is if she read the bible for herself she would find things that her faith is doing that are no where mentioned in the bible.

My dad was raised Catholic. He was Catholic until his mid-20's when he decided to read the bible for himself and see if what he was doing was right. It wasn't and he converted to what he is now.

But you have to understand that Tradition came before the Bible. Catholics are a whole lot more traditional than Protestants, although Catholics periodically do alter some things. It all comes down to Sola Scriptura. If you teach that the Bible is the only thing necessary to learn about your faith and fully participate in a Christian life, then of course you are going to have some 200+ divisions (Protestantism). But it cannot be scripture alone. Without the Church and it's teachings, people will make up what they want to believe.

Just realize that Tradition came first...not the Bible. A lot of people tend to forget that the Bible as we know it today didn't even exist until the 4th Century, when the Orthodox Church at the Council of Carthage decided what books were to go in

So in your opinion "tradition" supercede's God's word?

 

[DougK62]

Originally posted by: GtPrOjEcTX

Originally posted by: Stojakapimp

Originally posted by: GtPrOjEcTX

Originally posted by: Stefan
I talked to my GF today about this, and I was told that Catholics have never changed the gospel. Everything they teach from the bible is the way it has always been. The only other things they do are teaching other things, that are not in the bible. (If this doesn't make sense, I'll get a clarification from my GF tomorrow. I forget her exact words.)

of course, she's catholic and that's what she has been raised to believe. truth is if she read the bible for herself she would find things that her faith is doing that are no where mentioned in the bible.

My dad was raised Catholic. He was Catholic until his mid-20's when he decided to read the bible for himself and see if what he was doing was right. It wasn't and he converted to what he is now.

But you have to understand that Tradition came before the Bible. Catholics are a whole lot more traditional than Protestants, although Catholics periodically do alter some things. It all comes down to Sola Scriptura. If you teach that the Bible is the only thing necessary to learn about your faith and fully participate in a Christian life, then of course you are going to have some 200+ divisions (Protestantism). But it cannot be scripture alone. Without the Church and it's teachings, people will make up what they want to believe.

Just realize that Tradition came first...not the Bible. A lot of people tend to forget that the Bible as we know it today didn't even exist until the 4th Century, when the Orthodox Church at the Council of Carthage decided what books were to go in

So in your opinion "tradition" supercede's God's word?

You obviously have a hard time grasping ideas. You and Flyermax2k3 are textbook examples of religious folk that are arrogantly close-minded.

There are MANY holy scripts that are NOT in your Bible. Why are the ones in the Bible any more special than the ones excluded? Just because the church picked them?