Catholic Teachings.... Backed by Scripture??

rturner76 · Aug 17, 2014

If they make Mary "co-redemtrix" I might have to switch to Orthodoxy. The focus should always be on the Trinity. I'm Catholic and I still rarley pray to Mary though I do say the Hail Mary

Root of Jesse · Aug 17, 2014

Sasquatchit said:
Ok, so were others! However, we r not to worship them.

Define "worship".

Root of Jesse · Aug 17, 2014

Sasquatchit said:
Other than sharing the same first letters, Cath-0-lic and Christ have nothing in common.

Other than being the Church Christ founded in Matt 16:18? You're right.

Where do u see Jesus coming up with Catholicism? Book, chapter, and verse please. You will never be able to find the word "Catholic" in God's word.

Matt 16:18-20. You won't find "Trinity" in God's word, either, or "Bible".

The Roman Catholic church was founded by Boniface 3rd. in 606 A.D. It is completely heretical.

Really? Then why do other anti-Catholics think it was Constantine in the mid-300's? And why does Ignatius of Antioch use the term "Catholic" in a letter written around 150? And written not as introducing the term, but as though the readers knew it already?
And finally, you're probably talking about when the Church began to split between East and West. But founded? No. Christ only founded one Church, and since there's only one, it is universal, or catholic.

Root of Jesse · Aug 17, 2014

MrMoe said:
So can you show me the scriptural basis for the assumption of Mary?

Yes I can. It starts with Moses and Elijah being assumed into heaven. That's your first clue.

LittleLambofJesus · Aug 17, 2014

prodromos said:
Moses' sister was named Miriam and in the Greek Septuagint it is spelled Μαριὰμ in Greek, which is exactly how Mary is spelled in the New Testament.

Interesting.

The words used for "mary/miriam" means "rebellion"

Hebrew Lexicon :: H4813 (KJV)
Strong's Number H4813 matches the Hebrew מִרְיָם (Miryam ),
which occurs 15 times in 13 verses in the Hebrew concordance

4813 Miryam meer-yawm' from 4805; rebelliously; Mirjam, the name of two Israelitesses:--Miriam.

Mary or Miriam = "their rebellion"

Miriam = "rebellion"
elder sister of Moses and Aaron
a woman of Judah

Exodus 15:

1 Then Mosheh is singing and sons of Yisra'el the song, this to YAHWEH and they are saying to say of "I shall sing to YHVH that to exalt He exalts. Horse and one riding of him He heaved into sea [Reve 15:3]
20 And Miriam H4813 the prophetess, the sister of Aaron, took a timbrel in her hand; and all the women went out after her with timbrels and with dances.
21 And Miriam is responding to them "sing ye! to the LORD that to be triumphant He is triumphant, horse and rider He heaved into Sea.

Reve 15:3
And they are singing the Song of Moses, the bond-servant of the God and the Song of the Lamb saying "great and marvelous the works of Thee Lord! the God, the Almighty.
Just and true the ways of Thee, the King of the saints" [*ages/*nations].
[Exodus 15]

.

bbbbbbb · Aug 17, 2014

prodromos said:
Moses' sister was named Miriam and in the Greek Septuagint it is spelled Μαριὰμ in Greek, which is exactly how Mary is spelled in the New Testament.

Quite. And the names of the two are identical in Arabic, which apparently led Mohammed to the conclusion that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was identical to Miriam, the mother of Moses. Modern-day Muslims have some interesting explanations for this.

bbbbbbb · Aug 17, 2014

tadoflamb said:
You're going to have to take that up with your co-religious. He thinks Boniface I and II come from some other 'denomination'.

Because his belief is that Pope Boniface III was the first pope to identify your denomination as Catholic does not mean that there were no other popes prior to Boniface III. It is similar to the followers of Luther titling themselves as Lutherans despite Luther's injunction against doing so. Luther did not author the Lutheran denomination although his followers chose to identify themselves with him by taking his name.

Sasquatchit · Aug 17, 2014

[QUOTE=LiberalAnglicanCatholic;66175585]More fallacy:

Acts 9:31

¶
Then had the churches rest throughout all Judaea and Galilee and Samaria, and were edified; and walking in the fear of the Lord, and in the comfort of the Holy Ghost, were multiplied.

From the Orthodox Study Bible:

This is the first mention in the Book of Acts of churches in the plural, showing that the Church is not invisible, but consists of visable local communities united in faith, doctrine, worship and authority.

Throughout all, or universal is the translation of the word catholic. Sorry but you lose that argument, as for the RCC history. You don't have any actual proof of that, funny that history rejects your supposition about Boniface quite easily.[/QUOTE]

No not really. Boniface was the founder, which makes this religion man-made.
The founder of the true church is Jesus Christ not man.

The "Churches" talked about in Acts above is referring to the churches in Christ. Obviously, Jesus started many, but they were all the same in doctrine.

Sasquatchit · Aug 17, 2014

Root of Jesse said:
Other than being the Church Christ founded in Matt 16:18? You're right.
Matt 16:18-20. You won't find "Trinity" in God's word, either, or "Bible".

Really? Then why do other anti-Catholics think it was Constantine in the mid-300's? And why does Ignatius of Antioch use the term "Catholic" in a letter written around 150?

Even if u r right, this religion started 300 yrs too late. It's heretical.

And finally, you're probably talking about when the Church began to split between East and West.

Nope.

Christ only founded one Church, and since there's only one, it is universal, or catholic.

U r right about Jesus establishing only 1, but it isn't Catholic. Aside from Catholicism being established 300-600 years too late, it also doesn't even come close to following the N.T. pattern.

Rhamiel · Aug 17, 2014

No not really. Boniface was the founder, which makes this religion man-made.
The founder of the true church is Jesus Christ not man.

The "Churches" talked about in Acts above is referring to the churches in Christ. Obviously, Jesus started many, but they were all the same in doctrine.
__________________

Pope Boniface was the founder of a religion?
what about Pope Zosimus? he was the Bishop of Rome before Boniface.

Rhamiel · Aug 17, 2014

Sasquatchit said:
U r right about Jesus establishing only 1, but it isn't Catholic. Aside from Catholicism being established 300-600 years too late, it also doesn't even come close to following the N.T. pattern.

300 to 600 years?

that is quit a ballpark
300 years
that is longer then the history of the United States of America.

it is hard to move forward in dialogue when you give us such vague ideas

Sasquatchit · Aug 17, 2014

Rhamiel said:
300 to 600 years?

that is quit a ballpark
300 years
that is longer then the history of the United States of America.

it is hard to move forward in dialogue when you give us such vague ideas

Originally Posted by Root of Jesse View Post
Then why do other anti-Catholics think it was Constantine in the mid-300's? And why does Ignatius of Antioch use the term "Catholic" in a letter written around 150?

My reply:
Even if u r right, this religion started 300 yrs too late. It's heretical.

Which actually means 300 years post 1 A.D., when Jesus started His church.

topcare · Aug 17, 2014

The Church (Catholic and Orthodox) started in Acts. The split in 1054 made two, the reformation made 1000's in the west with some having silly ideas about the Church

Sasquatchit · Aug 17, 2014

LittleLambofJesus said:
Interesting.
Would that make the Eastern Orthodox church older than the Roman Catholic church?

http://www.christianforums.com/t7381842-12/#post52251942

LittleLambofJesus said:
The point to all of this is that it started a few 100 years after Jesus Christ established His church, which would invalidate everything else that would pop up later.

LittleLambofJesus · Aug 17, 2014

topcare said:
The Church (Catholic and Orthodox) started in Acts.
The split in 1054 made two, the reformation made 1000's in the west with some having silly ideas about the Church

Yeah, that was a biggy.

http://www.christianforums.com/t6790703/
Great Schism and effect on Christianity and Theology

Following the rule of Charlemagne, Christianity spread throughout Europe which served as a unifying force for the continent. This was in part due to the Great Schism of 1054 where two competing religious authorities, Pope Leo IX of the Roman Catholic Church, and Patriarch Michael I of the Eastern Orthodox faith, excommunicated each other in a dispute over authority..............

The major event that is often cited as the separation of the East and West is the Great Schism of 1054. Actually at the time it was seen as simply another temporary schism between the two regions. But this one never resolved as the two Churches drifted farther apart. Also, though the date seems to be an easy reference, it must be seen as wider political and theological context which lead to the division.............

The cardinal excommunicated the patriarch who, in turn, excommunicated the cardinal. The main point of contention was the use of leavened bread during the celebration of Mass, according to MacMillan Publishing's

.

MrMoe · Aug 17, 2014

Root of Jesse said:
Yes I can. It starts with Moses and Elijah being assumed into heaven. That's your first clue.

That isn't evidence, that's making a presumption.

Rhamiel · Aug 17, 2014

Sasquatchit said:
LittleLambofJesus said:

Interesting.
Would that make the Eastern Orthodox church older than the Roman Catholic church?

http://www.christianforums.com/t7381842-12/#post52251942

Click to expand...

LittleLambofJesus said:

The point to all of this is that it started a few 100 years after Jesus Christ established His church, which would invalidate everything else that would pop up later.

Click to expand...

so now you say you think the Church was founded in the 300's not the 500's?

I still disagree with you, but we need to establish when you believe the Catholic Church was founded so I know what to argue against

LittleLambofJesus · Aug 17, 2014

Originally Posted by LittleLambofJesus

Interesting.
Would that make the Eastern Orthodox church older than the Roman Catholic church?

http://www.christianforums.com/t7381.../#post52251942

Originally Posted by LittleLambofJesus

The point to all of this is that it started a few 100 years after Jesus Christ established His church, which would invalidate everything else that would pop up later.

so now you say you think the Church was founded in the 300's not the 500's?

I still disagree with you, but we need to establish when you believe the Catholic Church was founded so I know what to argue against

Bro, you need to learn how to use the quote function better.

I am not the one that stated that highlighted in red.......

.

Citizen of the Kingdom · Aug 17, 2014

LittleLambofJesus said:
Bro, you need to learn how to use the quote function better.

I am not the one that stated that highlighted in red.......

.

Haha funny costume for you to be wearing lol

Root of Jesse · Aug 17, 2014

Sasquatchit said:
U r right about Jesus establishing only 1, but it isn't Catholic. Aside from Catholicism being established 300-600 years too late, it also doesn't even come close to following the N.T. pattern.

If Christ founded only one Church (and he did), then it's universal. Catholic is Greek for universal, so you'd be wrong.
I didn't say the Church was founded by Constantine, your fellow anti-Catholics do, though. I know when my Church was instituted, and when it started. It was spoken into existence by Jesus at Caesarea Philippi, and blessed by the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

Catholic Teachings.... Backed by Scripture??

Domine non-sum dignus

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!

bbbbbbb

Guest

bbbbbbb

Guest

Member

Member

Member of the Round Table

Member of the Round Table

Member

The Eucharist is Life

Member

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!

Part-Time Breatharian

Member of the Round Table

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!

Well-Known Member

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord

Similar threads