Catholic Teachings.... Backed by Scripture??

[Tzaousios]

Eventually we are going to find out if Jesus did actually publish a Book that represents the will of the Father, or not.

<< Staff Edit >>

Can you please answer my specific questions in reply to your post? Thanks.

 

[Root of Jesse]

OK, so why bother with the Bible if the Holy Spirit... Who wrote the Bible... doesn't adhere to what He said?

What makes you think the Church doesn't adhere to the Bible and what it says???

<< Staff Edit >>

The Church does not teach (or practice) idol worship or communicate with spirits.

If this was God telling His people to do these things, that would be very important information fir us to know and as such He would have written these instructions in His Word which He did not.

Oh, it's there, as clearly as the doctrine of the Trinity is.

So, all you are saying is "you gotta take our word for it that we are speaking for God, and God did not put this stuff in the Bible"

Yeah, good luck wit all dat

No, not our word, Jesus's. He said he'd send the Spirit to guide the Church, and we take him at his word. Apparently, you don't.

 

[Ted Lang]

Can you please answer my specific questions in reply to your post? Thanks.

Why bother? You'll just come out with some "inspired" thing you claim is from God... but not mentioned in God's Word... and say I'm wrong for looking at God's Word only.

We can run an eternal experiment... you go with practices not found in the Bible such as praying to Mary and others that have passed from this world thinking they are delivering God's Word to you independently of the written Word of God, and thinking the head guy at the RCC is actually God on earth and is to be worshiped as such.

And, I'll look for the leading of the Holy Spirit of Jesus Christ as He leads me according to that which He put in to the written Word of God... and in the end we will see who ends up where!

No, not our word, Jesus's. He said he'd send the Spirit to guide the Church, and we take him at his word. Apparently, you don't.

Actually, Jesus said the Holy Spirit would lead and guide His followers in to all the Truth and He then said God's Word is true.

Jesus spoke of adhering to the written Word of God and He demonstrated that by perfectly following the Old Covenant as it was written... and keep with God's practice of putting things in writing, the Lord directed the Holy Spirit to write down and canonize the New Covenant... and put both the old and the new into one Book that we have today.

 

[Targaryen]

Why bother? You'll just come out with some "inspired" thing you claim is from God... but not mentioned in God's Word... and say I'm wrong for looking at God's Word only.

We can run an eternal experiment... you go with practices not found in the Bible such as praying to Mary and others that have passed from this world thinking they are delivering God's Word to you independently of the written Word of God, and thinking the head guy at the RCC is actually God on earth and is to be worshiped as such.

And, I'll look for the leading of the Holy Spirit of Jesus Christ as He leads me according to that which He put in to the written Word of God... and in the end we will see who ends up where!


Actually, Jesus said the Holy Spirit would lead and guide His followers in to all the Truth and He then said God's Word is true.

Jesus spoke of adhering to the written Word of God and He demonstrated that by perfectly following the Old Covenant as it was written... and keep with God's practice of putting things in writing, the Lord directed the Holy Spirit to write down and canonize the New Covenant... and put both the old and the new into one Book that we have today.

Why bother? Then why are you bothering to agrue that RCC's are somehow worng for following their own interpretations of God's word in the style they have received it?

What evidence have you got other then supposition that RCC traditions do not have a Bibilical basis to them apart from traditions you do not agree with as they differ from your own view and tradition?

How can you say that the Holy Spirit made your own interpretation of the truth supierior to the way Roman catholics have received that sellf,same Spirit?

 

[topcare]

The Bible is God's Word, His will... those that have a personal relationship with Him will adhere to His will as The Lord leads by the Holy Spirit Who always agrees with God's Word.

The true children of God, according to Romans 8, and led by the Holy Spirit and Jesus said the Holy Spit came to lead us into all truth... then Jesus said God's Word IS truth.

If a person is willing to believe things that are outside of God's Word, then the devil can deceive them with all kinds of stuff.

So basically you can't really answer the question, that is because no where in Scripture does it say that anything must be based on Scripture.

 

[Ted Lang]

Why bother? Then why are you bothering to agrue that RCC's are somehow worng for following their own interpretations of God's word in the style they have received it?

What evidence have you got other then supposition that RCC traditions do not have a Bibilical basis to them apart from traditions you do not agree with as they differ from your own view and tradition?

How can you say that the Holy Spirit made your own interpretation of the truth supierior to the way Roman catholics have received that sellf,same Spirit?

OK, so show me in the Bible where Christians are directed to ask for help directly from those that have passed from this life?

And, where in scripture does it say Mary is going to tell me what Jesus is saying to me? It is idolatry to have these idols come between us and God.

God wants to know each of us personally as noted in Hebrews 8:11 which is God speaking of His people.

And show me where the cracker you RCC guys use in your version of communion is literally the body of Jesus... I can assure you we can run a DNA sample and we'll find out it ain't nuthin but a Saltine!

 

[Root of Jesse]

Why bother? You'll just come out with some "inspired" thing you claim is from God... but not mentioned in God's Word... and say I'm wrong for looking at God's Word only.

We can run an eternal experiment... you go with practices not found in the Bible such as praying to Mary and others that have passed from this world thinking they are delivering God's Word to you independently of the written Word of God, and thinking the head guy at the RCC is actually God on earth and is to be worshiped as such.

Where, in the Bible, do you see that Mary died? How do you know she "passed"? Revelation, in fact, shows her alive. We don't actually pray to Mary, we pray, (which means to "ask") for her intercession in our behalf. Can you show me a document that says the Pope is "actually God on earth".

And, I'll look for the leading of the Holy Spirit of Jesus Christ as He leads me according to that which He put in to the written Word of God... and in the end we will see who ends up where!





Actually, Jesus said the Holy Spirit would lead and guide His followers in to all the Truth and He then said God's Word is true.

Jesus was speaking directly to his apostles, not the general public...

Jesus spoke of adhering to the written Word of God and He demonstrated that by perfectly following the Old Covenant as it was written... and keep with God's practice of putting things in writing, the Lord directed the Holy Spirit to write down and canonize the New Covenant... and put both the old and the new into one Book that we have today.

There was no "written word of God", except the Old Testament, so are we to adhere strictly to the Old Testament?
Actually, God inspired the Catholic Church to canonize the New Covenant...which contains 73 books, not 66.

 

[Tzaousios]

Why bother? You'll just come out with some "inspired" thing you claim is from God... but not mentioned in God's Word... and say I'm wrong for looking at God's Word only.

No, in fact, it is just the opposite. I am trying to get you to prove how your method for interpreting Scripture is valid and historically traceable. Anyone can declare that they "merely repeat what the Bible plainly says." In fact, it happens all of the time around here.

We can run an eternal experiment... you go with practices not found in the Bible such as praying to Mary and others that have passed from this world thinking they are delivering God's Word to you independently of the written Word of God, and thinking the head guy at the RCC is actually God on earth and is to be worshiped as such.

Where did I defend anything like this from Bible? I did not and have not. Rather, I have asked you to explain how you interpret the Bible and whether it is conflated with "what the Bible plainly says" or the absolute correct, Holy Spirit-delivered interpretation every single time.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Where, in the Bible, do you see that Mary died? How do you know she "passed"? Revelation, in fact, shows her alive. We don't actually pray to Mary, we pray, (which means to "ask") for her intercession in our behalf. Can you show me a document that says the Pope is "actually God on earth".
Jesus was speaking directly to his apostles, not the general public...

There was no "written word of God", except the Old Testament, so are we to adhere strictly to the Old Testament?
Actually, God inspired the Catholic Church to canonize the New Covenant...which contains 73 books, not 66.

Was the RCC the first to translate the Bible into English?



http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/pre-reformation.html

By 500 AD the Bible had been translated into over 500 languages. Just one century later, by 600 AD, it has been restricted to only one language: the Latin Vulgate!
The only organized and recognized church at that time in history was the Catholic Church of Rome, and they refused to allow the scripture to be available in any language other than Latin. Those in possession of non-Latin scriptures would be executed!

This was because only the priests were educated to understand Latin, and this gave the church ultimate power&#8230; a power to rule without question&#8230; a power to deceive&#8230; a power to extort money from the masses. Nobody could question their &#8220;Biblical&#8221; teachings, because few people other than priests could read Latin. The church capitalized on this forced-ignorance through the 1,000 year period from 400 AD to 1,400 AD knows as the &#8220;Dark and Middle Ages&#8221;.

http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/

William Tyndale was the Captain of the Army of Reformers, and was their spiritual leader. Tyndale holds the distinction of being the first man to ever print the New Testament in the English language. Tyndale was a true scholar and a genius, so fluent in eight languages that it was said one would think any one of them to be his native tongue.
He is frequently referred to as the &#8220;Architect of the English Language&#8221;, (even more so than William Shakespeare) as so many of the phrases Tyndale coined are still in our language today.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Was the RCC the first to translate the Bible into English?

The first English language complete bible may have been Whycliffe's, he was a Catholic bishop, but some say that complete bibles existed before his was published and that his bible borrowed from them.

 

[topcare]

You apparently put the RCC teachings before the written Word of God.

We shall find out in the end if God published a Book that represents His Word... or is just nice suggestions as you RCC fellas think it is, you know nice pretty words that mean nothing and are to be ignored.

If this is true... how come mohammid isn't the one you guys follow? I hear the head of the RCC is gettin friendly with mohammid's people and have been breakin bread.

You need to pay attention to people's icons, I am not Catholic. It is very telling that the only answer given is an insult.

 

[Standing Up]

So basically you can't really answer the question, that is because no where in Scripture does it say that anything must be based on Scripture.

While you're right the bible won't answer the question, paper or plastic, it does claim to be sufficient for all things salvific.

 

[Standing Up]

Was the RCC the first to translate the Bible into English?



http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/pre-reformation.html

By 500 AD the Bible had been translated into over 500 languages. Just one century later, by 600 AD, it has been restricted to only one language: the Latin Vulgate!
The only organized and recognized church at that time in history was the Catholic Church of Rome, and they refused to allow the scripture to be available in any language other than Latin. Those in possession of non-Latin scriptures would be executed!

This was because only the priests were educated to understand Latin, and this gave the church ultimate power… a power to rule without question… a power to deceive… a power to extort money from the masses. Nobody could question their “Biblical” teachings, because few people other than priests could read Latin. The church capitalized on this forced-ignorance through the 1,000 year period from 400 AD to 1,400 AD knows as the “Dark and Middle Ages”.

http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/

William Tyndale was the Captain of the Army of Reformers, and was their spiritual leader. Tyndale holds the distinction of being the first man to ever print the New Testament in the English language. Tyndale was a true scholar and a genius, so fluent in eight languages that it was said one would think any one of them to be his native tongue.
He is frequently referred to as the “Architect of the English Language”, (even more so than William Shakespeare) as so many of the phrases Tyndale coined are still in our language today.

Forced ignorance. How about that?

 

[Erose]

Was the RCC the first to translate the Bible into English?



http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/pre-reformation.html

By 500 AD the Bible had been translated into over 500 languages. Just one century later, by 600 AD, it has been restricted to only one language: the Latin Vulgate!
The only organized and recognized church at that time in history was the Catholic Church of Rome, and they refused to allow the scripture to be available in any language other than Latin. Those in possession of non-Latin scriptures would be executed!

This was because only the priests were educated to understand Latin, and this gave the church ultimate power… a power to rule without question… a power to deceive… a power to extort money from the masses. Nobody could question their “Biblical” teachings, because few people other than priests could read Latin. The church capitalized on this forced-ignorance through the 1,000 year period from 400 AD to 1,400 AD knows as the “Dark and Middle Ages”.

http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/

William Tyndale was the Captain of the Army of Reformers, and was their spiritual leader. Tyndale holds the distinction of being the first man to ever print the New Testament in the English language. Tyndale was a true scholar and a genius, so fluent in eight languages that it was said one would think any one of them to be his native tongue.
He is frequently referred to as the “Architect of the English Language”, (even more so than William Shakespeare) as so many of the phrases Tyndale coined are still in our language today.

This isn't even close to true. The Bible was translated into multiple languages during the period that is claimed to restricted. The first known English translation was St. Bedes if I remember correctly, albeit not the full Bible. There were other attempts, but never a complete Bible was finished that we know of. Latin was the norm in Europe yes; but people forget that in Europe for a significant period of time everyone spoke at least some Latin. Latin was like English is today. You want to do business, you better know Latin.

 

[Erose]

While you're right the bible won't answer the question, paper or plastic, it does claim to be sufficient for all things salvific.

Which book?

 

[Standing Up]

Which book?

Contend for the faith once delivered (Jude). Can't contend for X if X isn't completed.

This is written so you might believe and have life (John). Do you think John left something out necessary for salvation?

Teach the same to faithful men (Paul). What did Paul leave out that's necessary for salvation? Why believe that "the same" wasn't complete upon the closing of the NT when John the last apostle died?

 

[Angeldove97]

Please be aware that this thread has gone through a thread clean up due to posts having rule violations in them -or- posts that responded to other posts that had rule violations in them. Posts may have been deleted or edited as necessary.

Some reminders about the rules....

Stating or implying that another member or group of members who have identified themselves as Christian are not Christian is not allowed.

Please do not post comments that state that Catholics are not Christians- or any other orthodox Christian group for that matter. That's not what is being discussed in this thread- instead please make sure that you are commenting on the topic presented in the opening post.

Please treat all members with respect and courtesy through civil dialogue. Refrain from insulting, inflammatory, or goading remarks. When you disagree, remember to address the content of the post and not the poster personally.

Please do not include any unkind comments about a member in your posts Stick to the topic when commenting.

Submit replies that are relevant to the topic of discussion.

Make sure to discuss the topic presented in the opening post

Please let me or another Staff member know if you have any questions about this thread clean up- you may PM us or start a thread in the Member Services Center (link to the forum is in my signature), but please do not comment on the thread clean up in this thread.

Thanks for your understanding!

 

[Erose]

Contend for the faith once delivered (Jude). Can't contend for X if X isn't completed.

This is written so you might believe and have life (John). Do you think John left something out necessary for salvation?

Teach the same to faithful men (Paul). What did Paul leave out that's necessary for salvation? Why believe that "the same" wasn't complete upon the closing of the NT when John the last apostle died?

So you are saying that only Jude, some writings of Paul (which one(s)), and the Gospel of John are inspired. Man SU, you got a pretty small Bible.

 

[VolRaider]

So Myself, Foghorn, and GoingByzantine kind of derailed a post. So I started this one. The goal is for GoingByzantine to back up the following using Scripture. Not talking about something a Pope said, or a Priest, but among the Scriptures.

I appreciate GoingByzantine for taking the challenge

Here is my list:

Nuns
Purgatory
Assumption of Mary
Priests living in Celibacy
Latin Mass in a English RC church (when looking at 1 Cor. 14:19)
*Christmas (since I believe Dec. 25th is a Catholic invention, and it was originally outlawed in the USA)
Sprinking
Infant Baptism
Venial and Mortal Sins

I would love GoingByzantine to start with Nuns myself

*Also I understand that many Christians (both Catholic and Protestant) celebrate Christmas. While I do not, please understand I am not attacking Christmas, but I do not see December 25th being the birth of Christ in the Bible.From my studies the birth would be around Sept/Oct area. But I do believe the date (Dec. 25th) was put into place by the Catholics, and it is also the birthday of many pagan gods of the past. Although we must also note that Christmas was origionally outlawed in America, and that had something to do with the Catholics, since it was not allowed until the middle 1800s. more info can be found here: When Americans banned Christmas - The Week *

You might have an argument on the Assumption and Latin Mass as far as being backed by Scripture, but there are verses to back the rest of them up. As for Christ's birthday, who cares? We have it in December. Ain't no thang.

 

[Ted Lang]

So when the pope speaks on matters of faith and morals to the entire Church, it is God's word he speaks.

So, where did God say to pray to Mary?

Never did see anyone who could show me scripture for that, or for praying to other saints that have passed from this world or the whole purgatory thing either.

If you have chapter and verse for any of this stuff it would be interesting to see. I've been studying the Bible for over 30 years now and do not see it...