Jesus isn't Catholic

[ewq1938]

He follow the will of his Father, not himself.

Yeah we all know that already. My point was that Jesus lived by the same teachings he wanted others to live by.

 

[Tone]

Tradition and Institutions are not always bad things.

Tradition, if Apostolic, is good.

Institutions, having structure, history, organization, and purpose, can be good, too. Especially if that Institution is the Church.

Yeah, kinda like the traditions we have here in the institution of CF!

*I'm telling you, we're a branch...of sorts...FORUMISTS

**I wouldn't spend so much of my time here if I didn't believe that.

 

[Tone]

Freely.

True...free to tear down...or to build up...

 

[Just_a_Christian]

Jesus isn't a Catholic.
Neither is Paul.

Also, think of every denomination you can think of, then add in 2500 more you dont know about.

Jesus and Paul are none of those........also.
Jesus and Paul do not belong to a man made denomination.
But you do, or have.

Its interesting that we are told to "not forsake the assembling of ourselves together"< but we are not told to join a denomination.
There is the concept of a Local Church, revealed in the NT, but its never given a BRAND NAME.
All that came later, as men moved in, took over, and created DENOMINATIONS.
Also...
IF you are born again, you've already joined the "one true Church", which is the literal, spiritual, body of Christ........that is not made with hands., but is made with The Blood of God as Jesus dying on a Cross.

So, is "organized religion", (denominations), the local church, good for you?
It can be great for you, and your family, but, the sticking point, is, that NT doctrine, as "sound doctrine" is always sound, of itself..... but the way it is taught in "church", is often man made reinvention.
= Carnal bible twisting mania.

The only thing the Devil loves more then 5000 denominations that dont agree with each other's theology, (he had a hand in this).....are 380 "New versions" of the BIBLE, that have changed verses, removed "sound" doctrine, and often try to leave God out, whenever possible.
Satan loves this.
LOVES it.

So, how do you know if your church is a mess, and is not walking in the Light, as Jesus is the Light?

It all comes down to how they teach Salvation.
It all comes down to each denomination's personal explanation of GRACE.
Understand Saint, that if they get this wrong, then everything else is wrong, also.
And if you belong to a church that has substituted works for Grace, then you are wrong also., and they did it to you.

So, how do you check all this, to find out if you are in a poisonous religious cult, or if you are in a place where God reigns and the Holy Spirit is active? ???

First, you have to understand that Jesus is Grace. JESUS is Eternal Life. Jesus is Salvation.... Jesus is the author and finishers of YOUR FAITH. Hebrews 12:2. And because Jesus is "Christ in you, the hope of Glory", and you are "IN Christ"", and have become the very "righteousness of Christ", if you are born again.... If you know all this, and believe all this, and TRUST all this and not in yourself to keep yourself saved..
You will also have to come to the truth of the revelation that God began your salvation and HE will finish it.
Philippians 1:6
= You have to come to a place in your theological mastery where you understand GRACE is a free gift, that Salvation is a free gift, and you no longer worry about losing your salvation, or still believe you have to keep yourself saved. (Legalism) (Galatians 1:8)
Saint, you have to come to the revelation, that, if i ask you, "what are you trusting in, to get you to heaven""".... your only and final answer, is "JESUS."
And until you are there, completely certain..... until you have the revelation of "Grace without works"..... Then you will always answer...."well, I trust in Jesus, BUT".........but....but......but.....but".... = Fail.
So, until you come to understand and truly believe that Jesus and Jesus alone saved you and will get you into heaven, then you are lost in the deceitful maze of "who is right"...>"who is lying"...."how do i know", and worst deceit of all..... "you can lose your salvation".

God help you to believe, His Truth, according to His Grace.....alone.




dw

Christ's church, church of God, churches of Christ. All biblical names. A church or congregation is not the building but the souls. The name on the door where the souls typically worship should give all glory and honor to Christ. That is God's desire, He has given all authority unto Christ.
God has given us His written will and testament. We must observe His conditions for salvation. We must follow His roadmap to Heaven; there is no other path that leads there. His word, the totality of it, can get anyone to Heaven. Your word, mine, Calvin's, Luther's, Smith's, Pope's or anyone else's word are all totally and equally worthless. Your roadmap to Heaven must match that of God's roadmap or Hell will be the final destination.
In Him

 

[Joyeuse]

The Church is the church that Christ established.

 

[Verv]

In reality, both the Orthodox and Catholic churches use the names "Orthodox" and "Catholic" as mere descriptions of what they intend to be and out of the necessity of having a title or a label. Just as such, "Protestant" and "Reformed" fulfill the same function.

Every church claims to be the true church.

 

[DeepWater]

Ok that is where things get off track. Jesus never taught that

Here is where some people get off track.
They are, for some reason, substituting the teaching of the Kingdom, with the preaching of the Cross.
Its as if their idea of Salvation, has nothing to do with the CROSS, YET = its the CROSS that redeems people so that they can become a part of the Kingdom.

You, are continually talking about the Kingdom, as if Paul and everything that Happened subsequent to the Cross, has no purpose.
Listen, the Beatitudes, are not the Gospel. The Beatitudes are not "justification by Faith". The Beatitudes are not the "Blood Atonement". The Beatitudes have nothing to do with REDEMPTION......nothing.

 

[Mary Meg]

If i might add to your comment about "original greek".

As @dzheremi has already explained, you kind of missed the point he was making. He was talking about the etymology of words (I like etymology). Early Christians communicated in Greek and the New Testament is written in Greek. You are complaining that Jesus is not "catholic." So it was useful to examine the origins of that word to ask if He actually is.

He was was not talking about the "original Greek text" of the New Testament. But you've said some things below that aren't really accurate so I'm going to respond.

There is no such thing, as the "original greek".

Yes, it's true, we don't have the "original manuscripts" of the Greek New Testament -- the actual pieces of paper that the Apostles wrote their gospels and letters on. But you know what? We don't have that for hardly any books, especially not ancient books. People make copies of books. For the gospels and epistles, Christians immediately made many copies so they could share them with Christians all around the world. Do you wave your arms in the air and whine that you don't have the "original manuscript" of any other book? No, of course not, because in most cases, a copy of the book is just as good as having the original.

So, with the New Testament, we don't have the "originals" it was written on, but we do have copies of them. The problem is -- when people make lots and lots of copies of a text by hand, there are going to be differences that creep in. They didn't have xerox machines back then. But people did the best they could...

So we have a lot of Greek manuscripts of the New Testament that don't all agree with each other. The question is, do we have the "original text" of the New Testament? You insist we don't, but -- two things: In most cases, these differences are really, really small and don't change the meaning of the text at all. There's no Christian doctrine or even a Bible story that's really affected or changed by the differences in Greek manuscripts. Most of these changes just amount to endings of words, changes in tense, sometimes misspellings -- or word order changed, or words inserted, sometimes whole verses inserted, copied there from somewhere else. In most cases, the Greek manuscripts agree about the actual Greek words that were used -- so even if @dzheremi were talking about the "original Greek" of the Bible, he could speak with some confidence about the original Greek words that were used.

The other thing is, Bible scholars are pretty smart and can reconstruct from all these texts a pretty good approximation of the "original text" of the New Testament. You complain about "scholarship" -- as if that's a bad thing! No, they don't all agree, and yes, it's all scholarly and open to debate -- but, between all the scholarship and the fact that the textual changes don't actually change all that much anyway, we can have pretty good confidence that we have the "original text" of the New Testament.

This is "scholarshipeze - speak" and has nothing to do with truth or reality.

So, "scholarship" has nothing to do with truth or reality? I guess it's all just made up to confuse us, right? Like dinosaurs.

What we have, as greek texts, are about 30 completed ones, which are all copies of copies of copies, with the occasional very early parchment preserved, usually as a piece or a part.

We have more copies of the Greek text of the New Testament, and they agree with each other far better, than any other ancient text.

We have the Dead Sea Scrolls that are accepted by some manuscript evidence experts, but not by all.

The Dead Sea Scrolls contain some copies of some of the Old Testament books, like Isaiah. We haven't even talked about the Old Testament text here. That's a different situation, but similar to the one above: differences between texts, but we can be pretty sure we have the same text that Christians and Jews have had for at least a few thousand years.

So, if you are going to try to sound like an authority on "original extant" texts, on a public forum, you first need to learn that there is no original greek text....

It's you who sounds like you don't know what you're talking about. There is an original Greek text that we can talk about with a fair degree of confidence.

What we have are the 30, and some greek texts that are considered to be corrupted by nearly all the major manuscript evidence experts. These are the "Latin" texts, which created the Catholic Bible.

Um....

Latin is a different language than Greek.

The Greek manuscripts are, you know, in Greek. The Greek texts we have of the New Testament are not "corrupted," though some have more textual variants (changes) than others. Usually the oldest manuscripts are considered the best and closest to the original text.

There are also Latin copies of the Greek New Testament, which are translations from Greek to Latin (much as we have translations from Greek to English), since people in the Western Roman Empire could no longer read Greek after a while. But that really doesn't have very much to do with the "original Greek text" of the New Testament at all.

You have Nestle's greek text that use to be the same as the "received text" or Byzatine Textus Receptus text

This is kind of all over the place -- but I think you're talking about the Nestle-Aland Greek text of the New Testament. You complain about "scholarship," well Nestle and Aland were scholars who tried to edit together the "original text" of the New Testament as above. The "Byzantine Text" or "Majority Text" of the New Testament describes a form of the text that's made up by most of the surviving manuscripts -- called "majority" because they are "most," and "Byzantine" because they come largely from the East. The "Textus Receptus" was one of the first scholarly attempts to construct the "original text" of the New Testament, published by Erasmus -- put together from a few "Byzantine" texts. I don't think Nestle and Aland ever really followed the "Textus Receptus", though.

that created the 1st version and 2nd spelling updated 1611 KJV, but its been altered, and now its not the same as it was originally, and there is strong debate about it being as accurate regarding doctrines, as it was before the handlers got ahold of it.

You kind of lose me here.

So, if you are going to actually learn anything about Koine Greek, and "manuscript evidence", then do a deep study on "western texts", as this is the area related to where Paul did much of his service for God.

I really have no idea what you're talking about. There is a "Western text" of the New Testament, but it's one of the major variant forms scholars talk about -- it doesn't really have anything to do with Paul (any more than the Greek text itself).

But it sounds like you are complaining about "scholarship," and insisting that to talk about Greek text or manuscript evidence, they have to become scholars themselves? Are you a scholar?

Scholars have already done the work. People devote their whole lives to this. So there's nothing wrong with reading what they've written and valuing and benefiting from their work.

Also, for the sake of being valid and authentic, its best to write what you have learned, instead of cutting and pasting other's work.

I'm writing what I've learned -- as was @dzheremi. I'm not a scholar. I learned all this from books. A pretty good book, that's now available to read online, is The Text of the New Testament by Bruce Metzger. That's where I'm getting most of this.

 

[Unofficial Reverand Alex]

Actually, the point of the Thread is regarding how to understand if you are involved with a religious organization that isn't scriptural.
Most who are, would never take the time to find out.
See, the nature, and the essence of deceit, is that you don't know that you are deceived, and what keeps a person there, is a lazy attitude and self righteousness that prevents a person from caring, to even know for certain.
Also,
The Reason i chose that title, is because of all the known religious organizations in the world, there is only one that has a leader who is proclaimed to speak as if God is speaking absolute truth thru a Pope.... Its the idea of Papal Infallibility.
And so, if the Pope's mouth is the voice of God, then God must be a Catholic....is the idea regarding my Thread's title.
How do you feel about my title?

With all due respect, I highly recommend, for you & everyone, that you study what a denomination teaches before you talk badly about it; much of what you said is exaggerations at best of what the Catholic Church actually teaches.

Here's a link to the Catechism of the Catholic Church; please read through sections of it before claiming to know what the Catholic Church teaches. Also, it's very good reading, and you'll quickly find that we agree far more than we disagree: Catechism of the Catholic Church

But, to address your point of God speaking through a pope, let me ask you another question: Can the Bible be trusted? Can the Prophets be trusted? The doctrine of papal infallibility does not claim that God speaks directly through the pope, as is widely believed when looked at the "inspired" nature of the Bible, or God speaking through the Prophets. Papal infallibility is very limited, and I recommend that you read the section of the Catechism that discusses it.

How do you feel about my title?

I think it's misleading; "Jesus doesn't have a denomination" would be a more accurate title for what you posted. I see now why you chose it, but it still sends a different message than your original post.

May God bless us all!

 

[fhansen]

Jesus isn't a Catholic.
Neither is Paul.

Also, think of every denomination you can think of, then add in 2500 more you dont know about.

Jesus and Paul are none of those........also.
Jesus and Paul do not belong to a man made denomination.
But you do, or have.

Its interesting that we are told to "not forsake the assembling of ourselves together"< but we are not told to join a denomination.
There is the concept of a Local Church, revealed in the NT, but its never given a BRAND NAME.
All that came later, as men moved in, took over, and created DENOMINATIONS.
Also...
IF you are born again, you've already joined the "one true Church", which is the literal, spiritual, body of Christ........that is not made with hands., but is made with The Blood of God as Jesus dying on a Cross.

So, is "organized religion", (denominations), the local church, good for you?
It can be great for you, and your family, but, the sticking point, is, that NT doctrine, as "sound doctrine" is always sound, of itself..... but the way it is taught in "church", is often man made reinvention.
= Carnal bible twisting mania.

The only thing the Devil loves more then 5000 denominations that dont agree with each other's theology, (he had a hand in this).....are 380 "New versions" of the BIBLE, that have changed verses, removed "sound" doctrine, and often try to leave God out, whenever possible.
Satan loves this.
LOVES it.

So, how do you know if your church is a mess, and is not walking in the Light, as Jesus is the Light?

It all comes down to how they teach Salvation.
It all comes down to each denomination's personal explanation of GRACE.
Understand Saint, that if they get this wrong, then everything else is wrong, also.
And if you belong to a church that has substituted works for Grace, then you are wrong also., and they did it to you.

So, how do you check all this, to find out if you are in a poisonous religious cult, or if you are in a place where God reigns and the Holy Spirit is active? ???

First, you have to understand that Jesus is Grace. JESUS is Eternal Life. Jesus is Salvation.... Jesus is the author and finishers of YOUR FAITH. Hebrews 12:2. And because Jesus is "Christ in you, the hope of Glory", and you are "IN Christ"", and have become the very "righteousness of Christ", if you are born again.... If you know all this, and believe all this, and TRUST all this and not in yourself to keep yourself saved..
You will also have to come to the truth of the revelation that God began your salvation and HE will finish it.
Philippians 1:6
= You have to come to a place in your theological mastery where you understand GRACE is a free gift, that Salvation is a free gift, and you no longer worry about losing your salvation, or still believe you have to keep yourself saved. (Legalism) (Galatians 1:8)
Saint, you have to come to the revelation, that, if i ask you, "what are you trusting in, to get you to heaven""".... your only and final answer, is "JESUS."
And until you are there, completely certain..... until you have the revelation of "Grace without works"..... Then you will always answer...."well, I trust in Jesus, BUT".........but....but......but.....but".... = Fail.
So, until you come to understand and truly believe that Jesus and Jesus alone saved you and will get you into heaven, then you are lost in the deceitful maze of "who is right"...>"who is lying"...."how do i know", and worst deceit of all..... "you can lose your salvation".

God help you to believe, His Truth, according to His Grace.....alone.




dw

There can be only one church that Jesus established, with "...one Lord, one faith, one baptism...". It, of necessity, must be undivided in faith, and must be visible, locatable. Other than that the name doesn't really much matter.

 

[chilehed]

Jesus isn't a Catholic.
Neither is Paul.

Says you.

 

[timothyu]

They are, for some reason, substituting the teaching of the Kingdom, with the preaching of the Cross.

I would be more inclined to take the original teaching of Jesus as a whole than rather a part of it ignoring the Kingdom. Paul did not ignore the Kingdom. He taught the Gospel of the Kingdom complete.

The Gospel of the Kingdom was what Jesus the Messiah taught and if that was good enough for the people, why abandon it or change it? Who other than the Adversary and it's minions, does it benefit to remove Jesus' Gospel in favour of another?

Its as if their idea of Salvation, has nothing to do with the CROSS, YET = its the CROSS that redeems people so that they can become a part of the Kingdom.

The gospel of salvation was part of the Gospel of the Kingdom, recognized as part of the complete story, not the whole itself. Sadly it is often portrayed not as a part but as a whole, the complete Gospel of the Kingdom ignored.

The cross was the result of man rejecting the Kingdom and the Messiah. The Adversary and it's minions focuses on the death, God and His followers focus on the resurrection. The resurrection was God's answer to man's attempt to stifle the Kingdom and it will be so again in the final days. Jesus served the Father and His Kingdom, both as a physical place and as governance. Man has continually drawn attention away from the Kingdom putting focus elsewhere in order to serve their worldly master and it's ideals. Within Christianity there will be a duality just as in our human nature, those of the Kingdom and those who seek to build their own kingdoms in the world of man

 

[chevyontheriver]

His Father isn't jewish, so "there's that".

His mother was, so Jesus is Jewish. Doesn't matter if His Father wasn't.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Well, besides Matthew 5:23-24 (because it was the Old Covenant still), the teachings of Jesus do not conflict with the teachings of Paul. Even Paul himself said that if any man does not agree with the words of the Lord Jesus Christ and the doctrine according to godliness, they are proud and they know nothing (See 1 Timothy 6:3-4). James 4:6 says God resists the proud and He gives grace to the humble.

Jesus primarily taught New Covenant and not Old Covenant. For most of all of what Jesus taught can be seen as being taught by His followers after the cross.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Jesus isn't a Catholic.
Neither is Paul.

Says you.

No. The Bible says so by indirect means. We see none of the extra biblical Catholic practices clearly described to us by Jesus and His followers. In fact, these traditions actually conflict with many commands we see in the Bible. This a similar problem in regards to the topic of Salvation when it comes to Protestants. So both Catholicism and Protestantism cannot clearly be seen in God’s Word when it comes to certain things. They each have to make the Bible say something that it doesn’t.

 

[chilehed]

No. The Bible says so by indirect means.

It does not. What you think the Bible means says so, but your fallible paraphrase of the Bible isn't the Bible.

 

[Just_a_Christian]

The Church is the church that Christ established.

Yes, The Church, is the church that Christ established, I agree 100%. If, however, you are claiming that "catholicism" is that for which Christ poured out His blood, then I disagree 100%.
In Him

 

[Bible Highlighter]

It does not. What you think the Bible means says so, but your fallible paraphrase of the Bible isn't the Bible.

The point here is that we do not see any of the added traditions of the Catholic church in the Bible. If there was, you would have been able to point out all the verses already (But you didn't).

 

[chevyontheriver]

Yes, The Church, is the church that Christ established, I agree 100%. If, however, you are claiming that "catholicism" is that for which Christ poured out His blood, then I disagree 100%.
In Him

Your disagreement is noted. But in rejecting the Catholic Church you aren't very specific about which brand you belong to. I would like to know so that everyone else here could then pile on about all the things wrong with that brand. You are hiding your brand while attacking the brand of others. Not very sportsmanlike of you. You hide under a generic 'Christian' label, but I can and do often use that label myself. What do YOU mean when YOU call YOURSELF Christian? Inquiring minds want to know.

 

[Concord1968]

Actually that generic "Christian" label needs to be removed from the options in the name of truth-in-advertising.

 

[chilehed]

The point here is that we do not see any of the added traditions of the Catholic church in the Bible.

The Bible doesn't say that everything about the early Church has to be recorded in it to be true. Everything in the OP was the poster's personal opinion, none of it was scripture, and if his notions were correct then he could cite scripture that says what he says. But he can't, because it doesn't.