Catholic - Christian (Same or Different)

[loverofhumanity]

And how could you possibly know that they are just "superstitions" and made-up "myths"?

As for myself, I look at all scripture as being allegorical thus focusing on the general set of morals that are being taught, thus whether a narrative is factual, a "myth", or "superstitious" is not something I fret about.

I fell in love with the Lord Jesus and being so connected to Him I gained spiritual sustenance from Him alone and had no need for sacraments, rituals or priests. And He guided me and took me up with Him to heaven when He returned. Now I’m exceedingly blest and filled with ecstasy to have seen Him coming in the clouds of heaven.

 

[metis]

I fell in love with the Lord Jesus and being so connected to Him I gained spiritual sustenance from Him alone and had no need for sacraments, rituals or priests. And He guided me and took me up with Him to heaven when He returned. Now I’m exceedingly blest and filled with ecstasy to have seen Him coming in the clouds of heaven.

The sacraments are scripturally based and are a means to an end and not an end unto themselves. Plus, the reality is that the Church of the Apostles had priests ["presbyteros"] and all churches and people have "rituals" of one type or another, which are also means to an end and not an end in and of themselves.

 

[loverofhumanity]

The sacraments are scripturally based and are a means to an end and not an end unto themselves. Plus, the reality is that the Church of the Apostles had priests ["presbyteros"] and all churches and people have "rituals" of one type or another, which are also means to an end and not an end in and of themselves.

My humble understanding is that the instructions of Jesus were primarily symbolical not meant to be ritualised. Christ said things like I am the bread of life and He who thirsts come to Me - clearly indicates believing and obeying Him, but rituals were weaved around things like this. Baptism with water simply means sincere pure belief not for other motives because He also mentions baptism by fire but if that was literally carried out people would be seriously injured or killed. So if it is taken literally then why not baptise with fire too as that is also a command of Jesus?

I believe in God and Jesus but eating a bit of bread and grape juice is not going to put Jesus into me. That’s something as a child I might have fallen for but not as a mature adult with a God given intellect. To me personally it’s failure to understand what Jesus meant.

 

[1213]

Because some are interpretations, which can obviously vary, or applications, which also can vary from scholar to scholar. You do much of the same as well all do in any serious scriptural study.

I believe it would be better, if people would not interpret, but let the Bible explain what it means.

 

[metis]

I believe it would be better, if people would not interpret, but let the Bible explain what it means.

No serious biblical scholar would ever say such a thing. To do it right, one needs to consider some many factors that may be involved, including language idiosyncrasies, historical context, and numerous other forms of background information.

OTOH, as Billy Graham once wrote [paraphrased], the Bible is simple enough so even a person who's dull-of-mind can basically understand and yet complex enough to turn theologians' hair grey. So, it all depends on which level one is dealing with.

Thus, the Bible itself does not "explain what it means" unless one is just reading it to get a general feel, which is all fine & dandy as far as that goes.

 

[DNB]

What you'ere missing with the above is the Jewish tradition of having major players be shown with having at least one defect of some type, and a Jewish commentary on this is to show that they are fully human and not demigods. Matter of fact, the Apostles in general are shown as being morally weak at times.

We know with certainty that the 1st and 2nd century Church saw Peter as being what can be called "the first amongst equals", such as what Ignatius of Antioch wrote.

I do not consider the Apostolic fathers, or anyone one from the sub-apostolic period to be either inspired or authoritative. Thus, if it's not in Scripture, it's not dogma.

 

[metis]

I do not consider the Apostolic fathers, or anyone one from the sub-apostolic period to be either inspired or authoritative. Thus, if it's not in Scripture, it's not dogma.

I was referring to the Apostles and their appointees, which shows up in Acts and many of the epistles.

BTW, what do you think Jesus mean when he promised that he would guide his Church until the end of time and give the Church a Paraclete?

Also, a reminder that it was the Church itself that chose the canon of the Bible in the 4th century that you're probably using, and it certainly was no slam dunk as it took over 1/2 a century, and some books were hotly debated.

 

[1213]

...
Thus, the Bible itself does not "explain what it means" unless one is just reading it to get a general feel, which is all fine & dandy as far as that goes.

Can you show some scripture in the Bible that is not explained by Bible also?

 

[metis]

Can you show some scripture in the Bible that is not explained by Bible also?

The explicit meaning of the bread & wine in the context of the Last Supper, namely are they real or only symbolic?

Also, the "firmament" mentioned in Genesis I?

 

[DNB]

BTW, what do you think Jesus mean when he promised that he would guide his Church until the end of time and give the Church a Paraclete?

To me, the Church is not a quantifiable or circumscribable entity, every man stands alone before God irrespective of one's denomination. Therefore, Christ promised to both guide, and endow with the Spirit, his devotees depending on their faith. He did not establish a conglomerate that anyone can point to and say, 'there's Christ's Church'.

Also, a reminder that it was the Church itself that chose the canon of the Bible in the 4th century that you're probably using, and it certainly was no slam dunk as it took over 1/2 a century, and some books were hotly debated.

Again, you're using the word 'Church' to delineate a specific group, within a specific locale or congregation. Usage defined Canon. What was commonly accepted as NT Scripture from the 1st century, simply continued until there was a consensus or ratification of what was already in practice. There was no official rejection or qualifier that established canon, Hippo & Carthage merely recognized what tradition and usage had already defined to be authoritative. And, even still, such councils were neither authoritative nor inspired - they could have the authorships incorrect, the dating, or the inspiration.

 

[metis]

every man stands alone before God irrespective of one's denomination.

Agree.

He did not establish a conglomerate that anyone can point to and say, 'there's Christ's Church'.

Clearly false, as he appointed the Twelve and they appointed others, and it's right there in your Bible.

Usage defined Canon.

False again, and we know this to be true as there were records kept of the general process and results as it went on for over 1/2 a century and involved somewhere around a thousand bishops over that time period. If it was such a slam-dunk, then why did it take so long?

What was commonly accepted as NT Scripture from the 1st century, simply continued until there was a consensus or ratification of what was already in practice.

Not true again. Different communities were often using different texts, such as the Anglican theologian William Barcley covered in his book "Introduction To the Bible". He says that now accepted books such as Revelation and Hebrews were not used by many local churches.

And, even still, such councils were neither authoritative nor inspired - they could have the authorships incorrect, the dating, or the inspiration.

And how could you possibly know that? Are you so willing to short-change the power of the Holy Spirit? I certainly don't, and for personal reasons btw.

As time went on and more distant congregations, such as in India and further south in Africa, were able to communicate, their churches generally affiliated with either the Catholic Church or Orthodox Church as they were aware of the fact that the Church should be "one body" as Paul described it, not thousands mostly claiming that they're the "true church".

Do you believe Paul on this or not? Remember, he was also one who chose appointees as well.

 

[Muffled]

Are Catholic and Christian the same, of are thy different?

I believe they are about as Christian as one can get without being saved.

 

[Muffled]

According to many Reformation denominations of the Catholic Church, in the USA, Catholics are not Christian.

I believe the Catholic church has no reformations. They decided they would rather fight than switch.

 

[Muffled]

So they don't worship Christ? That seems odd for a Catholic.

I believe they worship Jesus as the Christ but the fundamentalists believe one is not Christian unless one has received Jesus as Lord and Savior.

 

[1213]

The explicit meaning of the bread & wine in the context of the Last Supper, namely are they real or only symbolic?

They are what Jesus says they are:

Then he took a loaf of bread, gave thanks, broke it in pieces, and handed it to them, saying, “This is my body, which is given for you. Keep on doing this in memory of me.” He did the same with the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, poured out for you.
Luke 22:19-20

If he would have said, “This is my bread, which is given for you”, what would you think the bread is? If then we call that bread a body, does it change to something else? Not by what Jesus says.

Maybe it could help to understand that, if we look how the previous covenant was established. In it Moses used body and blood of the animals. They were the body and blood of that covenant. In this new covenant the bread and wine are the body and blood of the covenant. Every time person participates to it, he participates also to the new covenant.

Moses took half of the blood and put it in basins, and half of the blood he sprinkled on the altar. He took the book of the covenant and read it in the hearing of the people, and they said, "All that Yahweh has spoken will we do, and be obedient." Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, "Look, this is the blood of the covenant, which Yahweh has made with you concerning all these words."
Exodus 24:6-8

That is how I understand it. Reason why I think it is correct understanding is that I don’t think I add anything to it and it is not in contradiction with anything else in the Bible. And I think the other explanations usually are in contradiction with this:

It is the spirit who gives life. The flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and are life.
John 6:63

Also, the "firmament" mentioned in Genesis I?

And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
Gen. 1:7-8

Heaven can be translated as sky, or atmosphere, that is why I believe it means atmosphere.

 

[DNB]

Clearly false, as he appointed the Twelve and they appointed others, and it's right there in your Bible.

Yes, he obviously did, but where is there lineage now. Gnostics and other heretics immediately infiltrated the Church, and caused division and dissention within the first century. Who, then, are the real Christians or the true body - it's indiscernible outside of doctrine, and clearly the Vatican does not have absolute truth.

False again, and we know this to be true as there were records kept of the general process and results as it went on for over 1/2 a century and involved somewhere around a thousand bishops over that time period. If it was such a slam-dunk, then why did it take so long?

Yes, but 90% of the decision was based on tradition - what the apostolic fathers wrote about and referred to. There were some controversial books, as you mentioned, but just by the fact that it took so long to decide, clearly demonstrates that the Holy Spirit was not guiding them - the canon would've been defined from inception otherwise, obviously.

Not true again. Different communities were often using different texts, such as the Anglican theologian William Barcley covered in his book "Introduction To the Bible". He says that now accepted books such as Revelation and Hebrews were not used by many local churches.

And, yet, they are included now, this displays the fact that the canon was not under the auspices of God - if Hebrews was meant to be included, the councils corrupted the Bible for a time for keeping it out for so long, and same with the other disputed Books.

And how could you possibly know that? Are you so willing to short-change the power of the Holy Spirit? I certainly don't, and for personal reasons btw.

Like I said, such protracted deliberations denotes the fact that God's Spirit had no involvement in defining either canon, or Church.

As time went on and more distant congregations, such as in India and further south in Africa, were able to communicate, their churches generally affiliated with either the Catholic Church or Orthodox Church as they were aware of the fact that the Church should be "one body" as Paul described it, not thousands mostly claiming that they're the "true church".

Do you believe Paul on this or not? Remember, he was also one who chose appointees as well.

During the apostolic period, and shortly after, we had inspired men governing the appointment of elders and Church hierarchy. But, very soon after the death of these eminent men, factions grew within the church until now, it has splintered into 30k different sects. THe Catholic church ruled during the dark ages, men were illiterate and the Bible was concealed in Latin and reserved for the clergy. The Roman Catholic church had a monopoly on religious authority due to their wealth and power. A brief reading of any book on Church history will immediately dispel any belief that the Holy Roman empire was either holy, or Christian. Like I said, the true Church is revealed by doctrine and Dogma, and no church is infallible.

 

[metis]

They are what Jesus says they are:

But still is unclear as there's been a long-time dispute as to whether they are "real", as said in John's gospel, or symbolic.

Heaven can be translated as sky, or atmosphere, that is why I believe it means atmosphere.

That's your interpretation, but the word "firmament" implies something that's solid, thus you've actually undermined your own claim that the Bible speaks for itself and doesn't need interpretation. So, thanks.

 

[metis]

Yes, he obviously did, but where is there lineage now.

I'm gonna be brief and will end our discussion with this post as you're inventing stuff and teaching them as supposed facts.

The "lineage" is found not only with the Catholic Church but also several other denominations, such as the Orthodox, Anglican, some of the Scandinavian Lutheran churches, and the Moravians, each of which can trace their leadership back to the Apostles. IOW, these churches splintered for largely political reasons while at the same time recognizing their original source. This is basic history.

Gnostics and other heretics immediately infiltrated the Church, and caused division and dissention within the first century. Who, then, are the real Christians or the true body - it's indiscernible outside of doctrine, and clearly the Vatican does not have absolute truth.

And Jesus predicted that this would happen and not be a good thing.

Yes, but 90% of the decision was based on tradition - what the apostolic fathers wrote about and referred to.

Paul said that we are also to follow the "traditions" that they left us. A general rule of thumb in theology is that the closer one is to the real event, the more likely one would have a better understanding of what actually took place.

There were some controversial books, as you mentioned, but just by the fact that it took so long to decide, clearly demonstrates that the Holy Spirit was not guiding them - the canon would've been defined from inception otherwise, obviously.

That's a non-sequitur since you've imposed a time-line on how and when the Holy Spirit can act. Plus, you've inadvertently undermined your own position because what you're then saying is that at least some of scriptures we have may be bogus.

if Hebrews was meant to be included, the councils corrupted the Bible for a time for keeping it out for so long, and same with the other disputed Books.

Again, you've undermined your own position of the scriptures themselves. "Hebrews" is in our Bible, but the "Gospel of the Hebrews" is not included.

Like I said, such protracted deliberations denotes the fact that God's Spirit had no involvement in defining either canon, or Church.

Another non-sequitur that leaves you with a "bible" that is partially or largely bogus. Again, the Bible did not choose itself, nor did the Apostles choose the Bible or write most of it.

But, very soon after the death of these eminent men, factions grew within the church until now, it has splintered into 30k different sects.

Yep, and that's why Paul said we should be of "one body".

THe Catholic church ruled during the dark ages, men were illiterate and the Bible was concealed in Latin and reserved for the clergy.

Oh, so the Catholic Chruch somehow caused the Dark Ages? Well, maybe read this: The 5 Major Causes Of The Dark Ages (historythings.com)

A brief reading of any book on Church history will immediately dispel any belief that the Holy Roman empire was either holy, or Christian. Like I said, the true Church is revealed by doctrine and Dogma, and no church is infallible.

Again, you miss the point that even with the Apostles there were scandals.

Yes, there are many things over its almost 2000-year history that were, and sometimes still are, scandalous, and we don't deny that. Instead, we pray and work on trying to make it better. But the fundamentalist Protestant denomination I grew up in also has had its scandals as well, however neither justifies the other.

Take care.

 

[1213]

...
That's your interpretation, but the word "firmament" implies something that's solid, thus you've actually undermined your own claim that the Bible speaks for itself and doesn't need interpretation. So, thanks.

Bible says directly that it is heaven, which means sky or atmosphere. It is interesting why that must be twisted to mean something else.

 

[metis]

Bible says directly that it is heaven, which means sky or atmosphere. It is interesting why that must be twisted to mean something else.

No, it simply does not say as such, especially since the word "heaven" is different.

Again, you continue to shoot yourself in the foot because what you've posted is an interpretation-- yours.