Catholic Church is more Biblical than Protestantism!

[pearl]

In other words the tradition of baptizing in titles has NO examples of being used in the scriptures, or of being used by the original Apostles.

Three different figures, Father, Son, and Spirit, are brought into conjunction in the NT. Some NT formulas join the three, other references unite the Father and Son, and other references relate the Spirit to the Father and/or to the Son. No NT passage is there precision about 'three' divine persons, co-equal but distinct and one divine nature, the core of the dogma of the Trinity.
The Church makes no such claim that its dogma is formulated in Scripture.
There is a trajectory from NT to the developed doctrines of later Christianity.
Any idea that the Church can define whatever it wishes and cannot be challenged constructively by scholarship is simply false.
Most Christians recognize Eucharist and Baptism as sacraments, but there is no such word as sacrament in the NT, but a development from. There is mention of baptism and eucharist but never are they joined together under one term. Yet Christians baptized and celebrated Eucharist before any NT author wrote about them.

 

[e.r.m.]

Please keep in mind, that nobody at RF can actually prove that I share the views of the handsome young brilliant man in this YouTube video!

The man in the video is also NOT saying that absolutely every Protestant believes what he says when he says "Protestants say XYZ"...

I just found this YouTube online, I found it very brilliant, thoughtful, ingenious, clever, powerful, and thought I would share. I'm not saying I agree with it entirely.

In the end, I don't think there is a religion on the world that is biblical. They are all unbiblical to some extent.

But the Catholic church is hands down the most biblical religion there is. I can make a very good point as to why!

The monstrance, the pontificus maximus (pontiff), and the catholic church structure are all carry overs from the Roman Empire and the Roman Pagan religion. Infant baptism is not Biblical, it's historical. Acts 2:38 makes repentance a prerequisite to being baptized, which infants cannot do and have nothing to repent of. If you say it's between the lines, then you have no right to try dispute the protestant's accept Jesus as personal savior prayer method of getting saved, which they say is between the lines too. The perpetual virginity of Mary is not Biblical Matthew 13:55-56 Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? [56] And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this man get all these things?"

The priests deciding forgiveness of those who confess is not Biblical 1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,

The priests not being able to marry is not Biblical.

The Catholics use 1 Corinthians 7:32-34 But I want you to be free from concern. One who is unmarried is concerned about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord; [33] but one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how he may please his wife, [34] and his interests are divided... in defense of the priests not marrying. But the same person who wrote this, also wrote 1 Corinthians 9:5 Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?

To remain unmarried was not a requirement. Catholics are the ones who make this a requirement.

Shall I go on about sacraments, about group salvation, infallibility, having a pope, etc.?

Your claim in this post is not that the Catholic church has authority in addition to the Bible, but that the Catholic church is more Biblical than Protestants. I beg to differ.

You made a good point about the size of the Catholic Church vs. that of Protestant churches and the proportion of sins contained therein. But you also said "That doesn't make Catholic Dogma bad."
Even if the Catholic church was free of priests abusing children, the Pope's golden throne, the pope shaking Hitler's hand, etc. (I do recognize that the Catholic church has also done a lot of good), it does in fact have a lot of Unbiblical dogma. Revelations 5:8 does not justify asking dead saints to pray for you.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

A "true believer" accepts the reality of not only what scripture says but also what is common sense. Tradition has always been a part of Christianity whether you want to accept it or not. Also, it is 100% disingenuous of you to state or imply that I don't "use" the scriptures, thus it's time for me to do some "housecleaning".

A true believer accepts what the scriptures teach, and doesn't rely on man's doctrine or opinions or man's traditions. Especially if they are in opposition to what is taught in the scriptures.

When I say use the scriptures, I just mean let them take precedence over all else.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Three different figures, Father, Son, and Spirit, are brought into conjunction in the NT. Some NT formulas join the three, other references unite the Father and Son, and other references relate the Spirit to the Father and/or to the Son. No NT passage is there precision about 'three' divine persons, co-equal but distinct and one divine nature, the core of the dogma of the Trinity.
The Church makes no such claim that its dogma is formulated in Scripture.
There is a trajectory from NT to the developed doctrines of later Christianity.
Any idea that the Church can define whatever it wishes and cannot be challenged constructively by scholarship is simply false.
Most Christians recognize Eucharist and Baptism as sacraments, but there is no such word as sacrament in the NT, but a development from. There is mention of baptism and eucharist but never are they joined together under one term. Yet Christians baptized and celebrated Eucharist before any NT author wrote about them.

We know what the Apostles believed and taught, because it is written down in our scriptures. You either believe what the word says or you don't.

But at least you appear to be acknowledging that the doctrine of the Trinity is not actually biblical.

 

[metis]

The monstrance, the pontificus maximus (pontiff), and the catholic church structure are all carry overs from the Roman Empire and the Roman Pagan religion.

Not true as the Church uses the "authoritarian model", which is what Jesus and the Apostles used.

Infant baptism is not Biblical,

Acts says a family was baptized. Also, because of a nasty plague, the Church took baptism and divided it into two sacraments, baptism and confirmation, and the latter is a "confirmation" of the former. The Church has a right to do such things as Jesus had assigned them, especially since the Church cannot be a static entity since time presents new problems.

The perpetual virginity of Mary is not Biblical Matthew 13:55-56 Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? [56] And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this man get all these things?"

Except cousins also are included in the Greek word for "brothers". Whether she was or wasn't I don't lose any sleep over.

The priests deciding forgiveness of those who confess is not Biblica

Yes it is as Jesus gave this power of binding and loosening of sins to the Apostles.

The priests not being able to marry is not Biblical.

Paul considered it to be the ideal.

Revelations 5:8 does not justify asking dead saints to pray for you.

It's found in the Apostle's Creed "communion of saints" statement, plus this was done in the early Church as well on an ongoing tradition.

Sorry to be so brief but I gotta lot to do today.

 

[e.r.m.]

Not true as the Church uses the "authoritarian model", which is what Jesus and the Apostles used.

What is this "authoritarian model", which is what Jesus and the Apostles allegedly used?

Acts says a family was baptized.

At best, this was a grasping at straws, far from a confirmation. But the nail in the coffin on this argument is the account itself.

Acts 16:32-34 And they spoke the word of the Lord to him together with ALL who were in his house. [33] And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and ALL his household. [34] And he brought them into his house and set food before them, and rejoiced greatly, HAVING BELIEVED IN GOD with his WHOLE household.

According to this, if there were infants in the household, then they were woken up in the middle of the night and brought before Paul and Silas so they could have the word of the Lord spoken to them, because they spoke the word of the Lord to him together with ALL who were in his house.
As well, in vs. 34 it said the whole household believed in God, including these super infants who had the capacity during their infancy to believe the word of the Lord spoken to them. It's a desperate attempt to retroactively and artificially force a later development into the scriptures, and as expected something that wasn't there originally, clashes with everything in the original text, like when they do a really bad movie prequel.

Also, because of a nasty plague, the Church took baptism and divided it into two sacraments, baptism and confirmation, and the latter is a "confirmation" of the former. The Church has a right to do such things as Jesus had assigned them, especially since the Church cannot be a static entity since time presents new problems.

This is a much better explanation. But it doesn't address or support the original premise that Catholicism is more "Biblical" than Protestantism.

Except cousins also are included in the Greek word for "brothers". Whether she was or wasn't I don't lose any sleep over.

Will look that up.

Yes it is as Jesus gave this power of binding and loosening of sins to the Apostles.

To the apostles, not priests. Mattias and Saul were the last persons in scripture upon whom apostleship had been bestowed.

Paul considered it to be the ideal.

Paul considered it to be the ideal, but he maintained that they hold the right to marry. Catholics don't make this an ideal, Catholics make this a requirement, which Paul did not do. UnBiblical.

It's found in the Apostle's Creed "communion of saints" statement, plus this was done in the early Church as well on an ongoing tradition.

It doesn't support the initial claim that the Catholic church is more "Biblical" than Protestantism, since it relies on other documents as equal authority. Whether that is right or wrong is a separate discussion, just not more Biblical. I will look up the Apostles Creed.

I understand the need to go, at your leisure.

 

[pearl]

According to this, if there were infants in the household, then they were woken up in the middle of the night and brought before Paul and Silas so they could have the word of the Lord spoken to them, because they spoke the word of the Lord to him together with ALL who were in his house.
As well, in vs. 34 it said the whole household believed in God, including these super infants who had the capacity during their infancy to believe the word of the Lord spoken to them. It's a desperate attempt to retroactively and artificially force a later development into the scriptures, and as expected something that wasn't there originally, clashes with everything in the original text, like when they do a really bad movie prequel.

It is impossible to interpret the Gospels apart from Hebrew Scripture.
I suggest you consider how the term 'household' was used in the Scripture in use at the time.

Genesis 7:1 "Then the LORD said to Noah, "Come into the ark, you and all your household, because I have seen that you are righteous before Me in this generation." (Note in this instance that the word "you" is singular, referring to Noah only. Yet, by virtue of Noah's righteousness, his whole family is taken into the ark. Peter compares this event to Baptism in 1 Peter 3:20,21)


Genesis 12:17 "But the LORD plagued Pharaoh and his house with great plagues because of Sarai, Abram's wife."

Genesis 18:19 "For I have known him, in order that he may command his children and his household after him, that they keep the way of the LORD, to do righteousness and justice, that the LORD may bring to Abraham what He has spoken to him."

Deuteronomy 14:26 "And you shall spend that money for whatever your heart desires: for oxen or sheep, for wine or similar drink, for whatever your heart desires; you shall eat there before the LORD your God, and you shall rejoice, you and your household."

Joshua 24:15 "And if it seems evil to you to serve the LORD, choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD."

1 Samuel 25:6 "And thus you shall say to him who lives inprosperity: 'Peace be to you, peace to your house, and peace to all that you have!"

These passages speak of houses being blessed or condemned by virtue of the spiritual status of the head of that household. Joshua, cited above, even takes responsibility not only for his own serving the Lord, but for his family's as well.

And just as significant are those passages that mention the household but explicitly exclude children:

Genesis 50:7-8 "So Joseph went up to bury his father; and with him went up all the servants of Pharaoh, the elders of his house, and all the elders of the land of Egypt, as well as all the house of Joseph, his
brothers, and his father's house. Only their little ones, their flocks, and their herds they left in the land of Goshen."

1 Samuel 1:21,22 "Now the man Elkanah and all his house went up to offer to the LORD the yearly sacrifice and his vow. But Hannah did not go up, for she said to her husband, 'Not until the child is weaned; then I will take him, that he may appear before the LORD and remain there forever.'"

The exceptions prove the rule. In both of the above cases, when the biblical writer mentions the entire household, he feels the need to point out in this case that the children are not included. He would not point this out unless the term "house" presumed otherwise.

The phrase "he and his (whole) house" denotes the complete family; normally husband, wife and children.
In the Gospels are found a heritage from biblical language.

Even if it could be historically proven that every household baptism of the New Testament was -- by some fluke -- a baptism of a household with no very young children -- even that would be irrelevant. The point of the household language is that children, if any, are included unless explicitly excluded. If the Holy Spirit had meant to exclude children from baptism, the Scriptures would have to say, "[So and so] and his household were baptized, all who were at an age of understanding and could credibly profess their faith."

Matthew 10:12-14 "And when you go into a household, greet it. If the household is worthy, let your peace come upon it. But if it is not worthy, let your peace return to you. And whoever will not receive you nor hear your words, when you depart from that house or city, shake off the dust from your feet."

 

[metis]

What is this "authoritarian model", which is what Jesus and the Apostles allegedly used?

There are two basic models denominations/churches use, and one is the "authoritarian model" and the other is the "congregationalist model". With the latter, it is the congregation or denomination that selects the rules, including who will be pastor. The fundamentalist church I grew up in used this latter model. Between the two models, obviously Jesus and the Apostles used the former.

At best, this was a grasping at straws, far from a confirmation. But the nail in the coffin on this argument is the account itself.

Whether it does or doesn't basically is irrelevant since the "Confirmation" fills in what's missing in child baptism. The Church moved to this during one of the early plagues killed roughly 1/3 of the children in Europe, and near the end of Mark's Gospel he says that one must believe and be baptized to be saved. Thus, one should be able to see the concern parents and the Church at large must have felt.

Also, the Church reserves the right to make changes, which Jesus gave the early Church.

This is a much better explanation. But it doesn't address or support the original premise that Catholicism is more "Biblical" than Protestantism.

I didn't make that assertion.

To the apostles, not priests. Mattias and Saul were the last persons in scripture upon whom apostleship had been bestowed.

So, why would Jesus give the power to the Apostles only to have it end after they passed away?

Also, what about your Bible? It didn't choose itself, and the canon was not chosen until centuries after Jesus and the Apostles were gone. Also, God gave Moses this power and demanded that he pass it on as Old Moshe was getting overwhelmed.

Paul considered it to be the ideal, but he maintained that they hold the right to marry.

And Catholics have this right as well. However, since Paul considered celibacy and dedication to Christ to be the ideal, so wouldn't you want that rule for your church leadership as well?

It doesn't support the initial claim that the Catholic church is more "Biblical" than Protestantism, since it relies on other documents as equal authority.

It says several times in scripture that we are to follow the traditions left by those in the early Church, plus John's Gospel ends with that there were so many other things that took place that are not recorded there. Thus, the Church also relied on traditions, some of which were written in other early Church documents. According to Anglican theologian William Barclay, there were roughly 2000 such documents in the first centuries of the Church. Thus, those closer to the actual events may well have more info than what we have now.

Either way, we should always keep in mind Jesus' Two Commandments, so we don't get lost in the woods here.

 

[e.r.m.]

It is impossible to interpret the Gospels apart from Hebrew Scripture.
I suggest you consider how the term 'household' was used in the Scripture in use at the time.

Genesis 7:1 "Then the LORD said to Noah, "Come into the ark, you and all your household, because I have seen that you are righteous before Me in this generation." (Note in this instance that the word "you" is singular, referring to Noah only. Yet, by virtue of Noah's righteousness, his whole family is taken into the ark. Peter compares this event to Baptism in 1 Peter 3:20,21)


Genesis 12:17 "But the LORD plagued Pharaoh and his house with great plagues because of Sarai, Abram's wife."

Genesis 18:19 "For I have known him, in order that he may command his children and his household after him, that they keep the way of the LORD, to do righteousness and justice, that the LORD may bring to Abraham what He has spoken to him."

Deuteronomy 14:26 "And you shall spend that money for whatever your heart desires: for oxen or sheep, for wine or similar drink, for whatever your heart desires; you shall eat there before the LORD your God, and you shall rejoice, you and your household."

Joshua 24:15 "And if it seems evil to you to serve the LORD, choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD."

1 Samuel 25:6 "And thus you shall say to him who lives inprosperity: 'Peace be to you, peace to your house, and peace to all that you have!"

These passages speak of houses being blessed or condemned by virtue of the spiritual status of the head of that household. Joshua, cited above, even takes responsibility not only for his own serving the Lord, but for his family's as well.

And just as significant are those passages that mention the household but explicitly exclude children:

Genesis 50:7-8 "So Joseph went up to bury his father; and with him went up all the servants of Pharaoh, the elders of his house, and all the elders of the land of Egypt, as well as all the house of Joseph, his
brothers, and his father's house. Only their little ones, their flocks, and their herds they left in the land of Goshen."

1 Samuel 1:21,22 "Now the man Elkanah and all his house went up to offer to the LORD the yearly sacrifice and his vow. But Hannah did not go up, for she said to her husband, 'Not until the child is weaned; then I will take him, that he may appear before the LORD and remain there forever.'"

The exceptions prove the rule. In both of the above cases, when the biblical writer mentions the entire household, he feels the need to point out in this case that the children are not included. He would not point this out unless the term "house" presumed otherwise.

The phrase "he and his (whole) house" denotes the complete family; normally husband, wife and children.
In the Gospels are found a heritage from biblical language.

Even if it could be historically proven that every household baptism of the New Testament was -- by some fluke -- a baptism of a household with no very young children -- even that would be irrelevant. The point of the household language is that children, if any, are included unless explicitly excluded. If the Holy Spirit had meant to exclude children from baptism, the Scriptures would have to say, "[So and so] and his household were baptized, all who were at an age of understanding and could credibly profess their faith."

Matthew 10:12-14 "And when you go into a household, greet it. If the household is worthy, let your peace come upon it. But if it is not worthy, let your peace return to you. And whoever will not receive you nor hear your words, when you depart from that house or city, shake off the dust from your feet."

Thank you for the well thought out and investigated reply. This fairly raises the "possibility" of the head of household deciding for his household to be baptized. It gives enough material to put the discussion on the table, to be further vetted and taken to the next level of verification. But only that far. It does not reach the level of confirmation that only an explicit scripture can provide. My thoughts on why a confirmational verse are important are in a post I made a while back Another exegetical tool
And there are also scriptures that contradict this possibility. Matthew 28:19, Mark 16:16, Luke 24:47, & Acts 2:38-39, 8:36-37 where it requires belief & repentance of the one being baptized, not their parents on their behalf. I've heard the argument "But this only applied to the first generation christians, not the generation that came after." Many years later, when Peter addressed baptism, 1 Peter 3:21, he was calling it an appeal to God of a good conscience, which can still only be done by the person being baptized. There has never been a discussion or anything written in the N.T. about the adults deciding upon the child's baptism. That much is at best inferred. Matthew 18:2-4 Jesus venerated children and urged us to become like them. They were not just a subset within a household, they were examples.

When inferred possibilities are treated as fact "It's good enough for us". Then you place yourself on the same footing as everyone else who accepts their inferred doctrines as fact which are in contradiction to your own. A variety of mutually exclusive teachings can't all be true. God doesn't teach different truths to different groups. What's written, not inferred, keeps the truth down to one, and we know at least what's written is true. John 12:47-50.

This post does not address the different documents Catholics have which they consider equal to the Bible. This post only addresses Biblical topics, written and inferred.

 

[e.r.m.]

There are two basic models denominations/churches use, and one is the "authoritarian model" and the other is the "congregationalist model". With the latter, it is the congregation or denomination that selects the rules, including who will be pastor. The fundamentalist church I grew up in used this latter model. Between the two models, obviously Jesus and the Apostles used the former.

How did Jesus and the apostles use an authoritarian model and what does this have to do with the conversation again? Thank you.

Whether it does or doesn't basically is irrelevant since the "Confirmation" fills in what's missing in child baptism. The Church moved to this during one of the early plagues killed roughly 1/3 of the children in Europe, and near the end of Mark's Gospel he says that one must believe and be baptized to be saved. Thus, one should be able to see the concern parents and the Church at large must have felt.

The plagues must have been a terrible time for the church and the population at large. I can see the effect that historical pressures may have exerted on the church. In Mark 16:16, nothing is written separating the person being baptized from the person believing. In the verse they are the same person. An alleged proxy is in the eye of the beholder.

Also, the Church reserves the right to make changes, which Jesus gave the early Church.

Where?

I didn't make that assertion.

Sorry, I did confuse you with the author of this thread.

So, why would Jesus give the power to the Apostles only to have it end after they passed away?

Don't know. But requires huge assumptions to make such a decision that we can. We know that Matthias was chosen based on certain criteria and Jesus choosing him via casting lots. We also know that Saul was chosen later directly by Jesus. There's no language in the New Testament that speaks of this as an ongoing institution. Especially when Jesus said things like John 12:47-50. Playing fast and loose with what he said is not a good idea.

Also, what about your Bible? It didn't choose itself, and the canon was not chosen until centuries after Jesus and the Apostles were gone.

We appreciate the sacrifices that patriarchs made to assemble (not write) the 1st century letters and accounts, which was a markedly different role than that of the Apostles.

Also, God gave Moses this power and demanded that he pass it on as Old Moshe was getting overwhelmed.

When did Moses pass on powers like Elijah did with Elisha?

And Catholics have this right as well. However, since Paul considered celibacy and dedication to Christ to be the ideal, so wouldn't you want that rule for your church leadership as well?

Are you equating and ideal with a rule? And are you saying that Catholic priests have the right to get married?

It says several times in scripture that we are to follow the traditions left by those in the early Church, plus John's Gospel ends with that there were so many other things that took place that are not recorded there. Thus, the Church also relied on traditions, some of which were written in other early Church documents. According to Anglican theologian William Barclay, there were roughly 2000 such documents in the first centuries of the Church. Thus, those closer to the actual events may well have more info than what we have now.

The earliest such documents after the time of the apostles that I have found is from Justin Martyr. This quote from Justin Martyr is approximately A.D. 155, about fifty-five years after the Apostle John died:
And for [water baptism] we have learned from the apostles this reason. Since at our birth we were born without our own knowledge or choice, by our parents coming together, and were brought up in bad habits and wicked training; in order that we may not remain the children of necessity and of ignorance, but may become the children of choice and knowledge, and may obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed. (Justin, First Apology 61)

Justin was born around 100 AD and was converted around age 30 AD, which makes this belief as early as 30 years after John died. Since he said they learned this from the Apostles, then this is what the Apostles taught.

Either way, we should always keep in mind Jesus' Two Commandments, so we don't get lost in the woods here.

You're right.

 

[rational experiences]

If humans said I protest satanisms then science owned no place to re establish its status. As an ordered human chosen branch...a practice of choice only.

As the church was final and built upon the toppled science temples. Was a healing evaluation use wisdom.

What the status that says no mother of God as the space womb was voiding nothing empty vacuum. Nothing meant no body.

A stated teaching in the sciences.

As the established human law reason no nuclear earth changes Alchemy sciences allowed. As everything holy was because of nothing.

As O God planet was created in nothing voiding vacuum as first position origin.

Mass flesh body of god in science.

The spirit came out of a satanic God hell. Volcanic. Heavens history once hot clouds became cold clouds...clouds satanic.

Science teaching.

Only evolution cooling gave it holiness.

Therefore the against science teaching was relative.

The only mother a human baby owned was the only mother. The male baby hadn't invented scientific thesis the man adult human had.

Is first notice how why a man human could lie.

Not his father said human memory as father was first man spiritual.

Baby man became the satanic scientist. Became possessed by science.

As a baby boy owns adult life man sperm body. Mother woman daughter ovary body.

So he theoried he travelled back to his dead adult father's position to be reborn a man human by baby as he could not process into human woman's form.

How his mind became defective. As taught as it was summarised reviewed by man's thesis.

So if a human scientist misrepresented natural life by thesis he was proven he had.

If a human man father says to be a father in human life I had sex own why a newborn baby exists with woman. Then I live only because holy Ghost..hosts heavens allows it.

One life man and one life by sex. Only owning human life continuance with human mother woman.

If he had to preach listen thinker I own express three self terms all holy then I told you baby man scientist never theory against our human man life.

Maybe if he applied the equal teaching about a womans life also then our brother wouldn't have lied in theory.

Yet as man does and has and expresses self superiority to human women it's why he hasn't been honest since.

The protest humans realised wrong inferred teachings. To teach means branches of teaching were introduced.

 

[pearl]

This fairly raises the "possibility"

And there are many possibilities when interpreting Scripture. It is the reason the Church in its interpretation of Scripture does not define all Scripture, definitively, only about seven and remains open to 'possible' interpretations. As far as brothers of Jesus is concerned. it could also be interpreted as cousins. As for Mary's perpetual virginity, it is not and never has been included in the Deposit of Faith.

Pope Gregory the Great in ruining Mary Magdelene's reputation.

And since the Church continues its interpretation of Scripture, Mary is recognized as the 'Apostle to the Apostles'.

 

[metis]

How did Jesus and the apostles use an authoritarian model and what does this have to do with the conversation again? Thank you.

I've already covered this in a couple of my previous posts.

The plagues must have been a terrible time for the church and the population at large. I can see the effect that historical pressures may have exerted on the church. In Mark 16:16, nothing is written separating the person being baptized from the person believing. In the verse they are the same person. An alleged proxy is in the eye of the beholder.

Change is not prohibited in scripture.

Where?

With his appointment of the Twelve and he given them the authority to lead the Church, and then they did likewise with their appointments. This really is very basic Christian theology and history.

There's no language in the New Testament that speaks of this as an ongoing institution.

"Church" is mentioned 109 times in the NT and it doesn't stand for a building. And, as I've mentioned before, Paul refers to the Church as being "one body". He created an organization, not just some sort of "do it yourself" movement, and this should be obvious. And, as previously mentioned, this organization chose the canon you use. If there was no organization, there would be no canon.

When did Moses pass on powers like Elijah did with Elisha?

Exodus 18[25]And Moses chose able men out of all Israel, and made them heads over the people, rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens.

Anyhow, I'm moving on.

 

[metis]

God doesn't teach different truths to different groups.

Jesus said he would guide his Church, which clearly is the organization he created in the first place, until the end of time, thus sending us his Paraclete.

This post does not address the different documents Catholics have which they consider equal to the Bible.

No, there are no documents we consider equal to the Bible, so where did you get this from?

 

[e.r.m.]

And there are many possibilities when interpreting Scripture. It is the reason the Church in its interpretation of Scripture does not define all Scripture, definitively, only about seven and remains open to 'possible' interpretations.

Thank you for expressing. I take exception to that due to scriptures like 2 Peter 1:20-21, John 12:47-50, 1 Timothy 4:16, making the truth found in what the authors meant, not what we mean. However, I do respect that Catholics are honest & open about how freely they approach the scriptures, as opposed to some groups who claim to follow the scriptures closely and then back away when confronted that they don't. However, as I mentioned elsewhere, it places you on equal footing with everyone else who says their interpreration is more correct than yours. None of you has any right to claim greater credibility, as all are equally inferred. And you can't all be right. But the written scripture erases all such variations.

As far as brothers of Jesus is concerned. it could also be interpreted as cousins.

I will look into this.

As for Mary's perpetual virginity, it is not and never has been included in the Deposit of Faith.

Not familiar with Catholic vocabulary. What is Deposit of Faith? Thank you.

And since the Church continues its interpretation of Scripture, Mary is recognized as the 'Apostle to the Apostles'.

Yes, I had heard the catholic church recanted what Pope Gregory had said about her. Cool.

 

[TreeOfLife]

You "found" your own video and you agree with most of it? That's great.

Personally I don't think I care if you say Mary is mother of God. I mean Jesus was literally God manifest so he needed a mother and God chose her because she was so humble. Where I draw the line is when you pray to Mary and worship Mary. The rosy and all that. Also the idea that she is somehow an eternal virgin. I mean come on. Makes you feel sorry for Joseph if that's true. He had to marry a eternal virgin ... poor guy.

She was just a girl that God used for the glory of God and salvation of mankind and she was a great person; but she's not some kind of deity.

It's not good to worship anyone but God.

As for the "gates of hell shall not prevail against her". He means the church as a whole not necessarily the church that is in Rome. Because no individual church should ever think they're invulnerable. That would be pride and God is against that. The fact is the scriptures say if you think you stand take heed lest you fall. Because we should all be watching for the encroachment of sin and praying lest we enter into temptation. Otherwise the Son of man will come and take your candlestick from your church like he warned in the book of Revelation.

In the book of Revelation Jesus Christ addresses 7 different churches in Asia Minor with warnings or approval. So I don't see the church in Rome as being somehow special and invulnerable from the very same temptations. Sorry. It's just not true. Even if Peter was the bishop of Rome; after he was gone then all bets are off. Anything could happen. Yes God will always preserve a remnant the "true church" throughout history but nothing says it had to be always in Rome.

• And Paul said that after he is gone he knows that grievous wolves would come in among the churches not sparing the flock.
• He also warns of the coming of false apostles. (2 Corinthians 11:13)
• Jesus warns to take heed of the leaven of the Pharisees. This means that no Christian should ever think they are immune to falling into that category.
• Jesus said to know them by their fruits. Well, since you know a bit of history you should know that no "Christian" organization ever did more murdering and slaughter of innocent people than the Roman Catholic church. Some others did do some of that; but not on the same scale that the RCC did. What with their crusades against the Cathars and others. Their constant inquisitions and torturing so called "heretics" and Jews. According to Jesus Christ it is Satan that is a murderer and his children do the same things. So you tell me who is the sons of the murderer Satan and not the sons of God. Know them by their fruits. Don't just blindly follow people because they say they are the Catholic church.

The fact is we know that Rome itself murdered many Christians in 68 AD and at other times before Constantine became emperor. And secondly we know for sure that the Roman Catholic church continued to murder people just like the Roman empire did after Constantine. So like mother like daughter! The Roman Catholic church used political power of the Roman empire and later on the political military might of European medieval kings to expand it's own influence and control throughout the world. It literally would force other churches to submit to it's authority by force of government and force of arms. It was not displaying the love and patience of Jesus Christ.

To be honest it seems to have been often largely motivated by worldly lust for power and greed.

That being said I'm not putting down all Catholics. I believe many were sincere and not murderers. In fact many died as martyrs all over the world in missionary journeys. Tortured to death in very exemplary fashion for any Christian. Like by the native Americans, the Japanese etc. These Catholic missionaries definitely have my respect for all they endured.

Basically, it's the leadership that I don't like. The corrupt, rich, fat decadent bishops and popes. The kind of people you would never see being tortured to death on some missionary journey. Instead they were enjoying caviar or something in their castles and palaces while their indentured peasants worked their butts off in the fields. Many of these bishops lived like very kings in the middle ages and lorded it over the very people that were supposed to be their flocks.

Also the child molesters and those priests who were raping nuns ... I'm not a fan.

But there were many exemplary people that were Catholics.

 

[TreeOfLife]

We must Remember that the older the Christian religion the more they've added to the tradition of man and not from the words of The Bible. Catholics have added what's called dogmas those are additions to The Bible and not from The Bible.

 

[TreeOfLife]

Three different figures, Father, Son, and Spirit, are brought into conjunction in the NT. Some NT formulas join the three, other references unite the Father and Son, and other references relate the Spirit to the Father and/or to the Son. No NT passage is there precision about 'three' divine persons, co-equal but distinct and one divine nature, the core of the dogma of the Trinity.
The Church makes no such claim that its dogma is formulated in Scripture.
There is a trajectory from NT to the developed doctrines of later Christianity.
Any idea that the Church can define whatever it wishes and cannot be challenged constructively by scholarship is simply false.
Most Christians recognize Eucharist and Baptism as sacraments, but there is no such word as sacrament in the NT, but a development from. There is mention of baptism and eucharist but never are they joined together under one term. Yet Christians baptized and celebrated Eucharist before any NT author wrote about them.

What happened to to Other 7 spirits of God specifically revelations 3.1. Also the Trinity is emphasizing that Jesus was deity when he came to Earth but yet he himself gave gave revelations to John and in revelation 314 Jesus himself says he is the 1st creation of God. So how do we handle that.
And also if you think about it how easy is it for God to come down and save himself on the cross but yet We can thank Jesus who was a creation of God. But he obeyed God and his commandment to raise himself from the dead. This then gives man who are creations of God hope in the resurrection

 

[metis]

We must Remember that the older the Christian religion the more they've added to the tradition of man and not from the words of The Bible. Catholics have added what's called dogmas those are additions to The Bible and not from The Bible.

That depends on how you define "dogmas" as all churches have them based on their interpretations, especially since the Gospel was not written in some sort of religious vacuum.

 

[metis]

What happened to to Other 7 spirits of God specifically revelations 3.1. Also the Trinity is emphasizing that Jesus was deity when he came to Earth but yet he himself gave gave revelations to John and in revelation 314 Jesus himself says he is the 1st creation of God. So how do we handle that.
And also if you think about it how easy is it for God to come down and save himself on the cross but yet We can thank Jesus who was a creation of God. But he obeyed God and his commandment to raise himself from the dead. This then gives man who are creations of God hope in the resurrection

What you are doing is positing Jesus as literally being God, which is not how we view the Trinity that's based on Jesus and the Holy Spirit being of the essence of God.

es·sence
[ˈesəns]
NOUN

1. the intrinsic nature or indispensable quality of something, especially something abstract, that determines its character