-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Catholic Church is more Biblical than Protestantism!
- Thread starter Spiderman
- Start date
TreeOfLife
Member
I agree that all churches have dogmas: That is the problem. I call them traditions of man. Catholics (the dogma of the perpetual virginity of Mary, the addition of the Johnness comma), the Protestants and Catholics (the 4th century Trinity), the Mormons (that you have to buy your way into the Celestial Kingdom), and the JWs with their interpretation on the bible.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
It's a reflection of the analysis of scripture that all groups do, so there simpy is no way of getting around it. You've done it and are doing it as well as you are also citing dogma with the above.
TreeOfLife
Member
I do not understand the comment (which is not how we view the Trinity that's based on Jesus and the Holy Spirit being of the essence of God.). When I taught RCIA that is exactly the essence and authority where Jesus is given His power, etc.The dogma that Jesus is Deity from everlasting to everlasting has evolved starting with Tertillion (sp) to the split of east and west Christianity. It is now codified in all Catholic and Protestant (kindof in Oneness Pentacostal)
TreeOfLife
Member
Ok: You got me: I do believe dogmas are the traditions of men and that is why I stick to the words of the bible.It's a reflection of the analysis of scripture that all groups do, so there simpy is no way of getting around it. You've done it and are doing it as well as you are also citing dogma with the above.
The Gospels were written for a particular audience, addressing particular needs, for a particular church community, at a particular time in history. These same Gospels must speak to us today, in our particular time and address our particular needs, facing situations in the 21st cent not envisioned by the early writers. Scripture is a living reality, not a dead book, and as John promised,
The Paraclete is "the Spirit of Truth" who supplies guidance along the way of all truth (16:13). The Johannine Jesus had many things to say that his disciples could never understand in his lifetime (16:12); but then the Paraclete comes and takes those things and declares them (16:15).
The evangelist does not lose faith in the second coming but emphasizes that many of the features associated with it are already realities of Christian life (judgment, divine sonship, eternal life). And in a very real way Jesus has come back during the lifetime of his companions, for he has come in and through the Paraclete. The Johannine Christians need not live with their eyes constantly straining toward the heavens from which the Son of Man is to come; for, as the Paraclete, Jesus is present within all believers: their Advocate, their Consoler, their Guide to all truth.
Its not a question of right or wrong, but different, and I personally believe that the Catholic method of interpretation offers a higher, more thorough expression of the Scriptures the Church canonized for the benefit of all.
TreeOfLife
Member
Scripture is a living reality, not a dead book, and as John promised: Yes I like how you said that. Question: Is it your opinion that all scripture is at the same level; that the words of Christ are no more important that the prophets etc? I ask you this question due to other forums comments.
Also I have to go to work so it will be a while before I get back to this. Thanks again for your comments
Also I have to go to work so it will be a while before I get back to this. Thanks again for your comments
What Christ entrusted to the apostles, they in turn handed on by their preaching and writing, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, to all generations, until Christ returns in glory.
Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture make up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God" in which, as in a mirror, the pilgrim Church contemplates God, the source of all her riches.
The Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes".
Thanks to its supernatural sense of faith, the People of God as a whole never ceases to welcome, to penetrate more deeply and to live more fully from the gift of divine Revelation.
e.r.m.
Church of Christ
Thank you.
At what later point did the Reformers deny the dogma?
A Protestant Defense of Mary's Perpetual Virginity (aleteia.org)
TreeOfLife
Member
Wow: I need to be working: Sacred tradition to me is where the ERROR has creeped into the church. Massive error. Again the older the church the greater the error. Sacred tradition comes from scholars trying to tell the laity how they should believe. And I disagree totally with that. Remember since before the time of Christ the ones in power made the masses believe like they said they should. The powers in charge killed the dissenters before Christ, Christ Himself, and from the time of Christ and more since 327AD 10s of thousands or more died, and wars added to the death toll. And so where does that leave my Saviors teachings in Eph 4:11-15. Til we all come to the unity of the faith. Did Christ tell us all to go out and kill. NO but to go and and serve; making disciples of all.
Again the sacred tradition is death!
Again the sacred tradition is death!
e.r.m.
Church of Christ
I must say the catholic way of speaking is far different from the evangelical way of speaking, and a bit refreshing, only because it's different than I'm accustomed to contending with.
-a teaching does not have to be written in the Bible, as long as the concept is there.
-the spirit of the scripture
-I know what the scripture says, but I personally believe...,
The Catholic's way out appears to be the Paraclete, as if the Holy Spirit changes with the times, which Numbers 23:19, 1 Samuel 15:29, Hebrews 13:8 would all seem to go against that. The Holy Spirit, would not add something later on that would be in contradiction to something he stated earlier.
Colossians 3:23 would apply differently to a blacksmith in the first century, as it would to an IT supervisor at a software firm, but the instruction itself is still the same. When Catholics have teachings that are in opposition to earlier Biblical teachings, then it cannot be reconciled.
Evangelicals also believe their method of method of interpretation offers a higher, more thorough expression of the Scriptures. When it comes to in between the lines teaching, for example infant baptism, and their baptism is a public declaration of an inward transformation, neither of which are written in the Bible, then neither of you has a way of confirming which one was actually intended and done in the first century Church. Really, there are things in scriptures that contradict both of them, so neither of them existed, but that's just an aside. You may say the paraclete is allowing this, they may say it's an implied teaching (really inferred though), but neither you have a way of confirming it. Written scripture does.
What is Johannine, according to Catholics? Thank you.
The "by grace alone, through faith alone" 's out are things like
-a teaching does not have to be written in the Bible, as long as the concept is there.
-the spirit of the scripture
-I know what the scripture says, but I personally believe...,
The Catholic's way out appears to be the Paraclete, as if the Holy Spirit changes with the times, which Numbers 23:19, 1 Samuel 15:29, Hebrews 13:8 would all seem to go against that. The Holy Spirit, would not add something later on that would be in contradiction to something he stated earlier.
Colossians 3:23 would apply differently to a blacksmith in the first century, as it would to an IT supervisor at a software firm, but the instruction itself is still the same. When Catholics have teachings that are in opposition to earlier Biblical teachings, then it cannot be reconciled.
Evangelicals also believe their method of method of interpretation offers a higher, more thorough expression of the Scriptures. When it comes to in between the lines teaching, for example infant baptism, and their baptism is a public declaration of an inward transformation, neither of which are written in the Bible, then neither of you has a way of confirming which one was actually intended and done in the first century Church. Really, there are things in scriptures that contradict both of them, so neither of them existed, but that's just an aside. You may say the paraclete is allowing this, they may say it's an implied teaching (really inferred though), but neither you have a way of confirming it. Written scripture does.
Last edited:
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
But the selection of the biblical canon itself was and is dogma.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Hmm, you might want to tell whoever it is that they should tweak their volume levels a bit. It is a tad on the too soft side.I wouldn't tell anyone that information, even if it were true! Some things are best kept secret, and I have my reasons.
Last edited:
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
The canon of the NT itself was originally written or quickly translated into Koine Greek, and the concept of "essence" would have been well understood by those living in the Mediterranean area because of the philosophy of both Aristotle and Plato.
Jesus is clearly not precisely God as he obviously differentiates between the two of them at times, such as when the "end of times" question came up whereas he said only the Father knows for sure. If Jesus supposedly was 100% identical with God, then that statement and some others make no sense.
BTW, I've taught the RCIA program for 15 years now, although there was a hiatus of a 20-year separation along the way as I belonged to a Reform Jewish congregation for that time and even co-taught the Lunch & Learn program there alternating with our rabbi. IOW, no one can shut me up!
TreeOfLife
Member
I believe that all things must relate and proved by the Bible or else we lose our anchor in the truth. And that leaves us in satans' sea: Chaos
It relates to the Gospel of or the Epistles of or school of John the evangelist.
Contending with? seems quite a 'tell', thank you. Put things in prospective.
Scripture must be interpreted from the 'whole', to read individual texts within the totality of the one Scripture, shedding new light on all the individual texts. Neither the individual books of Scripture, nor the Scripture as a whole are simply a piece of literature, but emerged from within the heart of a living subject-the pilgrim people of God, and lives within the same. The word in the Word of God, is human.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
The Bible is about God but is not God. Nor is it the "last word" either.
For example, before the NT was even written, what was the main driving force in our Christian faith? It wasn't written and made available for many decades, so what kept the Church going until then? It was this entity that led me back to Christianity and the Church [long story], not the Bible itself.
And what about the billions of other people who don't even have access to the Bible and/or may not even know what it is? And what about those in distant lands away from the M.E. historically?
IOW, you're missing something, but I'm pretty sure you know what it is if you just stop and think about this.
TreeOfLife
Member
For the ones that have not known Jesus: Romans 2:14.So there is an example for the issue above. I understand what you are trying to say. But in every instance that I have been a part of: The dogma of the individual has been acrimonious at best. You start pinning people to their beliefs and ask for the scripture reference then that is when satan takes hold of them.
As you have not flipped out yet (and thank you for that) I can discuss these things.
OK.
1. My belief is that the belief in Christ (as in Rom 10-9-10 and other places in the NT) declare the need and requirements for salvation.
2. If you add that you are required to understand the essence of G-d (the trinity) then you have added to the requirement for salvation.
3. I do believe that Jesus is the way, the truth and the life and all that that means.
Also: I think/believe that the book of John was written long after the other 3 gospels. And that John had access those gospels before he wrote his. Most of the record points to as late as 90AD for the finished work and that it might have taken as long as 20yrs.
With that said: Most people never put his words in to that context
As you have not flipped out yet (and thank you for that) I can discuss these things.
OK.
1. My belief is that the belief in Christ (as in Rom 10-9-10 and other places in the NT) declare the need and requirements for salvation.
2. If you add that you are required to understand the essence of G-d (the trinity) then you have added to the requirement for salvation.
3. I do believe that Jesus is the way, the truth and the life and all that that means.
Also: I think/believe that the book of John was written long after the other 3 gospels. And that John had access those gospels before he wrote his. Most of the record points to as late as 90AD for the finished work and that it might have taken as long as 20yrs.
With that said: Most people never put his words in to that context
e.r.m.
Church of Christ
Thank you.
I "contend" with often the "by grace alone, through faith alone" school of thought. With catholic school of thought, it's more of an exploration and intrigue, and "some" contending, as there are still some unBiblical teachings in Catholicism. But a lot of it is very new to me, and as such enjoyable.
It's also divine 2 Peter 1:20-21, 2 Timothy 3:16. I agree with getting the context of individual scriptures, it's good exegesis.