I believe Some Catholics may be saved. But its inspite of their teachings rather than because of them . They teach a different Gospel which Paul says plenty on this in Galations. You may have a point if it was on non essentials. But Catholicism deviates radically from Christianity .
-
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!
"What Jesus REALLY meant was ...."
- Thread starter John1.12
- Start date
//do you believe Catholics are cannibals? // No not literally of course ,that would play into the way they see it . I see it as blasphemy.
It's about the "non-essentials"? Where does it say that? Some people consider not eating pork to be highly essential. Some consider worship on the right day of the week to be highly essential. Are you choosing for others what should be considered highly essential or not?
Who are you to make that choice? Isn't that God? Isn't that exactly what Paul was teaching in that whole chapter? Who are you to decide if they stand or fall before another man's servant? Are you drawing your own line in the sand for others, and claiming it's what scripture says? How is this any different than them judging you as worshipping on the right day of the week?
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
So you don't believe Catholicism is a form of Chrstianity, even though it was the church from which virtually all of Protestantism originated. Furthermore, I never even asked whether some Catholics may be "saved," did I? I don't understand what makes you qualified to say who is saved and who isn't? Isn't that God's job?
You are wrong, the difference is very remarkable as if it concerns two different Jesuses. I can understand though that this is something a Christian won't easily accept.
https://www.amazon.com/Secret-Mark-Composition-Earliest-Narrative/dp/B005Q8L5X2
"The literary complexity and the theological nuances of the Gospel of Mark did not spring from the evangelist's pen at a single sitting. The evangelist we call "Mark" composed segments of our present gospel for different situations, over an extended period of time, perhaps several decades, and that the present text reflects the mature, spiritual reflection on the nature of discipleship. In this provocative book, Humphrey challenges the traditional view that Mark was simply an editor drawing together different sources to put together his gospel. In order to establish this thesis about the manner in which Mark was composed, Humphrey first reviews the patristic witness to the gospel, pointing out the ambiguities and tensions between them. He gives particular emphasis to Clement of Alexandria, who specifically indicates that Mark wrote several different works. Following that chapter, Humphrey describes two major segments—really two different compositions—of Mark. It is clear, he argues, that there was a narrative version of the "Q" tradition, that collection of sayings that has been viewed as an oral tradition, as well as a "Passion Narrative" in Mark. A third stage of the composition of Mark occurs when Q and the Passion Narrative are blended and an emphasis upon discipleship is interwoven into the text. The deeper theological reflection reflected in this third development yielded what Mark called the "mystery of the Kingdom of God" (4:11) and what Clement of Alexandria calls Mark's "secret gospel." Humphrey focuses on distinguishing the narrative interests that disclose the ultimate righteous teacher of God's Kingdom (Son of God), the suffering Christ, and the lessons for discipleship. The gospel of Mark results not from an editor working on unattested documents but on the ever-maturing theological reflection of "Mark." Humphrey's study has two purposes. If theology is the process of bringing faith to expression, then that process is illustrated in the composition history of Mark's gospel. Each stage of composition expresses an aspect of the early Christian faith response to God's having raised Jesus from the dead. Second, this reconstruction of Mark's gospel serves to highlight the talent and depth and personality of its author as well as to point out that the handling of traditions about Jesus in this way provides a useful paradigm for the Church today. "
===
Review
Humphrey says Mark first compiled Peter's preaching of the Q material, expanding it into a narrative (chapters one to thirteen) portraying Jesus as the Son of God inspired by Wisdom, the eschatological Teacher. This he did while Peter was preaching in Rome. Later he narrated Peter's preaching of the cross, creating the Passion Narrative. It was "Pauline" in its Christology of a self-emptying Son of Man/Adam. This was on the eve of Claudius's expulsion of Jews from Rome. Taking both texts to Alexandria, Mark decided to unite the two texts, seeding each half with new materials recalling or foreshadowing the other, adding the theme of discipleship in a world not likely to end as soon as he had first expected... Markan specialists should be sure to read it.
Robert M. Price
Last edited:
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
So you believe that they are doctrinally incorrect with regards to certain points. They are blasphemers but not cannibals?
Tell me, who exactly decides which doctrines are 100% true and which ones aren't? Which Christian denomination teaches 100% truth as opposed to just 75% or even 95% truth? And why can you not see that being a Christian is not about the accuracy of doctrines. Sure, accuracy is important, but it's no where near as important as having the desire to love as Jesus loved. This critical point seems to be way, way down on your list of what counts most.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
Proof?
Colt
Well-Known Member
That Michael is called an "archangel". Rev 12:7-8 Then a war broke out in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. 8But the dragon was not strong enough, and no longer was any place found in heaven for him and his angels.
Colt
Well-Known Member
The NT was written after Peter and Paul's new atonement gospel had been widely accepted. There was a gospel before the cross that lead to Jesus being rejected and killed by the same people who were supposed to accept the Son of God.
2 Peter 3
15And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
16As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
Quite appropriate verses for today still ,of course .
I can't make sense of that ?
Jude 1:9 - Yet Michael the archangel , when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.
It is just as difficult to know whether Peter really was a spokes man for the intimate companions of Jesus during the Lord's ministry or whether the instances of such spokesmanship in the Gospels are not merely "the reflection of his later role as the spokes man for the twelve in the Jerusalem church." 9 As for the apostle's later life, while it is "most prob able" in the opinion of the task force that Simon Peter went to Rome late in his career and was martyred there, "the same cannot be said about the question of whether he served as local 'bishop' of the Roman community and whether he appointed his successors in the Roman bishopric." 10
The now classic collaborative effort (Protestant / Catholic) concerning the New Testament’s witness to Peter’s “primacy” is that of R. E. Brown, K. P. Donfried and John Reumann, eds., Peter in the New Testament (Minneapolis, 1973).
Good read
I would want to see the evidence in scripture.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
What is self-evident is that you're conflating things.
Paul was the main missionary to the Church in the diaspora, thus operating neither in Jerusalem nor in Antioch. He even refers to himself as such. When the issue of circumcision comes up, he goes back to Jerusalem to talk with Peter about this, and it was the latter's decision that was paramount.
When the apostles are listed, Peter's name is almost always first, sometimes just stating "Peter and the others". It is Peter whom Jesus tells to "feed my sheep". It is Peter whom Jesus says "Thou art Peter, ...". It is Jesus who gives Peter and the other Apostles the right to loosen or bind sins. Etc.
Near the end of the 1st century, it is Ignatius of Antioch who tells Clement of Rome that the Bishop of Rome has to take the lead in helping to organize the bishops throughout the known world back then, and this process continued on through the centuries even though disputes did arise over time.
But the reason I even responded to you at all at first has nothing to do with the above but everything to do with the fact that you cited you opinion as a fact, which is simply not serious theology. Thus, that's the point.
ADDED: BTW, it was this Church that selected the canon of the Bible you use, and that was done in the 4th century. The canon did not select itself since there were over 1000 "books" to choose from according to theologian Willian Barclay [Anglican].
Last edited:
Colt
Well-Known Member
Jesus preached his Gospel of the Kingdom of Heaven for 3+ years.
The leaders of Judaism didn't like what he said.
They sent out spies and quibblers to try to discredit Jesus and had their butts handed to them.
Finally the Jews had Jesus arrested and put through a trumped up trial.
They had the Romans put Jesus to death.
After Jesus returned from the dead, met with apostles and believers he returned to his office in heaven.
After Jesus left a NEW Gospel began to emerge from Peter and more so Paul. They speculated that Jesus died as a human sacrifice to pay mankind's sin debt and make forgiveness possible.
Then they started a new religion about Jesus.
Much of the original Gospel that Jesus taught was lost.
The End.
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
Who gets to decide what the "essentials" are, Barry? What may be "essential" to one Christian may be "non-essential" to another. Do you have some kind of an "in" with God that the rest of us are not aware of?
Colt
Well-Known Member
Michael of revelation incarnate as Jesus of Nazareth. Michael is the heavenly name for Jesus before this world was.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
You literally haven't a clue of what you're talking about. Here's the Sunday liturgy, so tell us which parts are not true Christianity:
Introductory Rites
- Entrance
- Greeting
- Penitential Act
- Glory to God
- Collect
Liturgy of the Word
- First Reading [OT or NT]
- Responsorial Psalm {OT]
- Second Reading (on Sundays and solemnities){NT]
- Gospel Acclamation
- Gospel [NT]
- Homily [must reflect at least two of the above]
- Profession of Faith (on Sundays, solemnities, and special occasions)
- Universal Prayer
Liturgy of the Eucharist
- Presentation of the Gifts and Preparation of the Altar
- Prayer over the Offerings
- Eucharistic Prayer
- Preface
- Holy, Holy, Holy
- First half of prayer, including Consecration
- Mystery of Faith
- Second half of prayer, ending with Doxology
- The Lord's Prayer
- Sign of Peace
- Lamb of God
- Communion
- Prayer after Communion
Concluding Rites
- Optional announcements
- Greeting and Blessing
- Dismissal
MatthewA
Active Member
There are different accounts and what not but they all same the same story though to me regardless of minor difference, and what is put forth. The main story is about one of redemption of mankind being reconciled back unto God so that we may have fellowship again in which was lost from the time of Adam being led out of the garden.
You would have to really give me an example of what you are talking about to really dig to see if it is explainable what it is you see that are different. Sometimes maybe any answer is just not there to explain.
You are right about that; and it would take a person to study to really get to know what it is the bible is saying. Though regardless of knowledge; knowledge gives us understanding about the information we are reading and studying about whatever subject or topic it may be which there are countless thousands in the bible itself and takes time to really get to understand.
Though people may see look at certain things in their theological standpoint and have differences, the point is to not fight about those differences yet be able to stick together regardless of them, by and through the spirit with love towards God, and Love towards others. I believe that biggest thing that is talked about humans is the heart of humans of how it can be according to Christ Jesus.
( I personally do see literal/metaphor/symbolism/images/spiritual understanding through out the entire bible. )
Fair enough. I am not a good person though by no means. Alternatively believe that the bible teaches us more about who and how we are, in a more realistic sense of how not good we are, especially when it comes to living to the standards Jesus Christ had put forth which was one man dying for the entire planet - sin, - in effort for God to continue to reach man.
Oh definitely. Regret is a powerful emotion for people to deal with... Those who don't seek counceling with heavy things like that are definitely more at risk of taking their own lives.
Though regret is a terrible burden to bear, it can also be a tool used to keep one's mind focused on never making the same mistake again. It's a painful, but useful reminder.
My insight really doesn't have much to do with the topic on hand, though, so I'll probably just leave it at that.
Okay. Thank you for your comment.