Where Did these Beliefs Come From?

[IndigoChild5559]

I would suppose, being taught catechism in a Catholic school, that I probably know more about Catholicism, than you.

This is my last post to you on this matter, as you and I are simply repeating our statements over and over, which serves no purpose.

I don't know how good your catechism teachers were, or if you paid adequate attention during your classes. I only know I have read cover to cover the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and what it says contradicts what you say. And when it comes to what determines the teachings of Catholicism, the CCC is the authoritative source, not you.

 

[metis]

This is my last post to you on this matter, as you and I are simply repeating our statements over and over, which serves no purpose.

I don't know how good your catechism teachers were, or if you paid adequate attention during your classes. I only know I have read cover to cover the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and what it says contradicts what you say. And when it comes to what determines the teachings of Catholicism, the CCC is the authoritative source, not you.

I am quite certain that most Catholics have not done this, so many kudos to you!

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I am quite certain that most Catholics have not done this, so many kudos to you!

Dr Laura used to say good things about the Catechism. It's extremely organized and well thought out (even if I don't believe what it teaches).

 

[2ndpillar]

This is my last post to you on this matter, as you and I are simply repeating our statements over and over, which serves no purpose.

I don't know how good your catechism teachers were, or if you paid adequate attention during your classes. I only know I have read cover to cover the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and what it says contradicts what you say. And when it comes to what determines the teachings of Catholicism, the CCC is the authoritative source, not you.

The Roman Catholic Church simply represents one of the "harlot daughters of Babylon" (Revelation 17). What they say and who they have burned at the stake to get their point across, is on them, and only leads to the "plagues" of their followers (Revelation 18:4). As the the Quran says Yeshua is a prophet of God, and the book of the Jews is from God, you might want to look into what is referred to by both sources, and leave out the false prophets coming after Yeshua (Matthew 7:13-15). As for my Catechism teacher, the Catholic school had nuns as teachers. I am sure the nuns towed the line at that pre ecumenical council period. Some of the nuns today aren't real happy with the church, or it's pope. As for Catechism, you can call a duck a pig, but if it quacks, flies, and waddles, it is probably a duck.

 

[Deeje]

I would disagree with a number of things here.....

The Catholics are led by the false prophet Paul, whereas the Muslims are led by the apparently false prophet, supposedly named Mohammad of Mecca, and these followers would be addressed by Yeshua in Matthew 7:13-15, who would wind up on the road to "destruction".

The Catholic Church is the product of the early church fathers, not Paul. It was they who began to introduce false beliefs such as the triune nature of God....something missing entirely from the Hebrew Scriptures. Abraham, in his intimate friendship with Yahweh, did not know such a God. (Deuteronomy 6:4)

Those who end up on the wrong road are those who chose the easy path rather than the cramped and narrow road to life. Among those are people who pretend to be Christ’s followers but whose conduct and speech betray them. Just acknowledging Jesus as your “Lord” is meaningless if you fail to obey his teachings. (Matthew 7:21-23) One must be found “doing the will of God” in company with “the wheat” (a Christian brotherhood)....not just talking about it, and doing the opposite to curry friendship with the world. (James 4:4)

The Jews were told to heed the message of the coming Messiah, but followed the path of Babylon, and sacrificed their children to Bel, which makes them a daughter of Babylon along side of the Christians, who followed the Sol Invictus sun god of the Roman emperor Constantine, who is the beast with two horns like a lamb.

“Babylon the great” is composed of all religion that can trace its beliefs and practices back to original Babylon....which was the springboard of all false worship that was spread in all the earth by the confusion of the language at Babel. This is why we find a common thread in all of them....their core teachings are virtually the same, but you won’t find any of them in the Bible.

I don’t believe that ‘the beast with the horns of a lamb’ is Constantine, but in more modern times, in line with Daniel’s prophesies, is identified with the dual world power of Anglo-America....always portraying herself as a lamb when in reality she is a beast, capable of destroying any who cross her. She and he allies are identified as “the King of the South”, currently engaging “in a pushing” with the “King of the North” (the former Communist block of nations)

Deaths of the "few" by the many, includes the death by fire initiated by the Pope's Inquisition, and suffering by the "few", by the Muslims/many, was you get taxed to death if you do not declare Mohammad as Allah's messenger. The fact that the Muhammad of Mecca never historically existed is beside the point.

Bloodshed has identified all false religion......when Jesus introduced the new covenant, bloodshed was to cease among his disciples, because love was the law’s fulfilment......so that is how you identify Christ’s true disciples...they are at peace when all others are involved in political or religious conflicts. (Isaiah 1:15)
They have no blood on their hands.

The Jews will apparently be reassembled with Israel at the end of the age, and David will be their king (Ezekiel 37), whereas the nations will be "destroyed" (Jeremiah 30:11), Israel will only be chastened.

The scriptures give us a good and comprehensive view of the nation of Israel from God’s perspective. Even very early in his relationship with them, he was incensed at their constant disobedience and failure to follow his clear directions. He at times wanted to “exterminate” them, but was reminded of his promise to Abraham that his Messiah must come through his descendants in an unbroken line to him. So God put up with them until such times as his covenant was fulfilled. He produced the Messiah but Israel rejected him and had an innocent man put to death. Jesus already told the Jews what the outcome would be for them. (Matthew 23:37-39) God “abandoned” them as his people and chose a new nation....spiritual “Israel”, who would be “adopted” by God as “spiritual sons” in place of them. (Matthew 21:42-46)

 

[metis]

Dr Laura used to say good things about the Catechism. It's extremely organized and well thought out (even if I don't believe what it teaches).

Well, I do believe that you do believe at least some of it.

BTW, even though it's handled somewhat differently with our two faiths, we may not be as far apart as labels tend to imply. Let me give you an example.

Let's say that teachings X, Y, and Z are spelled out by the Church in the Catechism, but what if I agree with X, question Y, but disagree with Z, is that "kosher"? Under a couple of conditions, the answer is yes.

An analogy one of my priest teachers gave us years ago is that the Church is like a Roman traffic cop at an intersection waving his hands to try and direct the traffic [notice I say "try", which you would understand if you ever were in Rome]. Some will obey the officer, so will partially obey, and some will totally disregard him/her. If there's no accident, what's the problem? Basically nada. But if there is a conflict, the officer is there to sort things out and be involved in any court proceedings if needed.

As a Catholic, I am responsible for what I do, thus as long as I don't do somethings that may negatively affect others, these are the choices I can make. After all, the Vatican and the Pope are surrounded by Italians, capice? [my wife's from Italy, btw] Was it always this way in the past? No.

Obviously, Judaism has quite a bit of this flexibility as well-- ya know, two Jews have three opinions on anything and everything. Plus, you have the centuries old commentary system, which also is found in Catholicism even though it's not as formalized.

Oh, the two conditions I mentioned at the beginning: one, is that if I am in doubt [Y], the Church recommends I go in their direction. The second is that as a teacher within the Church, one must teach what the Church accepts. IOW, I cannot just teach my opinion, which to me is understandable.

Finally, thanks so much for your input here as it is deeply appreciated.

Take care.

 

[2ndpillar]

I would disagree with a number of things here.....

The Catholic Church is the product of the early church fathers, not Paul. It was they who began to introduce false beliefs such as the triune nature of God....something missing entirely from the Hebrew Scriptures. Abraham, in his intimate friendship with Yahweh, did not know such a God. (Deuteronomy 6:4)

Those who end up on the wrong road are those who chose the easy path rather than the cramped and narrow road to life. Among those are people who pretend to be Christ’s followers but whose conduct and speech betray them. Just acknowledging Jesus as your “Lord” is meaningless if you fail to obey his teachings. (Matthew 7:21-23) One must be found “doing the will of God” in company with “the wheat” (a Christian brotherhood)....not just talking about it, and doing the opposite to curry friendship with the world. (James 4:4)


“Babylon the great” is composed of all religion that can trace its beliefs and practices back to original Babylon....which was the springboard of all false worship that was spread in all the earth by the confusion of the language at Babel. This is why we find a common thread in all of them....their core teachings are virtually the same, but you won’t find any of them in the Bible.

I don’t believe that ‘the beast with the horns of a lamb’ is Constantine, but in more modern times, in line with Daniel’s prophesies, is identified with the dual world power of Anglo-America....always portraying herself as a lamb when in reality she is a beast, capable of destroying any who cross her. She and he allies are identified as “the King of the South”, currently engaging “in a pushing” with the “King of the North” (the former Communist block of nations)


Bloodshed has identified all false religion......when Jesus introduced the new covenant, bloodshed was to cease among his disciples, because love was the law’s fulfilment......so that is how you identify Christ’s true disciples...they are at peace when all others are involved in political or religious conflicts. (Isaiah 1:15)
They have no blood on their hands.


The scriptures give us a good and comprehensive view of the nation of Israel from God’s perspective. Even very early in his relationship with them, he was incensed at their constant disobedience and failure to follow his clear directions. He at times wanted to “exterminate” them, but was reminded of his promise to Abraham that his Messiah must come through his descendants in an unbroken line to him. So God put up with them until such times as his covenant was fulfilled. He produced the Messiah but Israel rejected him and had an innocent man put to death. Jesus already told the Jews what the outcome would be for them. (Matthew 23:37-39) God “abandoned” them as his people and chose a new nation....spiritual “Israel”, who would be “adopted” by God as “spiritual sons” in place of them. (Matthew 21:42-46)

Your wrong in many ways, but it would be too long a note to address them all at once. We can start with the last sentence with respect to Mt 21:42-46. Yeshua came to fulfill the Law and the prophets, which has not been fulfilled to this point in time. His choosing the shepherds/leaders of the Catholic church, Peter and Paul, was to fulfill Zechariah 11, with the Lord choosing the shepherds, Peter, Paul, and Judas, to pasture those doomed "to slaughter", the church of the Gentiles. Israel was "scattered among the nations" due to their idolatry (Ez 36:19), but because of their name, Israel, they would be gathered from the nations/Gentiles, and given a new heart and a new spirit (Ez 36:26)(Jeremiah 31:31), and would reside on the land given to their forefathers, which is expanded on in (Ez 37), whereas Judah would be joined with Ephraim/Israel, and live on the land given to Jacob, and be ruled by king David. As for who was to be crushed by the stone made without hands, that would be head of gold, breast of silver, thighs of bronze, and the legs of iron, and the toes of iron and clay, (Daniel 2:45), all at the same time, which range from Nebuchadnezzar to the Czars/Caesars of Rome with their clay compatriots which include the children of Jacob's brother, Esau, whose nick name refers to a red clay pot with red beans. For the time line look to Hosea 5 & 6, whereas after 2000 years, 2 days, the "LORD" will return and "heal us". As for who will be "destroyed" look to Jeremiah 30:11, and the "nations"/Gentiles will be the ones destroyed, and Jacob will only be chastened. I suggest you look to the Law and the prophets, under the illumination of the testimony of Yeshua. Israel was put away for "many days", while the son of man, in the form of Hosea, took an adulteress, the Gentiles, until Israel returns to David their king, and the LORD their God. (Hosea 3).
As an extra, the Roman Catholic church was born of the Council of Nicaea, which was convened by the Roman emperor Constantine, to consolidate his kingdom. Besides setting up the Trinity false doctrine, and the worship of his sun god Sol Invictus on Sunday, by decree in 321 AD, he built basilicas to Peter and Paul. He sought to change the time and law per Daniel 7:24-25, and his Roman church would linger to "wear down the saints", followers of the Law, until time, times, and half a time, after which the saints, following the great tribulation, would take over, such as in Revelation 20:4.

 

[pearl]

The second is that as a teacher within the Church, one must teach what the Church accepts. IOW, I cannot just teach my opinion, which to me is understandable.

Spoken as a true catechist, who, catechises the catechumen on the catechesis.

 

[2ndpillar]

Well, I do believe that you do believe at least some of it.

BTW, even though it's handled somewhat differently with our two faiths, we may not be as far apart as labels tend to imply. Let me give you an example.

Let's say that teachings X, Y, and Z are spelled out by the Church in the Catechism, but what if I agree with X, question Y, but disagree with Z, is that "kosher"? Under a couple of conditions, the answer is yes.

An analogy one of my priest teachers gave us years ago is that the Church is like a Roman traffic cop at an intersection waving his hands to try and direct the traffic [notice I say "try", which you would understand if you ever were in Rome]. Some will obey the officer, so will partially obey, and some will totally disregard him/her. If there's no accident, what's the problem? Basically nada. But if there is a conflict, the officer is there to sort things out and be involved in any court proceedings if needed.

As a Catholic, I am responsible for what I do, thus as long as I don't do somethings that may negatively affect others, these are the choices I can make. After all, the Vatican and the Pope are surrounded by Italians, capice? [my wife's from Italy, btw] Was it always this way in the past? No.

Obviously, Judaism has quite a bit of this flexibility as well-- ya know, two Jews have three opinions on anything and everything. Plus, you have the centuries old commentary system, which also is found in Catholicism even though it's not as formalized.

Oh, the two conditions I mentioned at the beginning: one, is that if I am in doubt [Y], the Church recommends I go in their direction. The second is that as a teacher within the Church, one must teach what the Church accepts. IOW, I cannot just teach my opinion, which to me is understandable.

Finally, thanks so much for your input here as it is deeply appreciated.

Take care.

There is only one "teacher" and one "leader" (Matthew 23:23). The "teacher" would be the Holy Spirit, by way of the "anointing" (1 John 2:27), and one leader, which is the anointed one/Christ. The church would represent the blind leading the blind, in which everyone falls in the pit. Their leaders, Peter and Paul, are described in Matthew 13, as the tares which "commit lawlessness", as in the false gospel of grace/cross, and as being "stumbling blocks", as in Peter was "Satan", and a "stumbling block" to Yeshua (Matthew 16:23)

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Well, I do believe that you do believe at least some of it.

Well, we share the God of Abraham, and the idea that we should be good decent people. And that really is at the heart of everything important. But let's face it. Christianity is a Jesus, Jesus, Jesus religion, and Jesus has no place in Judaism.

I love chatting with you metis. You are always a decent person and it is a pleasure.

Let's say that teachings X, Y, and Z are spelled out by the Church in the Catechism, but what if I agree with X, question Y, but disagree with Z, is that "kosher"? Under a couple of conditions, the answer is yes.

In my limited understanding, I think it goes something like this? If its an infallible teaching, belief is required. But there is a great deal in there that is not considered infallible. So like, Jesus rose from the dead? Required. Priests should be celibate? Optional. Do I have this right?

Obviously, Judaism has quite a bit of this flexibility as well-- ya know, two Jews have three opinions on anything and everything. Plus, you have the centuries old commentary system, which also is found in Catholicism even though it's not as formalized.

Well, I'm always glad that I don't have to explain Oral Torah to Catholics, who have their own canon law. It's been a source of frustration for me that Protestants like to pretend that "Bible only" works.

I think there are two extremes that are both dangerous. The first (the older danger) is the idea that everything is carved into stone, will never change, and that questioning is not allowed. It is controlling of thought and therefore toxic. The other danger is the idea that we should just throw away the distilled wisdom that comes with ancient religions, and just make up our own religion with our own belief set and our own rules, which is becoming the option du jour. I find it arrogant that any individual would consider themselves wiser than all the sages in history that have reviewed theological ideas on a very deep level. But what can you say? This is the age where the young prefer disorganized religion and distrust experts.

 

[pearl]

Their leaders, Peter and Paul, are described in Matthew 13, as the tares which "commit lawlessness", as in the false gospel of grace/cross, and as being "stumbling blocks", as in Peter was "Satan", and a "stumbling block" to Yeshua (Matthew 16:23)

Peter’s refusal to accept Jesus’ predicted suffering and death is seen as a satanic attempt to deflect Jesus from his God-appointed course, and the disciple is addressed in terms that recall Jesus’ dismissal of the devil in the temptation account MT4:10 (“Get away, Satan!”). Peter’s satanic purpose is emphasized by Matthew’s addition to the Marcin source of the words You are an obstacle to me.

 

[2ndpillar]

Peter’s refusal to accept Jesus’ predicted suffering and death is seen as a satanic attempt to deflect Jesus from his God-appointed course, and the disciple is addressed in terms that recall Jesus’ dismissal of the devil in the temptation account MT4:10 (“Get away, Satan!”). Peter’s satanic purpose is emphasized by Matthew’s addition to the Marcin source of the words You are an obstacle to me.

You kind of left out the part of Peter being a "stumbling block to me", such as in the case that people go to Peter's supposed successor, the pope, instead of getting their teachings from the anointing. Yeshua had to go to heaven so that he could send the Comforter, not so that the Pope could claim to be God on earth, and pump the window for her tithes, and payment for her dead husband's sins, in order to rebuild Peter's Basilica. Peter's heir (Isaiah 22:25), the pope, is destined to be "fall" and those hanging on to him, will be "cut off".

 

[pearl]

Pope could claim to be God on earth

And here is the anti-Catholic tell.

 

[metis]

So like, Jesus rose from the dead? Required.

Actually there are only two infallibility statements made ex cathedra, and they both are about Mary.

Personally, I have no clue if Jesus rose from the dead and I don't lose any sleep over not knowing.

I think there are two extremes that are both dangerous.

Totally agree!

I find it arrogant that any individual would consider themselves wiser than all the sages in history that have reviewed theological ideas on a very deep level.

Here I have to differ a bit because within religion in general there's hardly any objectively-derived evidence to rely on. For an example, did Abraham actually exist as a person? How could we possibly tell with certainty one way or the other?

So, I all so often take the position of Joseph Campbell's, namely to use his words "and the myth became the reality". Now, in this case, "myth" does not mean nor imply falsehood. IOW, I try and learn the teachings, run them through my minute brain, and try and discern what may be logical and possibly applicable. An imprecise art, no doubt, but that's the best I can do.

Finally, I really enjoy reading your posts, plus you seem to be a person of deep thought and morals. But then I've been wrong many times before.

 

[2ndpillar]

And here is the anti-Catholic tell.

Cardinal Sarto, who became Pope Pius X, said this:

The Pope represents Jesus Christ Himself...

Being as the Roman Catholics declare "Jesus Christ" as being God, well, ergo, the pope represents God on earth. This would be to say that the pope is Vicar of Christ, which is to say, God on earth. On the other hand, Isaiah 22 represents Peter as the one put in charge of the "royal household", who shamed his master's house, and therefore cast into a "vast country" (Rome), where he would die. Isaiah goes on to say that the heir of Peter, the holder of the keys of David, would "fall", and those hanging on to him would be "cut off". (Isaiah 22:25).

 

[2ndpillar]

Actually there are only two infallibility statements made ex cathedra, and they both are about Mary.

Personally, I have no clue if Jesus rose from the dead and I don't lose any sleep over not knowing.

Totally agree!

Here I have to differ a bit because within religion in general there's hardly any objectively-derived evidence to rely on. For an example, did Abraham actually exist as a person? How could we possibly tell with certainty one way or the other?

So, I all so often take the position of Joseph Campbell's, namely to use his words "and the myth became the reality". Now, in this case, "myth" does not mean nor imply falsehood. IOW, I try and learn the teachings, run them through my minute brain, and try and discern what may be logical and possibly applicable. An imprecise art, no doubt, but that's the best I can do.

Finally, I really enjoy reading your posts, plus you seem to be a person of deep thought and morals. But then I've been wrong many times before.

The Nicene Creed, the foundation of the Roman Catholic Church (325 & 680 AD) states that Christ rose from the dead on the 3rd day. According to Yeshua, the only sign would be the sign of Jonah, in which Jonah rose from the bowels of the whale after 3 days and 3 nights. If you don't have the core Catholic belief, you are apparently having a crisis of faith. While the 3rd day scenario is a reference to Israel and not Christ (Hosea 5 & 6), it still remains a core Catholic belief.

Nicene Creed:
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered, died, and was buried. On the third day he rose again in fulfillment of the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.

 

[pearl]

The Nicene Creed, the foundation of the Roman Catholic Church

It is believed by the 'holy Catholic church', the universal church, is referred to.

 

[metis]

It is believed by the 'holy Catholic church', the universal church, is referred to.

Yep, and what some people outside the Church seemingly don't understand is that the "Catholic Church" is not synonymous with the "Gestapo", thus there's room for personal scrutiny. An excellent book from a Catholic source is "May Your [Informed] Conscience Be Your Guide", which I picked up at our church's library. It's main thrust is what I mentioned to IC in my posts 146 & 154.

One thing too I must mention even though I know you're well familiar with it, and that is that Jesus said that there are only Two Commandments that are required of his disciples, and one is love of God and the other is love of neighbor-- period. Everything else flows from there, thus political correctness is not where he was coming from. How many times have we read someone tell us that if we don't believe in X that we are not true Christians and/or that we are in "Christendom".

Therefore, I could all so easily walk into @IndigoChild5559 's synagogue and feel right at home there.

 

[2ndpillar]

It is believed by the 'holy Catholic church', the universal church, is referred to.

The Roman Emperor Theodosius declared the Nicene Trinitarian Christianity as the official church of Rome in 380 AD, at which time it became the church of Rome. Previous to that you had viable competing churches in the form of the Ebionites (the poor), as in poor shall inherit the earth, the first church under James, then you had the false church of Paul, which became the official Roman church, and then you had the many Gnostic religions, which were wiped out by the Christianity of Paul, despite the Marcionite followers had a bible constricted to one mirroring only the writings of Luke and Paul. As for the Catholic church being "holy", I think than Joan of Arc or the Jews of Spain may disagree. When I went to Catechism in the 1950s, when the church was called the holy Roman Catholic Church. Catholic Church - Wikipedia History has caught up with the church, and they seem to step back from their connection with the Roman empire which was the source of the shared power with the Roman holy empire, in which the pope would crown the emperors.

 

[2ndpillar]

Yep, and what some people outside the Church seemingly don't understand is that the "Catholic Church" is not synonymous with the "Gestapo", thus there's room for personal scrutiny. An excellent book from a Catholic source is "May Your [Informed] Conscience Be Your Guide", which I picked up at our church's library. It's main thrust is what I mentioned to IC in my posts 146 & 154.

One thing too I must mention even though I know you're well familiar with it, and that is that Jesus said that there are only Two Commandments that are required of his disciples, and one is love of God and the other is love of neighbor-- period. Everything else flows from there, thus political correctness is not where he was coming from. How many times have we read someone tell us that if we don't believe in X that we are not true Christians and/or that we are in "Christendom".

Therefore, I could all so easily walk into @IndigoChild5559 's synagogue and feel right at home there.

Actually "Jesus" didn't say "that there are only Two commandments that are required of his disciples".

Matthew 22:36“Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” 37And He said to him, “ ‘YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.’ 38“This is the great and foremost commandment. 39“The second is like it, ‘YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.’ 40“On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets.”

1 John 3:5 For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments; and His commandments are not burdensome.

You seem to have strolled down the wide path leading to "destruction" (Matthew 7:13), the one of lawlessness (Matthew 7:23).