attacking religion (breaking off the constitutiional thread)

[foxpaws]

merged into post #49

 

[hrmwrm]

man, you'd think someone's holding fossten personally responsible for the inquisition and crusades. but then, i'm not here for the arguement of denominations. i'm not here for spirituality either, as the base is still steeped in the supernatural. so, it's not chicken and egg, foxpaws. it's more of is there a spiritual base of understanding? i think with enlightenment of a better understanding of roots, a supernatural belief is no longer withstanding.

man was simple at one time while garnering for an explanation of it all. with no percieved explanation, then mysticism takes over. elaborate stories develop, and not 1 shred of evidence stands today to back up any claims.

i'm sure this will be to the consternartion of a few, but there is no evidence of even jesus existance.

all religions are of a mysticism that if viewed from outside would seem to transcend a rational mind. there are so many who if when asked carefully as WHY they believe in god, have no good answer other than that was what they were taught. never investigated the possibility of truth, just believe it's truth because of indoctrination. i challenge anybody who stands behind a religious ideal to actually PROVE their claims of their belief. and like a magician with a trick, so far anybody can only prove it is an illusion.

 

[fossten]

Christians - "The definition of a Christian is one who follows the teachings of Christ."

So, are all the differences from the teachings of Christ (i.e. the books of Mormon) that Mormons follow eliminate them from the label 'Christian'? I really am trying to find a point of definition. When doctrine becomes overwhelming and then the followers of that 'sect' are no longer considered Christians.

According to the Bible, the Mormon teachings are heresy as well, yes. Let me put it this way: My best friend is a Mormon. I do not expect to see him in heaven.

I would assume most Orthodox religions would fall into the 'not Christian' categories - right? Most of them pretty much fall in line with Catholicism.

Are you asking me or telling me? It sounds like you're trying to bait me into a generalilzation. If not, then please do a better job of phrasing your questions so that they are answerable. How about taking it case by case.

And are the teachings of Christ that you equate with Christians mostly found in the Gospels, or do you include the entire New Testament? I have always felt that is what 4 books were concerned with, documenting the life of Christ, and certainly give a more 'undoctrined' viewpoint of his life and work.

Entire New Testament.

Sorry, I know I ask a lot of questions - but this is really interesting to me. I actually hadn't ever run across the idea that Catholics aren't Christians. And I really don't want to go to that site you quoted - it seems pretty antagonistic and rebarbative.

Ad hominem, maybe? Regardless of where I pulled the Scriptures, they are unadulterated and support my point. I assumed you wouldn't want to visit a site, which is why I didn't link it. But I could have found the differences from any source. The point is that the information I pasted is accurate.

James had a group of experts, theologists and others working on the Bible, one that would conform to the Church of England's view of Christianity, and they used many resources, but for the 'feeling of the language' they often went with Tyndale's translation, along with the Great Bible and the Geneva version (both of which use Tyndale's style of language), that were very popular at the time.

I think this is incorrect. James used the Textus Receptus. Please supply your source.

My faith allows me to have an open mind. I can look at all sorts of different ideas and concepts, my faith won't diminish, it will just strengthen. There are lots of faith based ideals I haven't even been exposed to, but I don't discount them out of hand because they aren't Christian in origin. My faith allows me to question, seek, explore, grow, change.

So, I am trying to understand, is this closed minded? I am asking questions, I am looking at your answers and trying to compare them to other things that I have unearthed in the past.

This is a clear case of red herring. Your open mindedness in your faith isn't being discussed, it's your willingness to accept my evidence that Catholicism is not the same as Christianity.

You never did answer my question if Catholics are in heaven. Or is that non sequitur?

Such a loaded question. Do you mean ALL Catholics, or only certain ones? I can guarantee you that not ALL Catholics are in heaven.

Is that how you act when you get caught with a trash post ? You can't even own up and add the link from were you got the BS .....no surprise fossten your such a fine person

Thank you for attempting to contribute to the thread.

 

[ford nut]

Yeah, right. The guy doesn't even answer the question. Nor does he have any knowledge of the origin of the Catholic church and the fact that Catholicism is in fact a distortion of Biblical Christianity as taught by the Apostles.

Pretty much a FAIL link. He doesn't even use Scripture. Can you say Anecdotal Information?

Did you read it ?
First off Mary Fairchild is not a guy
She says she was "born again" in the Catholic Church.

On a personal note, I was raised in the Catholic Church. At the age of seventeen I came to faith in Jesus Christ as Savior through the ministry of...yes, a Catholic Charismatic prayer meeting. Shortly after, I was baptized in the Holy Spirit while attending a Catholic seminar. As I grew in my understanding of God’s Word, I began to see some of the obviously unscriptural practices and teachings within the Catholic denomination, but I have never forgotten the many wonderful merits of the Catholic Church.

I would gently challenge you to reconsider clinging to such a close-minded concept of the Catholic Church. I believe there are many of our faithful brothers and sisters in the body of believers who participate in the Catholic Church. Perhaps you have not had the opportunity to meet one yet, but I personally know many "born again," devout Catholics.

I am sorry fossten you my friend have a closed mind.

 

[foxpaws]

According to the Bible, the Mormon teachings are heresy as well, yes. Let me put it this way: My best friend is a Mormon. I do not expect to see him in heaven.

So, although your friend may lead a devout and good life (assumption here) has accepted Jesus, and that Jesus died for his sins, believes in one true God, he will burn in hell because he also belongs to the Mormon Church?

All those references in the Bible (mostly John, he was really into to this whole part of Christian ideal) that if you believe in Jesus you will be saved, is trumped by 2 Timothy 3:16? I am not questioning any of your sourcing in the list above from the Catholics are not Christians site – what I am questioning is did Jesus ever say put the scripture above him, or even on equal footing?

Are you asking me or telling me? It sounds like you're trying to bait me into a generalization. If not, then please do a better job of phrasing your questions so that they are answerable. How about taking it case by case.

I was generalizing the orthodox religions, sorry – there are sooo many of them. Greek Orthodox, Eastern, Russian, Ethiopian, Orthodox Church in America, the list grows…. I guess what I was looking more for was a ‘number’ – to see how many religions are disqualified from the “Christian” label using your logic. From the looks of it, maybe 70% of the people who call themselves Christian aren’t in your definition – is that about right?

I think this is incorrect. James used the Textus Receptus. Please supply your source.

Well, even King James' ‘rules’ to the translators stated…
The ordinary Bible, read in the church, commonly called the Bishops' Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the original will permit.
And…
“These translations to be used, when they agree better with the text than the Bishops' Bible: Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's [Rogers'], Whitchurch's [Cranmer's], Geneva."

Sort of an interesting site on a 'quick' history of the King James Bible…
http://www.av1611.org/kjv/kjvhist.html

But, if you really want to read a good book on the times, the men, the controversy and the final outcome you should read, “God's Secretaries: The Making of the King James Bible”.

Plus, I have read some of Tyndale's - it is pretty amazing how closely the King James Version mirrors it.

This is a clear case of red herring. Your open mindedness in your faith isn't being discussed, it's your willingness to accept my evidence that Catholicism is not the same as Christianity.

I haven’t ever ‘not’ accepted your evidence, or questioned the source (Biblical) accuracy – I am trying to take your evidence and create a path to your conclusion.

Such a loaded question. Do you mean ALL Catholics, or only certain ones? I can guarantee you that not ALL Catholics are in heaven.

No, I mean ALL Catholics – or maybe after reading what you stated above I should question - Why only “some Catholics”?

 

[fossten]

So, although your friend may lead a devout and good life (assumption here) has accepted Jesus, and that Jesus died for his sins, believes in one true God, he will burn in hell because he also belongs to the Mormon Church?

Straw man argument. I never said those things. You assume too much about what Mormons believe, and you don't know what my friend believes.

All those references in the Bible (mostly John, he was really into to this whole part of Christian ideal) that if you believe in Jesus you will be saved, is trumped by 2 Timothy 3:16? I am not questioning any of your sourcing in the list above from the Catholics are not Christians site – what I am questioning is did Jesus ever say put the scripture above him, or even on equal footing?

I cannot comment on this statement, as it makes no sense.

I was generalizing the orthodox religions, sorry – there are sooo many of them. Greek Orthodox, Eastern, Russian, Ethiopian, Orthodox Church in America, the list grows…. I guess what I was looking more for was a ‘number’ – to see how many religions are disqualified from the “Christian” label using your logic. From the looks of it, maybe 70% of the people who call themselves Christian aren’t in your definition – is that about right?

I don't know what the numbers are.

Well, even King James' ‘rules’ to the translators stated…
The ordinary Bible, read in the church, commonly called the Bishops' Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the original will permit.
And…
“These translations to be used, when they agree better with the text than the Bishops' Bible: Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's [Rogers'], Whitchurch's [Cranmer's], Geneva."

Sort of an interesting site on a 'quick' history of the King James Bible…
http://www.av1611.org/kjv/kjvhist.html

But, if you really want to read a good book on the times, the men, the controversy and the final outcome you should read, “God's Secretaries: The Making of the King James Bible”.

Plus, I have read some of Tyndale's - it is pretty amazing how closely the King James Version mirrors it.

Again, you're making the correlation=causation argument. It's not surprising that Tyndale's Bible mirrors the KJV, since they're both based on the TR, but the KJV wasn't built on the Tyndale Bible. I recommend you read a book called "Forever Settled."

I haven’t ever ‘not’ accepted your evidence, or questioned the source (Biblical) accuracy – I am trying to take your evidence and create a path to your conclusion.

How many negatives is that? You're working awfully hard at tapdancing here. Can you just say what you mean in affirmative form? Thanks.

No, I mean ALL Catholics – or maybe after reading what you stated above I should question - Why only “some Catholics”?

If a Catholic puts his or her faith in the church or the church teachings instead of putting his or her faith completely in Christ and His prescription for salvation, he or she is risking eternal damnation. That goes for Mormons, Baptists, anyone.

That said, it is highly unlikely that a member of a Catholic church will find the gospel, unless he seeks the Bible outside of church. To ford nut's credit, his link does give an anecdotal example of how someone ends up getting saved in spite of membership in the Church, by seeking God outside the church.

 

[foxpaws]

Sorry – I am sort of overwhelming again, aren’t I?

I am just so fascinated by the whole ‘not Christian’ discussion, I haven’t every really thought of this before, so I am working through some things myself…

Well, onward….

I did say I was assuming in my asking about your Mormon friend, but…

So I guess a lot of the scripture questions could be answered by (second paragraph of post #55) “what I am questioning is did Jesus ever say put the scripture above him, or even on equal footing?”

I am really having a hard time grappling with the concept that even though you have let Jesus into your heart, you aren’t saved because of the doctrine of your religion. I guess I had always read the Bible with the idea that the statement “if you believe in one true God, that Jesus as the Son of God, and that he died for your sins, you will be saved” didn’t really have any caveats to it. But, it looks like to me you are adding exceptions to this.

Oh and the whole KJV bible thing – it is based on many sources, not just on Tyndale, and not just on TR. It needed populace appeal, and of course it needed the King’s ‘stamp of approval’. I haven’t seen any evidence to the contrary that it used multiple sources, and have linked one of my sources (want more??). Maybe you have some, so do you have any ‘non-biased’ links? Although I might like to read your book (but it looks like a rather dry tome.. ) my book load is stacking up.

I have accepted your Biblical verses as correct (better ? not so many negatives), I am just trying to find the logic on where you go from “the doctrine the Catholic Church professes and practices is occasionally (there is a lot more doctrine that they do profess and practice that marches directly with the Bible) at odds with the text of the Bible” to “Catholics aren’t Christian”.

The Catholic Church doesn’t place itself above Christ. Nor do its followers. It may call its pastors’ ‘father’ that according to the Bible is incorrect (reference your list above). But, would that trump the basic ideal that Jesus saves us? Would any of those things in your list of ‘sins’ really matter if you truly believe Jesus saves us?

 

[fossten]

I am really having a hard time grappling with the concept that even though you have let Jesus into your heart, you aren’t saved because of the doctrine of your religion. I guess I had always read the Bible with the idea that the statement “if you believe in one true God, that Jesus as the Son of God, and that he died for your sins, you will be saved” didn’t really have any caveats to it. But, it looks like to me you are adding exceptions to this.

That's not what I said, for the umpteenth time. Stop inserting words into my sentences.

"Believing in the one true God" doesn't mean much. The Bible says, "...the devils believe also, and tremble." Just accepting the fact that Christ died for your sins doesn't do it either. If you read the gospels, and Acts, you will see a pattern of requirement for salvation that centers around repentance. Read the parable of the rich man in the gospels. He claimed to have kept all 10 Commandments from his youth. Note that Christ identified his one sin, that of idolatry; worshiping his wealth. The fact is that we are all guilty of breaking God's Law. As such, we're all destined for hell. A Catholic who repents must also understand that the sacraments do not save him, something the Catholic church disagrees with. He must understand that his dependence on his own good works is the sin of pride, and he must repent from that as well. A Catholic is required by the church to add several things to the gospel, including the sacraments, baptism, and other helps from the church. Note that Paul cursed the Judaizers who required keeping the Jewish Law in addition to faith in Christ.

Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life: No man cometh unto the Father, BUT BY ME." If the Catholic Church (via the New Law put out by Trent and Vatican II) requires other things besides faith in Christ, then a member must choose between the gospel or the church. He cannot have both and be saved.

Oh and the whole KJV bible thing – it is based on many sources, not just on Tyndale, and not just on TR. It needed populace appeal, and of course it needed the King’s ‘stamp of approval’. I haven’t seen any evidence to the contrary that it used multiple sources, and have linked one of my sources (want more??). Maybe you have some, so do you have any ‘non-biased’ links? Although I might like to read your book (but it looks like a rather dry tome.. ) my book load is stacking up.

There's no need for you to read any books I recommend. You are notoriously suspicious of biased sources, and let's face it - every source has a bias. It's impossible not to. Even "God's Secretaries" has a bias.

I have accepted your Biblical verses as correct (better ? not so many negatives), I am just trying to find the logic on where you go from “the doctrine the Catholic Church professes and practices is occasionally (there is a lot more doctrine that they do profess and practice that marches directly with the Bible) at odds with the text of the Bible” to “Catholics aren’t Christian”.

You're subtly trying to minimize what I've said. The Catholic Church doesn't "occasionally" march at odds with the text of the Bible. The Church teaches MAJOR doctrinal differences, most of which are actual distortions of Biblical teaching, and which are crucial to the salvation of the believer. I've identified MAJOR areas where the Catholic teachings are heresy according to the Bible - and the Bible calls anyone who adds to the words therein "accursed."

The Catholic Church doesn’t place itself above Christ. Nor do its followers.

Oh yes it does. In fact, popes throughout history have claimed themselves to BE Christ.

"In founders and foundresses [of the consecrated orders of nuns and priests, etc.] we see a constant and lively sense of the Church, which they manifest by their full participation in all aspects of the Church's life, and in THEIR READY OBEDIENCE TO THE BISHOPS AND ESPECIALLY TO THE ROMAN PONTIFF. Against this background of love towards Holy Church, ‘the pillar and bulwark of the truth’ (1 Tim 3:15), we readily understand the devotion of Saint Francis of Assisi for ‘THE LORD POPE’, the daughterly outspokenness of Saint Catherine of Siena towards the one whom she called ‘SWEET CHRIST ON EARTH’, the apostolic obedience and the sentire cum Ecclesia of Saint Ignatius Loyola, and the joyful profession of faith made by Saint Teresa of Avila: ‘I am a daughter of the Church’. We can also understand the deep desire of Saint Theresa of the Child Jesus: ‘In the heart of the Church, my mother, I will be love’. These testimonies are representative of the full ecclesial communion which the Saints, founders and foundresses, have shared in diverse and often difficult times and circumstances. THEY ARE EXAMPLES WHICH CONSECRATED PERSONS NEED CONSTANTLY TO RECALL if they are to resist the particularly strong centrifugal and disruptive forces at work today. A DISTINCTIVE ASPECT OF ECCLESIAL COMMUNION IS ALLEGIANCE OF MIND AND HEART TO THE MAGISTERIUM OF THE BISHOPS, an allegiance which must be lived honestly and clearly testified to before the People of God by all consecrated persons, especially those involved in theological research, teaching, publishing, catechesis and the use of the means of social communication. BECAUSE CONSECRATED PERSONS HAVE A SPECIAL PLACE IN THE CHURCH, THEIR ATTITUDE IN THIS REGARD IS OF IMMENSE IMPORTANCE FOR THE WHOLE PEOPLE OF GOD" (Pope John Paul II, "Apostolic Exhortation on the Consecrated Life and Its Mission in the Church and in the World," to the bishops and clergy, religious orders and congregations, societies of apostolic life, secular institutes, and all the faithful, given in Rome, at Saint Peter’s, March 25, 1996).

The pope is clearly urging idolatry here. First, there is only one who can demand the complete and unquestioning submission of mind and heart, and that is Almighty God, the Lord Jesus Christ. To give heart allegiance to sinful, error-prone men is idolatry. The Apostle Paul warned that we are not even to follow a heavenly angel if he teaches contrary to the Scriptures (Galatians 1:8,9).

Second, John Paul II further encourages idolatry by urging Catholics to look upon the Pope as "the Lord Pope" and the "sweet Christ on earth." In truth, the pope is not any sort of Lord or Christ. That is outright blasphemy.

Furthermore, Augustine, considered to be one of the fathers of the Catholic church, exalted the authority of the "church" over that of the Bible, saying, "I would not believe the gospel, if I were not compelled by the authority of the universal church."

Do a little reading about Augustine. It's quite interesting. He was one of the first persecutors of the church, and he argued "for a lax church discipline which allowed for unregenerate pagans and immoral ecclesiastical leaders, and demanding that the Donatists submit themselves to a centralized Catholic church system." (From David Benedict's book about the Donatists.)

Benedict continues:

Because the Donatists refused to submit to these heresies, the Catholic authorities joined hands with the secular powers to persecute them. Many of their church leaders were put to death and great numbers of them were forced into exile.

"Augustine was the first who ventured to teach that the Catholic Church, in its empirical form, was the kingdom of Christ, that the millennial kingdom had commenced with the appearing of Christ, and was therefore an accomplished fact" (Encyclopedia Britannica).

It may call its pastors’ ‘father’ that according to the Bible is incorrect (reference your list above). But, would that trump the basic ideal that Jesus saves us? Would any of those things in your list of ‘sins’ really matter if you truly believe Jesus saves us?

You're deliberately cherry picking an example that doesn't have anything to do with the process of salvation. However, it is notable that the Bible uses the term "Father" in that context as a form of worship. To call a priest "Father" is idolatry. Remember that the Bible only allows for one "Holy Father," and that's God. Yet the Church encourages calling the pope "Holy Father." That's sheer idolatry.

The pope also encourages Mary worship:

On May 7 Pope John Paul II dedicated his general audience to "the Virgin Mary" and urged all Christians to accept Mary as their mother. He noted the words spoken by Jesus on the cross to Mary and to John--"Woman, behold thy son!" and "Behold thy mother!" (John 19:26,27), and he claimed that in this statement "IT IS POSSIBLE TO UNDERSTAND THE AUTHENTIC MEANING OF MARIAN WORSHIP in the ecclesial community ... which furthermore is based on the will of Christ" (Vatican Information Service, May 7, 1997).

John Paul II underlined that "the history of Christian piety teaches that MARY IS THE PATH THAT LEADS TO CHRIST, and that filial devotion to her does not at all diminish intimacy with Jesus, but rather, it increases it and leads it to very high levels of perfection." He concluded by asking all Christians "to make room (for Mary) in their daily lives, ACKNOWLEDGING HER PROVIDENTIAL ROLE IN THE PATH OF SALVATION"

David Cloud, May 7, 1997

If you trust in anything but Christ, including baptism and/or the sacraments, and practice idolatry (in other words pray to the wrong god), you are not going to be saved.

 

[foxpaws]

So, as a public broadcasting warning...

This is long, and no doubt boring to most people... just carry on -

I am actually quite interested in Foss' argument here - that is why all the questions.

And sorry Foss - this is long, but you really have brought up some interesting ideas I haven't thought of before, or obviously seen before.

"Believing in the one true God" doesn't mean much. The Bible says "...the devils believe also, and tremble." Just accepting the fact that Christ died for your sins doesn't do it either. If you read the gospels, and Acts, you will see a pattern of requirement for salvation that centers around repentance.

Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life: No man cometh unto the Father, BUT BY ME." If the Catholic Church (via the New Law put out by Trent and Vatican II) requires other things besides faith in Christ, then a member must choose between the gospel or the church. He cannot have both and be saved.

But, aren’t you saying there that you are placing the ‘gospel’ between you and God as well?

"I am the way, the truth, and the life: No man cometh unto the Father, BUT BY ME." If you take that as it stands – no man cometh unto the Father, but by Jesus. Not by scripture, correct? So, wouldn’t it follow that the only binding criteria is that you believe in Jesus?

A Catholic who repents must also understand that the sacraments do not save him, something the Catholic church disagrees with. He must understand that his dependence on his own good works is the sin of pride, and he must repent from that as well. A Catholic is required by the church to add several things to the gospel, including the sacraments, baptism, and other helps from the church.

Catholics do add things to the scripture, or interpret it differently than others, but they never take away the basic belief that you must accept Jesus. There may be lots of trappings and idolatry and other additions in Catholicism but, if the central truth is held up – the fact that they accept Jesus – isn’t that all that Jesus asks for – that they accept him as the way? Are or aren’t you allowed to accept Mary as the Queen of heaven, do you accept the sacrament as true blood and body, all of that is dictated by Scripture law (pro or con). Do those 'Scripture Laws' negate the central idea of 'you only need Jesus to find God?'

Oh, I don’t mind reading the books you recommend, often by reading the ‘other side’ you can find flaws in ‘your side’ that need to be addressed, or maybe ‘your side’ in general needs to be reviewed, or, you can discover other sources that you never knew about. But, just like you, I am suspicious of biased sources. You should be, it would be foolish not to be. I really, really do try to go out of my way to find ones that aren’t. And I do think at the very least the whole ‘rules of translation’ put forth by King James obviously points to other sources than TR when compiling KJV.

You're subtly trying to minimize what I've said. The Catholic Church doesn't "occasionally" march at odds with the text of the Bible. The Church teaches MAJOR doctrinal differences, most of which are actual distortions of Biblical teaching, and which are crucial to the salvation of the believer. I've identified MAJOR areas where the Catholic teachings are heresy according to the Bible - and the Bible calls anyone who adds to the words therein "accursed."

So, everything on your list are “major doctrinal differences”? And, you know, the Catholic Church has plenty of Biblical teachings shoring up their side, the Bible can be pretty ambiguous when it comes to certain things. Everyone quotes the Bible to support their opinion. Just look at the Baptism thing – John was pretty big on Baptism (3.5) ”Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” And then further in John 3, (22) "After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized." Even Jesus was baptizing people.

Heck, the Catholics and others have added whole other books.

The Catholic Church has always demanded allegiance to the Church, and the acceptance that the Pope is the closest ‘human contact’ to God on earth. It is how they controlled Christian religion for over 1,000 years. But, if rank and file Catholics accept that doctrine, beneath the central idea of ‘Jesus is the way’ then they aren’t Christians? Isn't the only thing that really matters, according to Jesus is your acceptance of Him?

Furthermore, Augustine, considered to be one of the fathers of the Catholic church, exalted the authority of the "church" over that of the Bible, saying, "I would not believe the gospel, if I were not compelled by the authority of the universal church."

However, Augustine never placed ‘Church’ over Christ. Isn’t all that really matters is the acceptance of Christ? If you add to that, the acceptance of Christ, even if you add the elevation of Scripture – aren’t you diminishing Jesus' own words?

I have never argued any of the things you have stated about Catholics. They have done all the things you state – the whole inquisition, persecution, idolatry, mess.

If you trust in anything but Christ, including baptism and/or the sacraments, and practice idolatry (in other words pray to the wrong god), you are not going to be saved.

Where do you place your trust in the Bible in that statement and how does it fall into place with Jesus’ words at the beginning of this way too long dissertation?

"I am the way, the truth, and the life: No man cometh unto the Father, BUT BY ME."

 

[fossten]

But, aren’t you saying there that you are placing the ‘gospel’ between you and God as well?

"I am the way, the truth, and the life: No man cometh unto the Father, BUT BY ME." If you take that as it stands – no man cometh unto the Father, but by Jesus. Not by scripture, correct? So, wouldn’t it follow that the only binding criteria is that you believe in Jesus?

If you're trying to play games with that phrase, then you cannot draw "believe" out of it either. Did you not read my Scripture quote, "...the devils believe also, and tremble?" If you're going to ignore things I say and keep asking the same question over and over, then I'm going to quit this conversation.

The way to determine salvation is by what Jesus preached, which was repentance.

Catholics do add things to the scripture, or interpret it differently than others, but they never take away the basic belief that you must accept Jesus.

Doesn't matter. They add to it, and that destroys the gospel. Let me put it this way: Ask any Catholic priest if by simply believing and NOT doing the sacraments and other church requirements you will still go to heaven, and he will say no.

There may be lots of trappings and idolatry and other additions in Catholicism but, if the central truth is held up – the fact that they accept Jesus – isn’t that all that Jesus asks for – that they accept him as the way? Are or aren’t you allowed to accept Mary as the Queen of heaven, do you accept the sacrament as true blood and body, all of that is dictated by Scripture law (pro or con). Do those 'Scripture Laws' negate the central idea of 'you only need Jesus to find God?'

So you're asking me, does God excuse the idolatry as long as you worship Jesus also? No, he does not. "Thou shalt have no other gods before Me" is the first commandment.

I do think at the very least the whole ‘rules of translation’ put forth by King James obviously points to other sources than TR when compiling KJV.

Suit yourself. But realize that you're sounding a bit like Mick Jagger now.

So, everything on your list are “major doctrinal differences”?

Straw man. I didn't say that. Are you doing this deliberately? If so, I'm going to stop talking to you about this, as it's tedious and a waste of time to answer your constant stream of misrepresentations.

And, you know, the Catholic Church has plenty of Biblical teachings shoring up their side, the Bible can be pretty ambiguous when it comes to certain things. Everyone quotes the Bible to support their opinion.

Just look at the Baptism thing – John was pretty big on Baptism (3.5) ”Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” And then further in John 3, (22) "After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized." Even Jesus was baptizing people.

But not infants. Nowhere in the Bible does it say to baptize babies. That was started by Augustine and rejected by the church. The Bible clearly teaches that baptism is a work, an outward expression of inner faith and repentance, but not a requirement for salvation. The Catholic church teaches it is REQUIRED to go to heaven.

Heck, the Catholics and others have added whole other books.

You're making my point for me, do you realize that?

The Catholic Church has always demanded allegiance to the Church, and the acceptance that the Pope is the closest ‘human contact’ to God on earth. It is how they controlled Christian religion for over 1,000 years. But, if rank and file Catholics accept that doctrine, beneath the central idea of ‘Jesus is the way’ then they aren’t Christians? Isn't the only thing that really matters, according to Jesus is your acceptance of Him?

No. Read Hebrews, and you will see the fallacies of this particular teaching.

However, Augustine never placed ‘Church’ over Christ. Isn’t all that really matters is the acceptance of Christ? If you add to that, the acceptance of Christ, even if you add the elevation of Scripture – aren’t you diminishing Jesus' own words?

Not true, as my quotation demonstrates. He wouldn't even believe the teachings of Christ unless the church okayed it. And you keep repeating yourself with the same argument. Do you think by placing it in irrelevant sections of your post that I will be tricked into agreeing with it? Your stubbornness is surpassed only by your myopia.

Where do you place your trust in the Bible in that statement and how does it fall into place with Jesus’ words at the beginning of this way too long dissertation?

"I am the way, the truth, and the life: No man cometh unto the Father, BUT BY ME."

This is known as argumentative speech. I don't trust the Bible for my salvation. Simply owning one isn't enough. The Bible has the prescription. I repent and trust Christ because of what the Bible says.

I'm beginning to believe you think you can somehow trap me into a contradiction due to your repetition of the same questions, and your chincy argumentative questions. I'm really not certain you're discussing this in good faith anymore. I've answered all your questions, and you insist on repeating them ad nauseum.

I think I'm finished with this topic.

 

[foxpaws]

I'm beginning to believe you think you can somehow trap me into a contradiction due to your repetition of the same questions, and your chincy argumentative questions. I'm really not certain you're discussing this in good faith anymore. I've answered all your questions, and you insist on repeating them ad nauseum.

I think I'm finished with this topic.

Foss, I am sorry that you are being so dismissive with me on this. Gosh, I have been degraded to 'chincy'.

I really was interested in this concept. Something totally new to me.

I have enjoyed this - I have leaned about a whole different idea set when it comes to interpreting 'what is a Christian'? I always like looking at things from different points of view.

I guess my ideals are a somewhat more simple and a lot more encompassing. I have a habit of thinking in spheres instead of points, lines and planes.

Heck, but you don't have to be so insulting 'the whole Jagger thing'.

I knew I was making a point for you with the Catholic and adding books... You seemed to think I was a total dunce on this - I am not quite total.

And I was not looking to trap you into anything, just trying really hard to try to understand. I'll have to find someone with more patience I guess. I know I try peoples patience a lot - sort of like the whole 'why, why, why' problem I have.

Thanks though. Questions of faith can be hard to argue, defend and look at rationally. It is because they are matters of faith.

Oh, I could start rebutting those items you have in your list, but, just as points of debate (it seems like that is what you really wanted me to do, no doubt, because that is what others have fallen into, the trap of debating passages in the Bible). I actually stand on your side as far as they are pretty weird, and although I don't place them in the category "If you believe this way you will be denied heaven" I do place them in the side of "you don't need to to this to arrive in heaven".

The Bible clearly teaches that baptism is a work, an outward expression of inner faith and repentance, but not a requirement for salvation. The Catholic church teaches it is REQUIRED to go to heaven.

Wanna start - I already got baptism (the only reason Catholics baptized babies was because of the high rate of infant mortality, oh, and the money involved, along with starting at an early age making sure that they have another generation of Catholics lined up, and guess what, no where in the Bible does it say you shouldn't baptize babies-"For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him" Acts 2:39). And heck the passage I quoted does state that you cannot enter the kingdom of heaven unless you are born again of water and Spirit. So, sounds like 'requirement' to me... (Oh, I think I can come up with the other side - Repentance requires the ability to think about one's condition and enough awareness and maturity to understand what it means to "turn away" from sin and accept God's Word as the direction for our lives. One must have both faith and repentance before being baptized.)

How about transubstantiation next?

I don't believe this, but I can play devil :gr_devil:

 

[fossten]

You're misquoting the passage. It doesn't say "Born again of water." It says "born of water."

"Born of water" refers to actual, physical birth. Your mother's water breaks, and you're born.

He's saying you have to be born again. Nothing more.

Mark 16:16 - He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

So the only thing that saves you is belief.

 

[foxpaws]

So the only thing that saves you is belief.

We do agree on this simple statement "So the only thing that saves you is belief."

But you appear to believe that God will cast you out if you add things to your belief, so, it looks like you really don't follow that statement. Not only do you have to believe, you have to believe in a 'certain' way.

I believe that He doesn't care about all that other stuff, one way or another, so long that this one very short treatise, 'Believe in God, believe in Jesus and the absolution of sin" is followed. I don't think God is too concerned with the fine print. So of a big picture viewpoint.

 

[foxpaws]

So you do want to argue all those points? I knew there had to be a reason that you spent time copying them over. Gosh, I get to put on the devil costume...:gr_devil:

Your quote, Mark 16:16, How do you get around the first clause - "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved;" - Doesn't that imply that you need both to be saved. You need only one (believeth not) to be damned. But, what about those who believe and aren't baptized. Obviously by this quote they won't be saved. Will they be placed in a holding pattern, purgatory?

And in Mark 3:15 when John was baptizing Christ His words: "Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness.." Doesn't this say that Jesus accepted baptism as necessary to fulfill righteousness?

 

[fossten]

We do agree on this simple statement "So the only thing that saves you is belief."

But you appear to believe that God will cast you out if you add things to your belief, so, it looks like you really don't follow that statement. Not only do you have to believe, you have to believe in a 'certain' way.

I believe that He doesn't care about all that other stuff, one way or another, so long that this one very short treatise, 'Believe in God, believe in Jesus and the absolution of sin" is followed. I don't think God is too concerned with the fine print. So of a big picture viewpoint.

You can believe that all you want, but the Bible doesn't support that.

 

[fossten]

Your quote, Mark 16:16, How do you get around the first clause - "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved;" - Doesn't that imply that you need both to be saved. You need only one (believeth not) to be damned. But, what about those who believe and aren't baptized. Obviously by this quote they won't be saved. Will they be placed in a holding pattern, purgatory?

It seems you've answered your own question, so I'll just address your last one:

Purgatory isn't mentioned in the Bible.

And in Mark 3:15 when John was baptizing Christ His words: "Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness.." Doesn't this say that Jesus accepted baptism as necessary to fulfill righteousness?

Mark 3:15 doesn't say that. Actually that's Matthew. Christ was setting an example of what new believers needed to do in obedience.

Note this Scripture passage:

Act 8:26 ¶ And the angel of the Lord spake unto Philip, saying, Arise, and go toward the south unto the way that goeth down from Jerusalem unto Gaza, which is desert.

Act 8:27 And he arose and went: and, behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship,

Act 8:28 Was returning, and sitting in his chariot read Esaias the prophet.

Act 8:29 Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot.

Act 8:30 And Philip ran thither to [him], and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest?

Act 8:31 And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.

Act 8:32 The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth:

Act 8:33 In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth.

Act 8:34 And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man?

Act 8:35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.

Act 8:36 And as they went on [their] way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, [here is] water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?

Act 8:37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

Act 8:38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

Clearly baptism is a work that follows salvation. See also Acts 10:43-44,47; 16:30-33. Peter himself said baptism is not salvation but is a figure of salvation (1 Pet. 3:20-21). Paul said baptism is not the gospel (1 Cor. 1:17; 15:1-4). It is the gospel that is the power of God unto salvation (Rom. 1:16).

 

[foxpaws]

You can believe that all you want, but the Bible doesn't support that.

But, doesn’t Jesus absolve you of all sins if you believe in Him? If he does, then, the sins of calling a priest father, placing Mary as Queen of Heaven, believing in baptism, transubstantiation, etc., won’t they all be forgiven if you just believe in Him?

If you sin and don’t believe in God, then you end up in hell. Obviously we all sin (human condition), but we all have an equal opportunity to arrive at heaven’s gates if we believe that Jesus died for our sins. From your list - “It is idolatry to venerate images. We are not even supposed to make them.” But, are you damned because you keep your old copy of “Children’s Favorite Bible Stories” which happens to have paintings of Jesus in your bookcase? According to your list, you are damned for that – even though you have accepted Christ as your Savior.

Or are there some sins that are just too overpowering to absolve?

 

[foxpaws]

Wow, let me get back to you on the baptism thing - obviously your repartee of canned responses is immense - mine is nil, I have had to depend on 'little ol' me' up to this point. I'll have to go to some Catholic sites and grab some rebuttal...

 

[fossten]

Wow, let me get back to you on the baptism thing - obviously your repartee of canned responses is immense - mine is nil, I have had to depend on 'little ol' me' up to this point. I'll have to go to some Catholic sites and grab some rebuttal...

Mkay, please show me how my latest response was canned. I happen to know the verses about baptism because I've studied it. So you've moved from stubborn repetition to accusation?

Nice.

By the way, how is c/p'ing some Catholic websites going to do anything but prove my point, which is that Catholic doctrine is SUBSTANTIALLY different than Christian doctrine?

 

[fossten]

But, doesn’t Jesus absolve you of all sins if you believe in Him? If he does, then, the sins of calling a priest father, placing Mary as Queen of Heaven, believing in baptism, transubstantiation, etc., won’t they all be forgiven if you just believe in Him?

If you sin and don’t believe in God, then you end up in hell. Obviously we all sin (human condition), but we all have an equal opportunity to arrive at heaven’s gates if we believe that Jesus died for our sins. From your list - “It is idolatry to venerate images. We are not even supposed to make them.” But, are you damned because you keep your old copy of “Children’s Favorite Bible Stories” which happens to have paintings of Jesus in your bookcase? According to your list, you are damned for that – even though you have accepted Christ as your Savior.

Or are there some sins that are just too overpowering to absolve?

If you want to continue this conversation, you might want to knock off the straw man arguments, the misrepresentations of my statements, the oversimiplifications of my arguments, and the facetious tone. I've highlighted everything in bold. I am not going to respond to this post of yours because it doesn't deserve a response. Frankly, I don't have the time to correct all of your repeated and seemingly deliberate mischaracterizations of my words. You're bordering on spamming now.

 

[foxpaws]

Canned - as in you obviously had those at your fingertips, whereas I obviously don't (see my attributing Matthew to Mark - a rather duh moment, my old memorization skills are failing me).

How do you get around the first clause - "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved;" - Doesn't that imply that you need both to be saved.

You didn't answer that in your response though - you grabbed my musing on maybe you go to purgatory. So where do you go if you don't complete that first clause "believeth and is baptized" Jesus' direct words.

 

[foxpaws]

If you want to continue this conversation, you might want to knock off the straw man arguments, the misrepresentations of my statements, the oversimiplifications of my arguments, and the facetious tone. I've highlighted everything in bold. I am not going to respond to this post of yours because it doesn't deserve a response. Frankly, I don't have the time to correct all of your repeated and seemingly deliberate mischaracterizations of my words. You're bordering on spamming now.

I am very confused here - what exactly is a straw man argument in this case - I really, really don't know.

And, if I am oversimplifying your arguments I am sorry, I am trying to clarify them. Simple is usually best for me - if a = b and b = c than a = c. If you state that idolatry is a sin, I am trying to figure out where a line gets drawn, or if it gets drawn. I am that simple - sorry.

And spamming - what spamming? You seem to insist that I understand all these things, that I am some sort of 'veteran' here in the forum wars - nope, this is it, you are the lucky choice

And yes, I do try to lighten up the argument a little, smiling isn't a bad thing. I am sorry - but, I do happen to have Children's Bible Stories in my bookcase. Falling apart, spine broken, crayon'ed in, but mine.

I was gently trying to find out an important part to my understanding in this, I really don't debate "in your face" - but I guess I should have just gotten to the bottom statement - Or are there some sins that are just too overpowering to absolve?

 

[fossten]

I am very confused here - what exactly is a straw man argument in this case - I really, really don't know.

And, if I am oversimplifying your arguments I am sorry, I am trying to clarify them. Simple is usually best for me - if a = b and b = c than a = c. If you state that idolatry is a sin, I am trying to figure out where a line gets drawn, or if it gets drawn. I am that simple - sorry.

And spamming - what spamming? You seem to insist that I understand all these things, that I am some sort of 'veteran' here in the forum wars - nope, this is it, you are the lucky choice

And yes, I do try to lighten up the argument a little, smiling isn't a bad thing. I am sorry - but, I do happen to have Children's Bible Stories in my bookcase. Falling apart, spine broken, crayon'ed in, but mine.

I was gently trying to find out an important part to my understanding in this, I really don't debate "in your face" - but I guess I should have just gotten to the bottom statement - Or are there some sins that are just too overpowering to absolve?

What I mean by spamming is the rapidfire questions, one after the other. Stick with one question at a time, don't get rhetorical.

The sin of idolatry PREVENTS you from repenting and trusting in Christ. You CANNOT trust Christ alone while you regard sin in your heart.

Psa 66:18 If I regard iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear me:

I hope I didn't respond too quickly. Don't want to be accused of using a canned answer.

 

[foxpaws]

What I mean by spamming is the rapidfire questions, one after the other. Stick with one question at a time, don't get rhetorical.

OK – easy enough. Well, maybe – that rhetorical part is going to be pretty hard. I’ll learn eventually.

Thank you very sincerely for the answers Foss.

So, I will stick with one question – And for the time being lay aside the ‘advocate’ argument on all those points that you had listed why Catholics aren’t Christians. (That isn’t spamming, listing all those points at once??? I’ll need to learn more, obviously). So, for now, bye-bye baptism and idolatry. I will be glad to don the devil costume later if you want

So, I am most interested in the concept of:
Obviously we all sin (human condition).
Doesn’t Jesus absolve you of all sins if you believe in the “one God, Son of God, died for us”, or is more required?

 

[fossten]

OK – easy enough. Well, maybe – that rhetorical part is going to be pretty hard. I’ll learn eventually.

Thank you very sincerely for the answers Foss.

So, I will stick with one question – And for the time being lay aside the ‘advocate’ argument on all those points that you had listed why Catholics aren’t Christians. (That isn’t spamming, listing all those points at once??? I’ll need to learn more, obviously). So, for now, bye-bye baptism and idolatry. I will be glad to don the devil costume later if you want

The difference was that I wasn't demanding that you answer every one of them all at once. I'm perfectly content to take them one by one. You were asking five questions per paragraph, and some were repeats. I was attempting to answer your question about Catholicism not being Christianity by using what is called a "preponderance of evidence."

So, I am most interested in the concept of:
Obviously we all sin (human condition).
Doesn’t Jesus absolve you of all sins if you believe in the “one God, Son of God, died for us”, or is more required?

Yes He does. But no man can do that. Note that Catholics are taught that the priest himself has the power to "absolve" you from sin. This is blasphemy.

Luk 5:18 And, behold, men brought in a bed a man which was taken with a palsy: and they sought means to bring him in, and to lay him before him.

Luke 5:19 And when they could not find by what way they might bring him in because of the multitude, they went upon the housetop, and let him down through the tiling with his couch into the midst before Jesus.

Luke 5:20 And when he saw their faith, he said unto him, Man, thy sins are forgiven thee.

Luke 5:21 And the scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying, Who is this which speaketh blasphemies? Who can forgive sins, but God alone?

Luke 5:22 But when Jesus perceived their thoughts, he answering said unto them, What reason ye in your hearts?

Luke 5:23 Whether is easier, to say, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Rise up and walk?

Luke 5:24 But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power upon earth to forgive sins, (he said unto the sick of the palsy,) I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy couch, and go into thine house.

Luke 5:25 And immediately he rose up before them, and took up that whereon he lay, and departed to his own house, glorifying God.