Catholic teaching not found in the Bible

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lilyflower
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
You reply-your replies never have any substance. Heres a classic paarsurrey reply:

“Jesus was alive and in exile in India. Nobody bothered to even contact him there. Perhaps they were happy, in my opinion, that he has not remained on the scene and they were free to do whatever they liked.”
Yes!! And after Jesus went into retirement in India, his followers claimed he was God and could forgive sins. Then, because they did this, they all went to their deaths in the most gruesome manners possible, and never renounced their belief. This very fact destroys the obviously ludicrous statement that Jesus went to India.
 
Yes!! And after Jesus went into retirement in India, his followers claimed he was God and could forgive sins. Then, because they did this, they all went to their deaths in the most gruesome manners possible, and never renounced their belief. This very fact destroys the obviously ludicrous statement that Jesus went to India.
Talk about teachings “not found in the Bible!” Paarsurrey tells us that “Trinity is not in the Bible” so we should not believe it. Then he says that Jesus went to India – which is not in the Bible nor anywhere else in the history of Christianity – and we SHOULD believe it.

He’s a really well-intentioned guy and perfectly sincere in his beliefs. The “India” hypothesis apparently appeared on the scene for the first time in the late 1880s. But I suppose since it accords with the Islamic view that Jesus did not die on the cross, it is a convenient speculation.
 
Talk about teachings “not found in the Bible!” Paarsurrey tells us that “Trinity is not in the Bible” so we should not believe it. Then he says that Jesus went to India – which is not in the Bible nor anywhere else in the history of Christianity – and we SHOULD believe it.

He’s a really well-intentioned guy and perfectly sincere in his beliefs. The “India” hypothesis apparently appeared on the scene for the first time in the late 1880s. But I suppose since it accords with the Islamic view that Jesus did not die on the cross, it is a convenient speculation.
The strange thing is that, AFAIK, even Muslim scholars do not teach that Jesus went to India, so I’m not sure where paarsurrey is getting this from.

I could be wrong about this but, aside from their denial of the death and resurrection of Christ, I don’t even think their Koran teaches anything like this “Jesus immigrating to India” theory either. In fact, I think the Koran, even though it denies the death and resurrection of Christ, does eventually agree with the Bible that Jesus rose up into Heaven.

This “India hypothesis” seems to have only recently emerged in history. If some Muslims do subscribe to this theory it’s probably a recent innovation in their own theology, an innovation that apparently contradicts their own theology regarding Jesus (which was a theology based on grave errors to begin with since it denied the divinity, death and resurrection of Christ Himself).
 
You reply-your replies never have any substance. Heres a classic paarsurrey reply:

“Jesus was alive and in exile in India. Nobody bothered to even contact him there. Perhaps they were happy, in my opinion, that he has not remained on the scene and they were free to do whatever they liked.”
Hi

I don’t see anything bad in my above passage quoted by you.
I again explain it. The situation in Judea during and after the event of crucifixion was very precarious. Jesus survived a cursed death on Cross by mercy of GodAllahYHWH by showing sing of Jonah to the adulterous Jews.

Jesus decided to go on exile towards India to spread his teaching to the lost ten tribes of the house of Israel settled there. His minitry was for the Jews only.

In his absence Paul wanted to start a new religion; which he did using name of Christ or Jesus by telling stories in his name , though Jesus had warned about it timely.

This is what I believe with reasons; you are welcome to differ with me with reasons.

Thanks

paarsurrey.blogspot.com/
Please visit my blog!!!
I am learning to run a blog.
 
Yes!! And after Jesus went into retirement in India, his followers claimed he was God and could forgive sins. Then, because they did this, they all went to their deaths in the most gruesome manners possible, and never renounced their belief. This very fact destroys the obviously ludicrous statement that Jesus went to India.
Hi

We learn when the incident of Crucifixion take place, his followers betrayed him. So while going into exile he kept it a secret from them; he took along Mary and some others with him.

May be the persons you mention were ashamed and they did what they did.
I don’t think this has any bearing on the decision Jesus had already taken.This does not destroys my argument that Jesus went to India to spread his teaching to the lost ten tribes of the house of Israel who were settled their, as Jesus was a Jew and a Messenger unto Jews , not to the gentiles.

Thanks
paarsurrey.blogspot.com/
Please visit my blog!!!
I have started it and learning to run it.
 
Talk about teachings “not found in the Bible!” Paarsurrey tells us that “Trinity is not in the Bible” so we should not believe it. Then he says that Jesus went to India – which is not in the Bible nor anywhere else in the history of Christianity – and we SHOULD believe it.

He’s a really well-intentioned guy and perfectly sincere in his beliefs. The “India” hypothesis apparently appeared on the scene for the first time in the late 1880s. But I suppose since it accords with the Islamic view that Jesus did not die on the cross, it is a convenient speculation.
Hi

It is not a speculation. The PromisedMessiah 1835-1908 had provided many evidences for it from so many sources. There is no harm in making a sincere effort in this connection. I think you believe in Coming of the Jesus; and nobody else has come though many are waiting.

Thanks

paarsurrey.blogspot.com/
Please visit my blog!!!
I am learning how to run a blog for my peaceful friends.
 
In fact, I think the Koran, even though it denies the death and resurrection of Christ, does eventually agree with the Bible that Jesus rose up into Heaven.
Hi

Quran does not mention that Jesus went to heaven or sky in connection with the incident of crucifixion. If you thing it is written there kindly quote from Quran with the context of five precefing and five following verses to trutly undesrtand it.

Thanks

paarsurrey.blogspot.com/
Please visit my blog!!!
I am just learning to run a blog to provide peaceful information.
 
Hi

I don’t see anything bad in my above passage quoted by you.
I again explain it. The situation in Judea during and after the event of crucifixion was very precarious. Jesus survived a cursed death on Cross by mercy of GodAllahYHWH by showing sing of Jonah to the adulterous Jews.

**Jesus decided to go on exile towards India to spread his teaching to the lost ten tribes of the house of Israel settled there. His minitry was for the Jews only.

In his absence Paul wanted to start a new religion; which he did using name of Christ or Jesus by telling stories in his name , though Jesus had warned about it timely.**
This is what I believe with reasons; you are welcome to differ with me with reasons.

Thanks

paarsurrey.blogspot.com/
Please visit my blog!!!
I am learning to run a blog.
Dear Paarsurrey,

You are indeed having many interesting theories about Jesus, and strongly believe in those. To fill out things unstated in both the bible and Quran, you come with such a beautiful theory and sounds good anyway. My questions is still the same as I (not only me, but others also) have posted before : “Where is the ground of your reasoning?”. You claim to believe with reasons. So, please explain how can you reason without proof? That is superstition if you can only reasons without any proof. Lost tribes of Israel in India? Paul overthrown Jesus? Jesus warning Paul? Why don’t you come out with a story of Indiana Jones accompanying Jesus finding the lost tribe of Israel, brother. (Sorry, I am just kidding for the last sentence)
 
Hi

We learn when the incident of Crucifixion take place, his followers betrayed him. So while going into exile he kept it a secret from them; he took along Mary and some others with him.

Thanks
paarsurrey.blogspot.com/
Please visit my blog!!!
I have started it and learning to run it.
Uh excuse me … Paarsurrey my brother. History stated that Mary lived with John after the crucifiction took place. They both lived in Efesus. If Jesus took Mary to India (assuming your theory is correct), then who was the one living with John? Are you borrowing Quranic version of deception that God made other person being disguised and looked alike Mary and live with John?
 
Hi

It is not a speculation. The PromisedMessiah 1835-1908 had provided many evidences for it from so many sources. There is no harm in making a sincere effort in this connection. I think you believe in Coming of the Jesus; and nobody else has come though many are waiting.

Thanks

paarsurrey.blogspot.com/
Please visit my blog!!!
I am learning how to run a blog for my peaceful friends.
Dear Paar,

I have entered your blog. Just a piece of a constructive (name removed by moderator)ut for you, Paar. Why don’t you cut all things you considered as a proof of your claim, and paste them into your blog. In that case, it will be easy for us to view them. Perhaps you can also put titles to each of your proof you gather.
 
then why doesn’t the Acts of the Apostles alude to the church in those times as the Catholic church? Pretty fair question.
👍 The bible that we have in our possession wasn’t codified until the 4th century (however all of it probably existed by the end of the 1st century, along with many heretical/gnostic/apocryphal writings stemming from heretical communities which foisted erroneous doctrine upon the people as if it was an authentic Christian teaching, and it was only codified out of necessity, due to these spurious Christian heretical communities claiming to be the true Christian Apostolic Church through the centuries, leading up to the 4th century, hence the need for the word Katolikos/Catholic to make the distinction between the true Catholic Apostolic Church and the heretical pseudo-Christian churches. The C.C. thus became the benchmark by which all churches would be measured.

The bible was never meant to supplant the church. That would be cutting off their nose to spite their face. It was meant to be used as a tool for teaching. When school administrations select certain books for their curriculum they employ teachers to teach and edify, they don’t hand out these books and say—LEARN!

Here are a few examples of the word catholic being
use:

St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2, AD 107.

Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist, which is celebrated by the bishop or by one whom he ordains *. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there, just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.

St. Polycarp, The Martyrdom of Polycarp, 8:1, & 16:2, AD 156.

When at last he had finished his prayer, in which he remembered all who had met with him ant any time, both small and great, both those with and those without renown, and the whole Catholic Church throughout the world. . .

And certainly the most admirable Polycarp was one of these [elect], in whose times among us he showed himself an apostolic and prophetic teacher and bishop of the Catholic Church in Smyrna.

Tertullian, Demurrer Against the Heretics, 20, AD 200.

Where was [the heretic] Marcian, that shipmaster of Pontus, the zealous student of Stoicism? Where was Valentinus, the disciple of Platonism? For it is evident that those men lived not so long ago – in the reign of Antoninus [AD 138-161] for the most part – and that they at first were believers in the doctrine of the Catholic Church, in the church of Rome under the episcopate of the blessed Eleutherus [AD 175-189], until on account of their ever restless curiosity, with which they even infected the brethren, they were more than once expelled. . . . Afterward . . . Marcian professed repentance and agreed to the conditions granted to him – that he should receive reconciliation if he restored to the Church all the others whom he had been training for perdition; he was prevented, however, by death.

Clement of Alexandria, Stromaties 7:17:107:3, aft. AD 202.

From what has been said, then, it seems clear to me that the true Church, that which is really ancient, is one; and in it are enrolled those who, in accord with a design, are just. . . . We say, therefore, that in substance, in concept, in origin and in eminence, the ancient and Catholic Church is alone, gathering as it does into the unity of the one faith which results from the familiar covenants, - or rather, from the one covenant in different times, by the will of the one God and through the one Lord, - those already chosen, those predestined by God who knew before the foundation of the world that they would be just.

St. Cyprian of Carthage, Letter of Cyprian to All His People 43 (40), 5, AD 251.

They who have not peace themselves now offer peace to others. They who have withdrawn from the Church promise to lead back and to recall the lapsed to the Church. There is one God and one Christ, and one Church, and one Chair founded on Peter by the word of the Lord. It is not possible to set up another altar or for there to be another priesthood besides that one altar and that one priesthood. Whoever has gathered elsewhere is scattering.*
 
Hi

Quran does not mention that Jesus went to heaven or sky in connection with the incident of crucifixion. If you thing it is written there kindly quote from Quran with the context of five precefing and five following verses to trutly undesrtand it.

Thanks
According to Islamic texts, Jesus was neither killed nor crucified, but rather He was raised alive up to Heaven. Islamic traditions narrate that He will return to Earth near the Day of Judgement to restore justice and defeat al-Masīḥ ad-Dajjāl (lit. “the false messiah”, also known as the Antichrist).

Although Islamic texts categorically deny the crucifixion and death of Jesus at the hands of the Jews, the Koran does state that the Jews sought to kill Jesus-- but that they did not kill nor crucify Him. According to Islamic texts, a likeness of Christ was shown to them all the while He was raised alive unto God:
That they said (in boast), “We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah”;- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:- Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise.
—[Qur’an 4:157]
According to some Muslim traditions, Jesus was replaced by a double; others suggest it was Simon of Cyrene, or one of the disciples such as Judas Iscariot.

A minority of commentaries of Ismaili or rationalist (falāsifa) leaning affirmed the crucifixion by arguing that Jesus’ body had been crucified, but his spirit had ascended. However, this interpretation was generally rejected, and according to the Encyclopedia of Islam, there was unanimous agreement amongst the scholars in denying the crucifixion.

Modern commentators, such as M. Hayek, interpret the verse to say that the crucifixion “seemed thus to them” *.

Anyway, the point is very clear that Muslims most certainly do believe that Jesus was brought up into Heaven with Allah. I mean no disrespect but if you’re going to defend your faith then you need to know what your faith actually teaches.

The idea that Jesus wandered around and hung around in India is not an Islamic teaching because it’s not in the Koran.

And if you think it is written there then please kindly quote it from the Koran with the context of five preceding and five following verses to truly understand it.

Regardless of what the Koran says, it most certainly is not a Biblical teaching either.

God bless you paarsurrey. You seem to be a very nice person. But you need to get your information straight without undo speculations being added into the mix.*
 
Paarsurrey, before we go further, could you please provide a complete list of the Bible passages from the New Testament, including which Biblical passages were not tampered with and which Biblical passages were tampered with (based on the studies of respectable Muslim Biblical scholars).

I ask this because it appears to me that many Muslims quote the Bible when it agrees with their doctrine and misquote the Bible when it doesn’t agree with their doctrine. In short, it seems to me that they can speak from both sides of their mouth at leisure without having to commit to anything definitive regarding what the Bible actually claims about Jesus.

As such, before any assertions can be made, I would like a list of what is accepted and what is not accepted if possible. This way one cannot retract a statement if indeed one claims that a Biblical passage is not corrupted but then is later found to be corrupted because it does not fit in with Muslim theology.
I’m still wating for this paarsurrey. If you want to start a new thread to discuss this, then I will participate.

Thanks in advance.
 
Hi

I don’t see anything bad in my above passage quoted by you.
I again explain it. The situation in Judea during and after the event of crucifixion was very precarious. Jesus survived a cursed death on Cross by mercy of GodAllahYHWH by showing sing of Jonah to the adulterous Jews.

Jesus decided to go on exile towards India to spread his teaching to the lost ten tribes of the house of Israel settled there. His minitry was for the Jews only.

In his absence Paul wanted to start a new religion; which he did using name of Christ or Jesus by telling stories in his name , though Jesus had warned about it timely.

This is what I believe with reasons; you are welcome to differ with me with reasons.

Thanks

paarsurrey.blogspot.com/
Please visit my blog!!!
I am learning to run a blog.
No tribes were ever “lost”. Please.
 
Catholics often hear critics arguing that ‘the Catholic Church teaches things not found in the bible’, whereas Bible-alone groups reject these doctrines.

Actually as all Catholics know, most Catholic doctrine does in fact come from the Bible or are implied there-in.

There is however one particular doctrine the Church teaches that is not mentioned in the bible, not even loosely. But I am interested to hear if there are any ‘bible-alone folk’ here who do not agree with the Catholic teaching.
First of all, we’re not “BIble alone”. We believe that the Bible is the objective, authoritative source by which all doctrines and practices must be judged, not the “Bible alone”.

Second, yes, there are many Roman Catholic doctrines that disagree with the Bible, such as Purgatory, praying to the dead, worship of Mary, etc.
 
Second, yes, there are many Roman Catholic doctrines that disagree with the Bible, such as Purgatory, praying to the dead, worship of Mary, etc.
I don’t suppose you have ever troubled yourself to look into the biblical underpinnings of ANY of these teachings. Honestly, if you know the teachings, you would KNOW that they do not contradict Scripture.

Really – do you think the souls in heaven are “dead”?
 
I don’t suppose you have ever troubled yourself to look into the biblical underpinnings of ANY of these teachings. Honestly, if you know the teachings, you would KNOW that they do not contradict Scripture.
I’ve been studying the scriptures for years.

The Bible teaches that it is appointed unto man once to die, and then to face judgement, not to be able to pay off his sins in purgatory.

The Bible teaches that praying to the dead is strictly forbidden, not that we’re to pray to the dead.
Really – do you think the souls in heaven are “dead”?
They meet the definition of “dead” consistent with the Bible’s condemnation of praying for the dead. That’s good enough for me.

Perhaps your argument would carry a little more weight if you’d show me where in scripture you believe these things are found.
 
I’ve been studying the scriptures for years.

The Bible teaches that it is appointed unto man once to die, and then to face judgement, not to be able to pay off his sins in purgatory.

The Bible teaches that praying to the dead is strictly forbidden, not that we’re to pray to the dead.

They meet the definition of “dead” consistent with the Bible’s condemnation of praying for the dead. That’s good enough for me.

Perhaps your argument would carry a little more weight if you’d show me where in scripture you believe these things are found.
Survey the forums or start a new thread for each. You can also search the CA Library.

In my experience (as a former “Bible” Christian), Protestants who “study the Scriptures for years” do so with an eye that is blind to Catholic teaching because for 500 years they have been taught to read the Bible in opposition to the Church.
 
In my experience (as a former “Bible” Christian), Protestants who “study the Scriptures for years” do so with an eye that is blind to Catholic teaching because for 500 years they have been taught to read the Bible in opposition to the Church.
Well, there are two problems with this.

The first is that, before I was a Christian, I was very much infatuated with Roman Catholicism and very nearly became a Roman Catholic. I’m very familiar with what Roman Catholicism teaches and I think that my history shows that I do not have a “blind eye”.

The second is that the Roman Catholics, themselves, are unable to show where these things are taught. Are you then going to claim that Roman Catholics have a “blind eye”?
 
Well, there are two problems with this.

The first is that, before I was a Christian, I was very much infatuated with Roman Catholicism and very nearly became a Roman Catholic. I’m very familiar with what Roman Catholicism teaches and I think that my history shows that I do not have a “blind eye”.

The second is that the Roman Catholics, themselves, are unable to show where these things are taught. Are you then going to claim that Roman Catholics have a “blind eye”?
Individual “Roman Catholics” may not know the history of a teaching or be aware of its scriptural component. But it is there, and where a teaching may not be explicitly laid out in Sriipture, it is nonetheless implicit, or derives with inexorable logic from an explicit teaching.

It is difficiulte to dialogue about the Catholic teachings that are supposedly “not” in Scripture with people who fail to see the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, which is concretely spelled out in Our Lord’s very own words.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top