Catholic teachings and practices that I personally believe contradict the Bible

  • Thread starter Thread starter gazelam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
protestantinca said:
I don’t care about the original controversy, however this one can be easily refuted regardless of what Bart Ehrman says.

After the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls, this criticism of the Bible -as used by Christians Catholic and non Catholic alike- is harder to maintain, unless skeptics want us to believe that the scribes during the Middle Ages left the Old Testament intact and changed the New Testament as they pleased. It doesn’t make a lot of sense.
Click to expand...
What do you mean by this ?
 
gazelam said:
The Trinity - Regarding the Trinity, JND Kelly said “There is in them [the Apostolic Fathers], of course, no trinitarian doctrine and no awareness of a trinitarian problem”. (JND Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, revised edition, (New York: Harper, 1978), 95.)

Also, William J. Hill said “Thus the New Testament itself is far from any doctrine of the Trinity or of a triune God who is three co-equal Persons of One Nature”. William J. Hill, The Three-Personed God (Washington DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1982), 27.

Transubstantiation
I believe that references to partaking of the flesh and blood of Jesus are figurative and meant only for us to remember Jesus’ sacrifice and atonement.
Click to expand...
*Matthew 26:26ff

26While they were eating, Jesus took bread and blessed it. He broke the bread, gave it to his disciples, and said, “Take this, and eat it. This is my body.” 27Then he took a cup and spoke a prayer of thanksgiving. He gave it to them and said, "Drink from it, all of you. 28This is my blood, the blood of the promise. It is poured out for many people so that sins are forgiven. *

We can’t dismiss the word “is” before he tells us to do this in remembrance…
infant baptism - in the Bible baptism always follows belief. Infants are too young to believe.
Click to expand...
Acts 16:15-16
…14 A woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple fabrics, a worshiper of God, was listening; and the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul. 15 And when she and her household had been baptized, she urged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house and stay.” And she prevailed upon us.

Scripture clearly states that “she and her household had been baptized.” It does not say, "She and her household -except children and babies- had been baptized.
baptism by sprinkling - The very word comes from the Greek word meaning “to immerse”.
Click to expand...
Baptizo meant “to immerse” in classical Greek. What the Baptists and others don’t understand is that the New Testament was written in Koine, not classical Greek. By the time Koine was in use the meaning of the word had broadened to the point that the best manuscripts of Mark 7:4 use it to describe the Pharisees’ ritual washing of dining couches!

In Koine, the word simply means “wash.” Which means that the New Testament doesn’t specify immersion as opposed to pouring, sprinkling, or any other kind of washing -Robert Elart Waters

Those who contend that the word baptism comes from a Greek word to immerse fail to understand the Greek used as the common language at the time as Robert Elart Waters states was Koine Greek.

Hope this info helps!

God bless,

Rita
 
LivingWaters7 said:
Using the same logic, the LDS violates 1 Timothy 3:12, which states that deacons are to be the husbands of one wife. Since young boys 12 years old are ordained deacons in the LDS faith, they certainly are not husbands. Also, it is interesting to think about the implications of your interpretation during the days when plural marriage was in effect. Were polygamous bishops violating 1 Timothy 3:2 as well? I don’t find this argument logical at all coming from the LDS perspective.

This verse makes much more sense if we understand that if a bishop is married, he should be the husband of one wife. It does not necessitate it.
Click to expand...
LW7,
Were we on opposing sides of a debate regarding this particular point you obviously would have creamed me. Thanks for giving me something new to contemplate.
 
lax16 said:
Are you saying that a person must be immersed in order to be baptized?

What if people are living in areas where water is scarce and cannot be immersed?
What if a person is on their death bed and cannot physically be immersed or does not have the time before dying?

Would you deny someone baptism based on this technicality?
Click to expand...
Does not Catholic theology have something called “baptism of desire” or something like that where if you truly want baptism but are unable to be baptized for whatever reason it won’t be held against you in the hereafter? It seems to me that could apply to a case where there is no one to perform the baptism, or a case where there is a lack of water.
lax16 said:
How did Peter baptize thousands in Jerusalem? Archaeologists state that there was not enough water in that region for baptism by immersion.
Click to expand...
What about the Pool of Siloam? haaretz.com/news/true-size-of-pool-of-siloam-discovered-due-to-sewer-blockage-1.177374
 
Techno2000 said:
What do you mean by this ?
Click to expand...
What I mean is that a typical charge by the traditional enemies of Christianity (Catholic and non Catholic alike) is that the we don’t have the originals of the New Testament, only copies of copies of copies and that the copying process altered the meaning of the originals.

The Dead Sea scrolls - discovered in the 1940s- have been dated to several centuries BC and contain almost all the books of the Old Testament. Their content matches with extreme accuracy the content of the Old Testament as you would study it today.

So either the scribes who copied the entire bible during the middle ages decided to leave the Old Testament intact and alter the New Testament (unlikely) or the middle ages scribes did a pretty good damn job preserving the content of the entire Bible up until the printing press was invented, thus, the Bible as we have it today contains the true word of God.
 
Horton said:
Regarding infant baptism - This is obviously using only the LDS understanding of baptism, not the catholic (universal) understanding.

Once again a simple search would have been well used before making the claim the baptism means “to immerse”.
From Wikipida - The English word “baptism” is derived indirectly through Latin from the neuter Greek concept noun baptisma (Greek βάπτισμα, “washing-ism”),[d][26] which is a neologism in the New Testament derived from the masculine Greek noun baptismos (βαπτισμός), a term for ritual washing in Greek language texts of Hellenistic Judaism during the Second Temple period, such as the Septuagint.[27][28] Both of these nouns are nouns derived from the verb baptizo (βαπτίζω, “I wash” transitive verb) which is used in Jewish texts for ritual washing, and in the New Testament both for ritual washing and also for the apparently new rite of baptisma. The Greek verb bapto (βάπτω), “dip”, from which the verb baptizo is derived, is in turn hypothetically traced to a reconstructed Indo-European root *gʷabh-, “dip”.[29][30][31] The Greek words are used in a great variety of meanings
Click to expand...
CCC 1214 This sacrament is called Baptism, after the central rite by which it is carried out: to baptize (Greek baptizein) means to “plunge” or “immerse”; the “plunge” into the water symbolizes the catechumen’s burial into Christ’s death, from which he rises up by resurrection with him, as “a new creature.”

There’s no symbolic rising up from the grave with sprinkling.
 
gazelam said:
Does not Catholic theology have something called “baptism of desire” or something like that where if you truly want baptism but are unable to be baptized for whatever reason it won’t be held against you in the hereafter? It seems to me that could apply to a case where there is no one to perform the baptism, or a case where there is a lack of water.]
Click to expand...
So are you saying you agree that immersion is not necessary for baptism?
 
gazelam. You asked about . . . .

• Transubstantiation
• Unmarried bishops
• No prophets and apostles
• infant baptism
• baptism by sprinkling

Instead of now bringing up “Baptism of Desire” (here), I would suggest finishing the discussion on these multiple subjects (above).

Another reasonable alternative would be to begin a new thread on Baptism of Desire.

But with five subjects here already, it is going to be difficult to focus on the issues you have raised unless . . . we focus on the issues you have raised.

Glad to see you are thinking about this stuff though.

God bless.

Cathoholic
 
gazelam said:
CCC 1214 This sacrament is called Baptism, after the central rite by which it is carried out: to baptize (Greek baptizein) means to “plunge” or “immerse”; the “plunge” into the water symbolizes the catechumen’s burial into Christ’s death, from which he rises up by resurrection with him, as “a new creature.”

There’s no symbolic rising up from the grave with sprinkling.
Click to expand...
I hear this a lot from non-denominational or fundamental Christians. Where does this come from? Is this what is read in the Bible?

Did you see my post about the Greek words for Baptize?

God bless!

Rita
 
It just hit me; I love it when the light bulb goes off. 😃 It’s Holy Week!!! I was starting to wonder why I have seen more LDS posts lately telling Catholics just how wrong the Catholic Faith is. I guess this would be the time that Jesus would be attacked the most.
 
wmscott said:
It just hit me; I love it when the light bulb goes off. 😃 It’s Holy Week!!! I was starting to wonder why I have seen more LDS posts lately telling Catholics just how wrong the Catholic Faith is. I guess this would be the time that Jesus would be attacked the most.
Click to expand...
You’re a week early.

Holy week starts next week. Easter is on 4-5-15.

They’re just gearing up early…😃
 
wmscott said:
It just hit me; I love it when the light bulb goes off. 😃 It’s Holy Week!!! I was starting to wonder why I have seen more LDS posts lately telling Catholics just how wrong the Catholic Faith is. I guess this would be the time that Jesus would be attacked the most.
Click to expand...
I LOVE HOLY WEEK TOO!!! (even if you did jump the gun a bit).
But if it helps, this is PASSION WEEK !!!

Praise be Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.
 
Marie5890 said:
I LOVE HOLY WEEK TOO!!! (even if you did jump the gun a bit).
But if it helps, this is PASSION WEEK !!!

Praise be Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.
Click to expand...
True Marie, so it would make since the elevated criticisms of the Catholic faith starts now or even maybe at the start of Lent.

If I remember correctly you have certain knowledge of the LDS frame of mind and have been kind to have shared some of it in the past. Or am I mistaken?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top