Harsh Questions for Catholics and Christians

[AquinaSavio]

dsaint:

I suppose there was a time when Christendom had something of the same “fervour” or “spirit” that Islam has today, but it’s been gone for hundreds of years. Though it may not appear this way today, in Islam’s “dark ages” (which are, sadly, right now), Islam is the religion of the future. Look up the numbers alone; they speak for themselves. And as to why should you believe me… you shouldn’t. You should continue on your own path, as I’m sure you will. As the Prophet Muhammad said, “Let there be no compulsion in religion.”

Yes, Satan is using Islam to draw people away from God’s Church.

freedomm:

Unfortunately your understanding is not right. The term Son of God in Jesus’/Jewish terms, is figuratively and not literally. Otherwise “Ye are gods” means all Jews are literally gods and their status is more than Jesus because Jesus is The Father’s son and even if you think he is the only begotten one or unique…still he is not The Father (God). In your Trinity dogma, the Son is always the second person and The Father is not equal to The Son nor the Holy Spirit.

John 20:17 Jesus saith to her: Do not touch me, for I am not yet ascended to my Father. But go to my brethren, and say to them: I ascend to my Father and to your Father, to my God and your God.

Just because the Son is the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, it does not make Him unequal to the Father. The Father is God; Jesus is God; The Holy Spirit is God. This does not mean that there are three gods. They are Three Persons in One God.

 

[JoeyWarren]

(That is IF this post even escapes the Catholic censorship here ??)

You would not be censored here. But at other Christian Forums…well…there is a high degree of non-tolerance.

 

[JoeyWarren]

The title bothers me a little coming from an Ex-Catholic.

Are you saying Catholics are not Christian?

If not the Title should have been:

Harsh Questions for Catholics and other Christians.

or

Harsh Questions for Catholics and non-Catholics?

 

[dsaint]

“Joey Warren” : I think that some Catholics are Christians, yes, in the same sense that other (non-Catholic) Christians are. Which means they feel they have a true and deep “personal relationship” with “the risen Christ”. Others, particularly in the “Latin” cultures such as Italy (southern mainly) , Spain, Portugal, and Latin America, are more like thinly-veiled pagans really, in my opinion , mixing their own indigenous ancient traditions with Christianity. For one example (and my own father’s hometown in southern Italy still does this) the carrying, in procession, of statues of local “patrons” and/or “patronesses” on their particular “holy day”, the praying directly to “him” or “her”, to these statues, the indulging in (what theology calls) “hyperdulia”. And in Mexico City recently, so-called Roman Catholics have even been starting their own* quasi*-Catholic “sect” (though I think it’s been officially declared “off limits” by Rome, for what that’s worth; the people will continue to do it anyway) ; the sect of “La Santissima Muerte”, which is basically some macabre sort of syncretism of the old pagan Azteca death worship mixed with “hyperdulia” (there’s* that * fancy word again).

Therefore I don’t think all Catholics are truly Christian, no. To find something most closely resembling the original Gentile Christianity of Paul’s (or Saul’s) foundation in the ancient Hellenic world I believe you would have to honestly go and visit some of those older- than-the-hills rundown ramshackle little churches, lost in the middle of the Appalachian region somewhere probably, where the followers are “charismatic Pentecostal” true believers in “the risen Christ”. ( In some cases, some of these sectarians have a faith that is so strong that they’ll actually pick up and play with large venomous snakes, drink poison that could kill them, and burn themselves with hand held acetylene torches, to prove their devotion to Christ). Now, granted, the original followers of Paul’s Christianity were surely not handling snakes and drinking poison, but they were, I believe, definitely much more like these “charismatic” “tongue-talking” Christians than they were like Catholics. They most certainly wanted nothing to do with Rome, were not “led” by Rome or by any Imperialesque hierarchy of bishops, cardinals, etc etc. A major point of irritation for Roman Catholics in fact always seems to be when the harsh truth that there *is * no Biblical basis for the Roman papacy, much less for the worship of “the Virgin Mother”, the praying to deceased human beings who are now called “saints”, etc etc, to be found anywhere in the book.

Thus, if you want to experience something that is probably much closer to what original and true Christianity was like, you would have to abandon your gaudy cathedrals , full of statues and crucifixes, and visit the deep South. I have seen it with my own eyes, at a “Church of God With Signs Following” in Indiana and , even though I think their theology is absurd, it is admittedly something to see. And again it’s, more than likely, far more similar to the way I believe the original Gentile Christians would have worshiped, as opposed to what one sees in Sunday Mass in the local Roman Catholic church.

 

[Tmaque]

freedomm:

Unfortunately your understanding is not right. The term *Son of God * in Jesus’/Jewish terms, is figuratively and not literally. Otherwise "Ye are gods" means all Jews are literally gods and their status is more than Jesus because Jesus is The Father’s son and even if you think he is the only begotten one or unique…still he is not The Father (God). In your Trinity dogma, the Son is always the second person and The Father is not equal to The Son nor the Holy Spirit.

John 20:17 Jesus saith to her: Do not touch me, for I am not yet ascended to my Father. But go to my brethren, and say to them: I ascend to my Father and to your Father, to my God and your God.

Since you have lost the original sayings of Jesus in his native langauge, it is more difficult for you to understand the each translated term. The only option left is to go by the context and see similar examples in the Old Testament. No Jew in his right mind believe in God becoming a man. It is a blasphemy. It is against the Torah.

Exactly, that’s why they killed him. He made himself equal with God. The NT is full of references where Christ and others refer to his divinity. Either reject it fully or accept it fully.

 

[JimG]

Just a couple of general comments. If the OP decided that Jesus’ followers entirely misunderstood his mission, and that he was not the promised Messiah, let alone divine, then it seems to me that the most logical course would be to embrace Judaism, certainly a more ancient religion than Islam, as well as being the religion of Jesus and his earliest followers, and obviously monotheistic. Why would a religion founded some 700 years later have a better understanding of Jesus than the Judaism out of which he came?

Secondly, it is always dangerous, both for Christians and non-Christians, to try to answer for themselves the question, “What would Jesus do?” As a prerequisite to even asking the question, one should read through the gospels in their entirety, in a prayerful and meditative manner, with no preconceived agenda, to try to gain some grasp of who this person is. And having done that in some depth, read the earliest church fathers, to try to gain some understanding of who they thought he was, and why.

The first apostles and disciples were all Jews. Did they so misunderstand the man they had spent some years of their life following, that they immediately set off on an entirely wrong course?

 

[Tmaque]

dsaint,

The first place every Christian has to start is the resurrection. If it happened then Christianity is true, if it did not happen then Christianity is a fraud. Apparently you believe Christ did not resurrect. Please explain your reasoning for this non-belief specifically. That, really is the only discussion we should be having because if we can’t agree on that, there’s no point in talking about anything else.

 

[Maureen_Fiore]

Thus, if you want to experience something that is probably much closer to what original and true Christianity was like, you would have to abandon **your gaudy cathedrals ** , full of statues and crucifixes, and visit the deep South

Once again you keep insulting my faith. Some of your babble makes sense and maybe true. You sound like you left your Catholic faith and joined the Muslim faith. Good for you!!! I hope you grow closer to God. On the other hand, people of the Catholic faith hold traditions that go back to 2000 years that is a long time. Our faith is true and I am happy that my parents made the right choice when I was a baby.

 

[dsaint]

To the poster who asked why not convert to Judaism since that was Jesus’s religion : I have always been of the opinion, which I believe only some of the Orthodox Jews today hold, that “Jews are born , not made.” Therefore, being of paternally Italian and maternally Romanian descent, no one in either of my lines ever having had any Jewish “blood” (that I know of ) , I just feel it would be somehow dishonest or just… not quite right let’s say… for me to try to “become” a Jew. Islam , on the other hand, is and was designed to be an all-inclusive religion , with no boundaries or exclusions based upon ethnicity, race, former creed, what-have-you. There is even no “catechism” for Islam. One simply has to feel it in his / her heart. And all are welcome. As I said before, anyone who felt / feels ready, could become a Muslim instantly tonight, and start anew with a soul like a newborn (per Muslim beliefs at least). It’s called “reversion” rather than “conversion” because we believe that all people , all things in nature even, are inherently “Muslim” from their start, whether they realize it or not, in so far as they are all subject to God’s Will.

That having been said, I have the highest respect for the Judaic faith and traditions, and hold them in great esteem as the oldest and purest, most steadfast monotheists of all time, just as the Prophet (pbuh) did in his own day. He was “disappointed” when the Jews “rejected” his revelations and decided to stick with their own far more ancient faith, but I do not believe that he ever stopped admiring and learning from them. I envy born Jews their Jewishness, in truth. The monstrous bastardization of Islam which has occurred recently, the phenomena of terrorism and anti-Jewish or anti-Israel propaganda , is most unfortunate to say the least. It is all, in my view, geo-political terrorism, merely using the cloak of Islam to give it this “appeal” to the religious masses which are its “target audience(s)”.

Here are just a few links demonstrating what I think are the clearly not very truly “Christian” (to say nothing of not very Monotheistic) “manifestations” of Roman Catholicism :

ojinaga.com/store/curanderos/flaca.html

lies.com/wp/2005/05/12/virgin-mary-appears-in-chicago-water-stain/

web.tiscali.it/kalatrooms/caltagirone2.htm (note in particular the image on the bottom right hand side of the page of the “procesione”)

portcult.com/09.RELIG2_RURAL.htm (read this page in detail ; is THIS true Monotheism?? True Christianity even??)

istc.org/sisp/index.htm?fx=event.search&loc_id=131061&cat_id=170 ( I am most personally familiar, due to my father’s hometown’s proximity to here, with the “Feast of the Snake Catchers” in Cocullo, which you’ll see as you scroll down the page)

Again, true monotheism, as Jesus himself would have believed?? As any of his original followers would have believed?? And, yes, the question can again legitimately be posed, as it often is by non-Catholic Christians, true Christianity even??

 

[dsaint]

Apparently you believe Christ did not resurrect. Please explain your reasoning for this non-belief specifically. That, really is the only discussion we should be having because if we can’t agree on that, there’s no point in talking about anything else.

TMaque: We can’t agree on that. I will never believe that any man literally resurrected from the dead after three days, much less that he was literally “born of a Virgin”. Therefore, yes , I suppose any “discussion” is essentially stillborn , so to speak, when you put it in those terms. Explain my reasoning for that belief , or rather non-belief, specifically ? Common sense. Rationality. I believe the man was an inspired man, as I said, a prophet , a charismatic healer and preacher most likely in the Pharisaical Judaic tradition of his time. But… a man. A holy man, yes. Thus my calling of him, as Professor Gaza Vermes did, a *hasid * . But no man dies upon a sadistic crude instrument of torture such as the Roman cross, and then resurrects (literally) from the dead after three days. It’s simply biologically impossible, as are “immaculate conceptions” and “virgin births” , and human “incarnations” of God. A Jewish teacher that I had, I believe he was Orthodox, when I was in school, explained this interesting fact to me as well : much of the whole “thing” , so to speak, is , or was, based upon a great (and grave) historical mistranslation or misunderstanding of words. Isaiah 7:14 (Jerusalem Bible). Although it would … stretch the modern imagination… to think that Isaiah, who lived some 750 yrs prior to Jesus, had actually been thinking of Mary and her son when he made his prophecy to King Ahaz, even if he had, by some extraordinary kind of “esp” divined this, he did NOT denote that the “young woman” in question would be a virgin. The word “almah”, this teacher told me, means simply “maiden”, or “young woman”, and nothing more. “…a young woman will conceive and bear a son…” And yet still today we hear this portion of Isaiah being quoted by Christians as “proof” that Jesus was “born of a virgin” in “fulfillment of the Scriptures”.

 

[JoeyWarren]

dsaint:

Thus, if you want to experience something that is probably much closer to what original and true Christianity was like, you would have to abandon your gaudy cathedrals , full of statues and crucifixes, and visit the deep South…

I was born and raised in the Deep South, Alabama to be more precise, and I grew up Pentecostal. And my brother is a Church of God Bishop.

Gaudy Cathedrals? The gaudiness comes from the donations of individuals, not the coffers of the church. Is not the place where God dwells deserving of the best? Was not the Tabernacles adorn with such riches…The Ark of the Covenant was very, very, very Gaudy as you so put it.

dsaint:

I have seen it with my own eyes,  at a "Church of God With Signs Following"  in Indiana and , even though I think their theology is *absurd*,  it is admittedly something to see.    And again it's, more than likely, far more similar to the way I believe the original Gentile Christians would have worshiped.

The early Gentile Christians were worshiping God and Christ via taking his body and blood via the bread and wine.

dsaint:

as opposed to what one sees in Sunday Mass in the local Roman Catholic church.

Then you have not read the writings of the early christian fathers?

 

[Catholic_miles]

you aren’t one of those sabbatarians YHWHist cult members, are you? to me that’s what you’re vaunting of Jewish tradition and the Torah is all about. but Jesus founded a new covenant, in which the old passed away and a new more revealed and perfect worship is made. blessings, lawrence

 

[JoeyWarren]

dsaint:

Isaiah 7:14 (Jerusalem Bible). Although it would … stretch the modern imagination… to think that Isaiah, who lived some 750 yrs prior to Jesus, had actually been thinking of Mary and her son when he made his prophecy to King Ahaz, even if he had, by some extraordinary kind of “esp” divined this, he did NOT denote that the “young woman” in question would be a virgin. The word “almah”, this teacher told me, means simply “maiden”, or “young woman”, and nothing more. “…a young woman will conceive and bear a son…” And yet still today we hear this portion of Isaiah being quoted by Christians as “proof” that Jesus was “born of a virgin” in “fulfillment of the Scriptures”.

H5959
עלמה
‛almâh
al-maw’
Feminine of H5958; a lass (as veiled or private): - damsel, maid, virgin.

 

[JimG]

dsaint:

But no man dies upon a sadistic crude instrument of torture such as the Roman cross, and then resurrects (literally) from the dead after three days. It’s simply biologically impossible,

Precisely. The apostles were no dummies either. It’s only because this impossibility occurred, that Christianity was able to begin and to spread. Otherwise it would have been stillborn.

 

[dsaint]

Lawrence: no I’m definitely not “one of those sabbatarian YHWH’ists”.

Jesus founded a new covenant, in which the old passed away and a new more revealed and perfect worship is made

The above is pure Christian propaganda. An answer made from faith, not from reason. Furthermore it has an inherent undercurrent in it of anti-Jewishness, because it somehow suggests, however subtly, much like the parable of the “wineskins” does, that Judaism is the now “phased-out” “old religion” which is no longer relevant. Jesus said, since you want to take things said in the Gospels as “gospel truth”, no pun intended, that he did not come to change or destroy the Law (Mosaic Law). He probably wore “fringes” on his garments, the *tzitzit * , and layed the *tefillin * , and observed all basic elements of the Law. That he may have disagreed with his fellow Pharisees from time-to-time on how rigidly the Law must be kept ( ex. , “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath”, or “It is not what goes into a man that defiles, but what comes out”) does certainly NOT tell us that he wished for the Law to be effectively overturned, and a new religion founded for Gentiles (with whom he, as a devout Jew of his time, would most probably have done his best to avoid mixing) to worship HIM. I would say the closest we can see today of what Jesus the historical man was actually like would be to take a good hard look at the socalled “ultraOrthodox” Jews. There is a fine Israeli film called “Kadosh” , available for rent on DVD at your local video store I’m sure, which centers on the lives of these Jews, in the Mea Sharim quarter of Jerusalem, living in or near Jesus’s homeland, and probably living and believing and practicing not very much UNlike the way he himself would have done. I would say that the real historical Jesus would find himself “right at home” so to speak amongst these folks, as opposed to , say, some pickup truck-driving pork chop-eating, American Southerner, who has a “Jesus Saves” sticker right next to his American flag… ironically.

 

[JoeyWarren]

Originally Posted by dsaint
But no man dies upon a sadistic crude instrument of torture such as the Roman cross, and then resurrects (literally) from the dead after three days. It’s simply biologically impossible,

If God can take a clump of Clay and breathe into it and give it life, then resurrecting a dead body is child’s play in comparison. Unless of course you don’t believe God created Adam from a hunk of Clay?

 

[dsaint]

“JoeyWarren” : No I probably don’t honestly believe that, no. That God created Adam from a “hunk of clay”. I would say it’s all metaphorical. I tend to lean more toward what’s today being called the “intelligent design” school of thought. I realize that’s not Muslim orthodoxy, but then I never claimed to be an “orthodox” Muslim. I believe , as I said, that the overarching and basic bedrock tenets of the Faith are sound, particularly its monotheism, but do not agree 100% with all of the dogma, no.

 

[Maureen_Fiore]

Quote:
Originally Posted by dsaint
But no man dies upon a sadistic crude instrument of torture such as the Roman cross, and then resurrects (literally) from the dead after three days. It’s simply biologically impossible,

You can if your father is God. Remember with God anything is possible.

 

[dentremont]

If being CATHOLIC is a burden to you ;just think how many blessings you get to believe &act on your beliefs.

 

[mikew262]

dsaint:

Apparently you believe Christ did not resurrect. Please explain your reasoning for this non-belief specifically. That, really is the only discussion we should be having because if we can’t agree on that, there’s no point in talking about anything else.

TMaque: We can’t agree on that. I will never believe that any man literally resurrected from the dead after three days, much less that he was literally “born of a Virgin”. Therefore, yes , I suppose any “discussion” is essentially stillborn , so to speak, when you put it in those terms. Explain my reasoning for that belief , or rather non-belief, specifically ? Common sense. Rationality. I believe the man was an inspired man, as I said, a prophet , a charismatic healer and preacher most likely in the Pharisaical Judaic tradition of his time. But… a man. A holy man, yes. Thus my calling of him, as Professor Gaza Vermes did, a *hasid * . But no man dies upon a sadistic crude instrument of torture such as the Roman cross, and then resurrects (literally) from the dead after three days. It’s simply biologically impossible, as are “immaculate conceptions” and “virgin births” , and human “incarnations” of God. A Jewish teacher that I had, I believe he was Orthodox, when I was in school, explained this interesting fact to me as well : much of the whole “thing” , so to speak, is , or was, based upon a great (and grave) historical mistranslation or misunderstanding of words. Isaiah 7:14 (Jerusalem Bible). Although it would … stretch the modern imagination… to think that Isaiah, who lived some 750 yrs prior to Jesus, had actually been thinking of Mary and her son when he made his prophecy to King Ahaz, even if he had, by some extraordinary kind of “esp” divined this, he did NOT denote that the “young woman” in question would be a virgin. The word “almah”, this teacher told me, means simply “maiden”, or “young woman”, and nothing more. “…a young woman will conceive and bear a son…” And yet still today we hear this portion of Isaiah being quoted by Christians as “proof” that Jesus was “born of a virgin” in “fulfillment of the Scriptures”.

I think you have a real problem with the concept of “faith”. A wise person told me one time that faith is believing when maybe common sense tells you not too. It sounds like you are a 3-dimensional, 5-sense thinker. If you can’t experience something with your 5 senses, or it doesn’t fit into your 3-dimensional world, then it isn’t possible in your mind. Atheists have a similiar mindset. With God, all things are possible, including Jesus rising from the dead, and Mary producing a virgin birth.

Learn to think “outside the box”, and re-embrace your Christian faith.