If you are a Christian, what is the real reason for you not being a Catholic? - 3

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jimmy_B
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Your personal assertions are less than uninspiring. Prove it Leeann… 😉

James
I know this may come as quite a shock to you James…but a lot of *your *personal assertions are less than uninspiring also :eek:
It’s okay James…breath deeply…it must be totally incomprehensible for you to even consider such a thought…but just let it sink in slowly.

Whaattt??? Prove it???

Hahahahahahaha…what good would that honestly do James…you have all your history, that HAS to be true and authentic, (or the bottom falls out doesn’t it?) and it’s been memorized, and repeated and stated over and over and over that just by saying “it’s true” - “means it’s true” - after awhile - no matter what anyone presents otherwise is even considered…

It’s sad and kind of embarrassing (I would think for you and some of the other “catholic” responders) to be complaining and moaning about the bitterness and thorns from the “protestant” posters…especially when the nature of this thread and in it’s initial post asked for the “truth” - which is what they’ve been posting of “why they are not Catholics”.

You asked, you’ve been told - you may not like the answers or agree with them - but then you get all defensive and huffy and indignant with some even suggesting that they know the “real” reason why everyone’s not a Catholic,so now they’re going to “tell US” - (surprise! surprise!) - the “real answer”.

Now…with regards to the bible being given to us by the catholic church…I’ll state it again…" their version" was given.

I’ll leave it to YOU to prove otherwise.

It’s become apparent to me, that I can’t spend near the amount of time as you do in here, therefore I’m either late in responding or short of actual time when I do respond, but I will be popping in when I am able and will continue to offer my insights, opinions and “personal assertions” whenever I feel like it.

😉 👍 😉 👍 😉 👍
 
My response to the title of this topic is whatever religion we have let us always remember that there is Alpha Omega.
 
My response to the title of this topic is whatever religion we have let us always remember that there is Alpha Omega.
True. I heard one quote from somebody that said: “Religion is simply an opinion or methodology on how to worship God”.

God was there at the beginning and will be there at the end, no matter what religion is used to worship him.

If I understood your point correctly, it was a sound one. If not, oh well. 😃
 
I know this may come as quite a shock to you James…but a lot of *your *personal assertions are less than uninspiring also :eek:
It’s okay James…breath deeply…it must be totally incomprehensible for you to even consider such a thought…but just let it sink in slowly.

Whaattt??? Prove it???

Hahahahahahaha…what good would that honestly do James…you have all your history, that HAS to be true and authentic, (or the bottom falls out doesn’t it?) and it’s been memorized, and repeated and stated over and over and over that just by saying “it’s true” - “means it’s true” - after awhile - no matter what anyone presents otherwise is even considered…

It’s sad and kind of embarrassing (I would think for you and some of the other “catholic” responders) to be complaining and moaning about the bitterness and thorns from the “protestant” posters…especially when the nature of this thread and in it’s initial post asked for the “truth” - which is what they’ve been posting of “why they are not Catholics”.

You asked, you’ve been told - you may not like the answers or agree with them - but then you get all defensive and huffy and indignant with some even suggesting that they know the “real” reason why everyone’s not a Catholic,so now they’re going to “tell US” - (surprise! surprise!) - the “real answer”.

Now…with regards to the bible being given to us by the catholic church…I’ll state it again…" their version" was given.

I’ll leave it to YOU to prove otherwise.

It’s become apparent to me, that I can’t spend near the amount of time as you do in here, therefore I’m either late in responding or short of actual time when I do respond, but I will be popping in when I am able and will continue to offer my insights, opinions and “personal assertions” whenever I feel like it.

😉 👍 😉 👍 😉 👍
Having another one of those emotional days Leann? I asked you a simple question and you spent in excess of 1,880 characters of typing to tell us you are not going to answer my question. Why is that? I can see why you are complaining that you have no time. You have a time management problem and can’t seem to focus productively on constructive objectives.

So I think you have lost the proverbial “bubble” here. Recollect that I was originally in dialog with Aboabo not you. In fact I was trying to understand HIS (not your) inconsistent rationale for rejecting anything that was not in “the bible” while himself was a member of a church denomination that is not referenced in the bible nor has any linkage to the apostolic church. But then for whatever reason you saw fit to jump in and speak in his behalf. You made a ridiculous assertion (for him) that the Catholic Church delivered a bible that was proven to have uninspired books in it. So, you entered into this discussion out of left-field to answer someone else’s question with an assertion that I have never heard anyone make before. Rather than call your rude intrusion “rude” I attempted to be inclusive. So I allowed the imposition and politely asked you to simply show me the so-called “proof” that Catholics have a bible that is proven to be an uninspired bible.

So then you turn that simple question into a personal litany of anti-Catholic fuming, rhetoric and polemics. :rolleyes:

If you are going to answer for other people - please represent them more competently, more charitably. But if you can’t or won’t answer the mail when somone calls you on it then kindly let other’s speak for themselves rather than use every new exchange of ideas and comments as an opportunity to spew contempt for all things Catholic.

Most of us already know from other threads that that you can’t engage Catholics objectively and non-emotionally. We don’t need you to convince us any further of that. So if you don’t have the time to devote to intellectually honest dialog then why waste your time at all; and why waste ours or even take the time to speak for others with assertions you won’t substantiate? Non-value added dialog is not helping to advance yourself, me, or anyone else.

Some of us Catholics are actually trying to make some positive progress in helping non-catholics work through at least the parts of their belief formation that don’t reconcile with logic and rational thought. Adding a layer of fluff, polemics and emotion on top of these discussion might make you feel good but it really does not serve the greater good.

James
 
I am Christian and I am deeply enriched by attending my church. I explore other Christian faiths to gain more understanding. From what I have seen Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy appear to be the purest forms of Christianity. Though I see pros and cons in each. I will stay where I am for now, worshiping and serving Jesus.
 
I am Christian and I am deeply enriched by attending my church. I explore other Christian faiths to gain more understanding. From what I have seen Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy appear to be the purest forms of Christianity. Though I see pros and cons in each. I will stay where I am for now, worshiping and serving Jesus.
Good! you are a true beliver.
 
Although I am a Catholic from birth till death. If I was a Christian or whatever religion I belong to I will stay on one religion to prove to GOD that I have faith. Not unless I was on the dark side then I will switch to Catholic or Christianity.
 
If Lucifer/Satan turn against GOD, Let us prove that we are turning against Lucifer/Satan
 
**Originally Posted by CentralFLJames

Your personal assertions are less than uninspiring. Prove it Leeann…

James**
Having another one of those emotional days Leann? I asked you a simple question
( James…you’re not “focussing” - or telling the truth exactly are you…you didn’t “ask me a simple question” - you started your post with a disparaging comment and then commanded me to do something!) and you spent in excess of 1,880 characters of typing to tell us you are not going to answer my question. Why is that? I can see why you are complaining that you have no time. You have a time management problem and can’t seem to focus productively on constructive objectives. (or it could be that I’m being productive in other areas of “life”…you do have one don’t you…and that’s a bit presumptious on your part, thinking that what you contribute here is considered by all to be something productive )
So I think you have lost the proverbial “bubble” here. Recollect that I was originally in dialog with Aboabo not you. In fact I was trying to understand HIS (not your) inconsistent rationale for rejecting anything that was not in “the bible” while himself was a member of a church denomination that is not referenced in the bible nor has any linkage to the apostolic church. But then for whatever reason you saw fit to jump in and speak in his behalf.
( I didn’t speak on his behalf - I made a statement of my own)

You made a ridiculous assertion (for him) ( focus James, focus…it was a statement for “me” ). that the Catholic Church delivered a bible that was proven to have uninspired books in it. So, you entered into this discussion out of left-field (caught you by surprise did I??) to answer someone else’s question with an assertion that I have never heard anyone make before. (well…I find that rather hard to believe…)Rather than call your rude intrusion “rude” I attempted to be inclusive. So I allowed the imposition and politely (hahahaha…if we could only see ourselves as others see us…eh James…) **asked you **to simply show me the so-called “proof” that Catholics have a bible that is proven to be an uninspired bible.

So then you turn that simple question into a personal litany of anti-Catholic fuming, rhetoric and polemics. :rolleyes:
( or as some might see it…the truth…as evident from prior postings of : 243 fb19,244 Matariel,245 distracted,246 Celticcrusader - or are there 2 sets of rules here - it’s okay for “some” but not for “others” (it’s really not okay for ANY - but it happens…doesn’t it…is that not the truth.And it’s not just my opinion…check out 206 - AlexiaMusing’s post - not “anti-catholic”, just the truth )

If you are going to answer for other people - (something I have not done - but keep stating it, repeating it and re-stating…eventually you’ll really believe it…isn’t that how it works???) please represent them more competently, more charitably. (yes…I’ll follow your example…)But if you can’t or won’t answer the mail when somone calls you on it then kindly let other’s speak for themselves rather than use every new exchange of ideas and comments as an opportunity to spew contempt for all things Catholic. (Wow…isn’t that a bit “emotional” James…and of course someone from a Catholic position has never “spewed contempt” for any other faith in here…have they??? See above post.)

**Most of us already know from other threads that that you can’t engage Catholics objectively and non-emotionally. **
( reeallly…and is this to believed by all “just because you’ve stated it” James…what’s the phrase I see bandied about “bearing false witness”…yes, that springs to mind )

We don’t need you to convince us any further of that. (Now let me get this clear James…are you “speaking for others”…??? )

So if you don’t have the time to devote to intellectually honest dialog then why waste your time at all; and why waste ours or even take the **time to speak for others ** (sorry…still not convinced…but keep saying it ) with assertions you won’t substantiate?
Non-value added dialog is not helping to advance yourself, me, or anyone else. (you know I actually kind of agree with you there…“non-value dialogue” …but then of course that’s just *your *opinion - I mean on what’s of “value” isn’t it…)
Some of us Catholics are actually trying to make some positive progress in helping non-catholics work through at least the parts of their belief formation that don’t reconcile with logic and rational thought. (Did it ever occur to you that the reason “their belief formation” doesn’t reconcile with the catholic belief formation is because what you consider to be “logic and rational thought” just simply isn’t…) COLOR]

Adding a layer of fluff, polemics and emotion on top of these discussion might make you feel good but it really does not serve the greater good. (polemics never did anyone any harm…everyone’s doing that here, as for “fluff”…a bit of fluff here, a bit of fluff there…hey, some might say that about a lot of the so-called rituals, smoke and mirrors of the “tradition” that is held as being absolute truth of the catholic church…emotion…well, we all get little emotional at times James…don’t we?)

Here’s a thought…I never realized how "emotional"someone would get over MY (not anyone’s elses) comment - what was it? - one line, two at the most…and yet it unravelled such a lengthy rebuttal!
 
<cutting and pruning to the chase, or as they used to say in a different era Cutting to Hecuba>

You threw a comment out about the bible being given to everyone by the RCChurch…I stated that it gave them “their” version, which contains uninspired books. You said “Prove it…”…I said disprove it. You’re the one that made the original claim…you can back it up can’t you…or is it true just because you’ve “stated it” again James.
I have pruned away the personally directed comments and irrelevant polemics to see if we can salvage anything here that even remotely relates to the OP.

Leeann, you can apparently accept the historical fact that it was The Catholic Church that assembled and published its 73 book cannon (now called The Bible) that was officially recognized by the entire Christian world as 100% inspired for arpoximately 1135 years (ever since Pope Damasus proclaimed cannon in 382 AD up till the time Protestants removed books that did not support their new doctrinal interpretation in 1517 AD). Yet you claim that the Catholic Church dropped from 100% infallable to only 90.41% infallable in discerning inspired scripture when Protestants took it upon themselves to depricate The Bible to only 66 books, about a tithe, that supported their new interpretation?

I am simply asking you for a reference that accounts for the change in score. I can give you historical evidence that proves there was only one single Catholic Bible in 382 AD.

Please note that I do not accept as valid proof that the European Kings such as King James and their royal publishers had the self appointed authority to ascertain which books to tear out of the bible to reduce printing costs. Give me real honest and sound theological justification for judging that the Catholic Church is only about 90% accurate and also admit that Protestants essentially created a whole new religion in the 1500s.

James
 
I have pruned away the personally directed comments and irrelevant polemics to see if we can salvage anything here that even remotely relates to the OP
(I’ve done the same James…such a waste of energy and time, when someone starts the ball rolling in that direction…wouldn’t you agree? )

Leeann, you can apparently accept the historical fact that it was The Catholic Church that assembled and published its 73 book cannon (now called The Bible) that was officially recognized by the entire Christian world as 100% inspired (…I think you’ll accept the historical fact that not everyone recognized the Deuterocanonical books as being 100% inspired…) for arpoximately 1135 years (ever since Pope Damasus proclaimed cannon in 382 AD up till the time Protestants removed books that did not support their new doctrinal interpretation in 1517 AD). Yet you claim that the Catholic Church dropped from 100% infallable to only 90.41% infallable in discerning inspired scripture ( I’ve never claimed that the Catholic Church was ever infallable…quite the opposite…I believe them to be extremely “fallable”…hence the addition of the uninspired books, even back in 382AD) when Protestants took it upon themselves to depricate The Bible to only 66 books, about a tithe, that supported their new interpretation?
(Trent), unless of course the Catholic Church needed these uninspired books to bolster up a lot of the false teachings that it had been gathering along the way)
I am simply asking you for a reference that accounts for the change in score. I can give you historical evidence that proves there was only one single Catholic Bible in 382 AD.

Please note that I do not accept as valid proof that the European Kings such as King James and their royal publishers had the self appointed authority to ascertain which books to tear out of the bible to reduce printing costs.

Give me real honest and sound theological justification for judging that the Catholic Church is only about 90% accurate ( I can’t do that … I don’t believe the Catholic Church to be 90% accurate in anything…I believe it’s completely off the mark…the addition of uninspired books to the bible and those that teach and believe they are inspired contaminates it …thank God for **His **authority and those who recognize what is truly inspired, by the leading of the Holy Spirit ) and also admit that Protestants essentially created a whole new religion in the 1500s.
(…or by the Grace of God…were allowed to finally see His truth, speak out about it and were thrown out by a religion that had gotten derailed along the way…)

You say you can give historical evidence that proves there was only one single “Catholic Bible” in 382AD…please do then, however, please note that *I *do not accept as "valid proof " that the “Catholic Church” in 382 AD had any more reason to claim “sole authority” back then as they do now.
God’s Word was already established and written in full and understood and accepted by the Christians prior to 382 AD…meaning the Old Testament books and the teachings and letters actually in circulation from the apostles. The lack of exemplification of the Deuterocanonical books by Christ and the apostles while teaching and establishing the “church” or body of believers is an indication in itself that they held little value, if any at all.
The “bible” didn’t need anything added to it way back then or “more officially” at some later date…Council of Trent.
Is this a bit better James?
Seriously…I’m not trying to be flippant…I’ve never claimed to be a great theologian and it must be frustrating to someone who believes they have superior skills in this area to have to deal with someone less privileged…but at least it’s a start?

God Bless
 
CentralFLJames;4095333:
I have pruned away the personally directed comments and irrelevant polemics to see if we can salvage anything here that even remotely relates to the OP
(I’ve done the same James…such a waste of energy and time, when someone starts the ball rolling in that direction…wouldn’t you agree? )
Leeann, you can apparently accept the historical fact that it was The Catholic Church that assembled and published its 73 book cannon (now called The Bible) that was officially recognized by the entire Christian world as 100% inspired (…I think you’ll accept the historical fact

I just don’t believe that Jesus started 40 000 Christian Churches, all with different beliefs etc.

I don’t think Catholics are superior by any means… There has got to be one Church - One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic.

Anyway, we have free will and we can decide for ourselves!

Cheers
🤷
 
(…I think you’ll accept the historical fact that not everyone recognized the Deuterocanonical books as being 100% inspired…)
I certainly admit pagan Romans as well as the Jews who judged Jesus worthy of death and persecuted Jesus and early Catholic/Christians for destroying the Jewish temple religion and culture had every reason to not want to accept anything Catholics did refused to recognize the Greek language scripture that the apostles and Jesus referenced. And it is likely that the Gnostics, and the Arians and some of the other early heretics did not accept the Catholic version of inspired word either - how much so the proper teaching? I also suspect that some of Jesus’ early disciples, those ones who refused to follow Him after hearing His discourse (in what has become John 6:66) about eating His Body and drinking His Blood would not have supported the Catholic take on the bible or its teachings and would have preferred to invent their own new religious view with a different version of Christ if they did not revert back to following the Jewish faith that they originally wanted to depart. Are you referring to or identifying with any of these early non-Christian or heretical groups Leeann? 😉

Given that the apostolic Catholic Church (including Orthodox) is the predominant Christian faith (on a shear size basis) and is the only Christian faith with a continuous 2000 year old living and breathing profession of faith with 10’s of millions of Catholic martyrs and 15 martyred early popes I’d say none of these detractors are historically relevant. Do you disagree? Are you suggesting that there was a secret “underground” Christian sect that elected to remain “in the closet” in the catacombs after Constantine recognized and tolerated Christians and the Catholic Church in the Edict of Milan in 313?
( I’ve never claimed that the Catholic Church was ever infallible…quite the opposite…I believe them to be extremely “fallable”…hence the addition of the uninspired books, even back in 382AD)
Well as you have said many times Leeann - just because one believes something that is false to be true or a thing that is true to be false does not change reality - no matter how much somone wants to believe something. Reality is not a function of belief anymore so than having faith in false beliefs going to change reality.

Protestants by accepting the King Jimmy bible (KJV) as inspired have no way of escaping the fact that 100% of what is in that book and considered by Protestants to be inspired was 100% TAKEN from Catholic Cannon (less the deuterocanonicals and superfluous embellishments of Luther’s free-handed editing). Even some of the spurious embellishments in excess of what are in the Catholic Cannon were TAKEN from Catholic non-scriptural sources. For example Protestants “took” Catholic Liturgy and Catholic traditions found in the Didache and tacked them on as a doxology to Matthew 6:9’s The Lord’s prayer (ref: scriptural Doxology - "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever and ever. Amen "). 😉 Can you at least admit that none of the doxology to the Lord’s Prayer is in original scripture manuscripts? As they say, the best way to compliment an Author is to read his works then plagiarize them as if they were one’s own works. 😉 That pretty much tells us that Protestants clearly thought Catholics were the only recognized Christians through the period.
(Trent), unless of course the Catholic Church needed these uninspired books to bolster up a lot of the false teachings that it had been gathering along the way)
So are you asserting that Catholics from the very start of Christianity in the very first apostolic Church were using false teachings and the apostles, in particular St. Peter, all broke from Christ to teach a false religion? Interesting theory, do you have any evidence of this? Can you be specific about what false teachings you are talking about? And while you are at it can you please enlighten me how you know they were false teachings without personally knowing a single apostolic successor like Catholics do?
( I can’t do that … I don’t believe the Catholic Church to be 90% accurate in anything…I believe it’s completely off the mark…the addition of uninspired books to the bible and those that teach and believe they are inspired contaminates it …thank God for **His **authority and those who recognize what is truly inspired, by the leading of the Holy Spirit )
Well, maybe you can do it Leeann if you are not so eager to curtsy to hyperbole. After all, Protestants saw fit to keep 90% of what Catholics hold as inspired scripture. On a scriptural basis that is hardly even in the neighborhood of “completely off the mark” even for the most strident and teutonic judge. But let’s try to be objective and assume your theory is correct and see if we can bracket the range of alleged teaching error to something more realistic shall we? Since Protestants accept nearly all of the Catholic cannon as inspired (90%) that should form the upper range of confidence. At the lower end let’s assume that we Catholics don’t have it 100% wrong since that 90% figure is quite compelling afterall. Let’s go to the core theological differences and assume you are correct and we Catholics might have somethings wrong. Let’s look at the sacraments. Let’s assume that there are only 2 valid Christian sacraments instead of the 7 that Catholics have (Baptism and Marriage [BTW as an aside, note the interesting similarity here of Protestants 2 sacraments to the 2 horned creature that “appears” as a lamb in Revelations 5:6 vs. the true 7 horned/eyed lamb in revelations 5:6 😉 - see any similarity to the currently competing Christian “lambs” ? ]). This sacramental metric, if Protestants have it right should set a lower limit of 28% of proper teaching correctness on a sacramental assumption (2 out of 7) basis that Protestants “got it right” and Catholics are wrong.

So there we have a reasonable rough confidence interval for your theory that Catholics are off the mark by an order of magnitude that is somewhere between 28% - 90% correctness. Let’s further assume that this max-min interval is a worst case and the central limit theorem applies that centers statistics about the mean or standard deviation. That seems fair and reminiscent of “the benefit of the reasonable doubt” system that our American courts developed to get away from the tyranny of European Kings (who ironically were the heads of the Protestant Church after the popes were usurped). Don’t you agree that it’s just proper and descent to give the benefit of the doubt before indicting a possibly innocent person for crimes (having it all wrong) with nothing but circumstantial evidence and hearsay to go on? If you accept my reasoning that would mean that Catholics are in the middle range or “probably” in error about 60% of the time if your original theory is correct and we could all see things through your eyes (but with more objective corrective lenses 😉 ).

So, there you go - that’s a LOT better than Catholics being completely wrong (100%) if we accept that Protestants might be right and Catholics could be wrong (which remains an unproven conjecture). So then, a 60% average confidence level is still significantly better than a flip of the coin at the 50% mark - and this is still much better than “completely off the mark”. So maybe the modern post Protestant Reformation Churches (which BTW NONE of the reformers would even recognize today as teaching the same faiths they had) are not so far removed from their Catholic brothers and there is still hope if you right about Catholics being in error.

But that is the rub Leann - there is absolutely no compelling evidence that Protestants are correct since there is NO uniformity of faith or belief within the large legion of Protestant divisions other than their common denial of Catholic teaching and authority. That has none of the classic markers for truth but all of the earmarks of rebellion - there is not even a false shangrila sort of harmony between Protestants.
(…or by the Grace of God…were allowed to finally see His truth, speak out about it and were thrown out by a religion that had gotten derailed along the way…)
The evidence does not suggest that this speculation has any merit. If the King Jimmy bible (KJV) is the objective standard then why are there so many different Protestant beliefs and teachings if the standard self-teaching bible is the rule of faith? Anyone can clearly see that the Protestant theory and experiment was an abysmal failure. Just look around at the divisions and factions that keep spawning out of that birds nest of error. Is bondage to erroneous free interpretation supposed to be better than bondage to a Church interpretation that we Catholics hold to be true? There is such a thing as legitimate authority Leeann. (Psalm 2:9 'You shall break them with a rod of iron, You shall shatter them like earthenware.).

[out of text space - continuing on next post]

James
 
[continued from prior]
You say you can give historical evidence that proves there was only one single “Catholic Bible” in 382AD…please do then, however, please note that *I *do not accept as "valid proof " that the “Catholic Church” in 382 AD had any more reason to claim “sole authority” back then as they do now.
Apart from the Vetus Latina publications that predate St. Jerome’s Vulgate commissioned by Pope Damasus and approved at the Council of Rome in 382 there are no claims of competing cannons or any archaeological evidence that suggests that any main-line Christians sects used a different cannon. The Vulgate was accepted as cannon and replaced Vetus Latina. There were no competing cannons until Luther arrived in the 1500s. Do you know of others?

Are you asserting that St. Jerome and Pope Damasus and the other bishops had no authority to produce the bible and teach the early Christians at all? Would you say anyone did? If not, how do you imagine that Christ intended to propagate His teachings to future generations? 🤷 How did Luther get his hand-off to "correct the errors of 1500 years of Catholic teaching and by what authority did he act? Do you really believe that Christ waited for 1500 years to send the Holy Spirit to Luther to become the new savior of Christianity? What do you suppose happened to the spiritual welfare of all those many 10’s of millions of early Catholics who died before Luther arrived? Did they all go to hell for being Catholic and followers of the apostles rather than a mentally distraught monk named Luther?
God’s Word was already established and written in full and understood and accepted by the Christians prior to 382 AD…meaning the Old Testament books and the teachings and letters actually in circulation from the apostles. The lack of exemplification of the Deuterocanonical books by Christ and the apostles while teaching and establishing the “church” or body of believers is an indication in itself that they held little value, if any at all.
So many fallacies here Leeann:
First of all the apostles and Jesus quoted passages from the so called Deuterocanonical books. In fact I know of about 80 NT references to the Deuterocanonocal books. Reference: DEUTEROCANONICAL BOOKS
IN THE NEW TESTAMENT
. So the more Protestants argue against the relevance of these important OT books the deeper and deeper they distance themselves from true Christian and apostolic teaching and prove themselves to be out in the weeds. How can Luther or any Protestant be so cheeky to say that anything Jesus or an apostle said was not inspired or important? 🤷

I will grant you one thing - God’s written word was penned before 382 AD. But how do you know it was all of God’s written word Leeann? Who told you? Is your world going to come crashing down if a new book is found in the Vatican archives someday? Would the whole Protestant belief system fall apart if some document was found that proved that the King of Germany paid Luther to help him overthrow Catholic power?

Forget the OT for a moment. Are you guessing or trusting that the Catholics got it “mostly” right in discerning ALL proper NT books from the many hundreds of writings and false counterfeits that were going around? Do you think that the average early church non-Jewish (Gentile) Christian who could not read or write Latin nor Greek would know real from false words or a tax bill from Holy Writ by looking at a bunch of scribblings on parchment? Even among the Jewish converts how many of these do you suppose outside of the rabbinical leaders who converted knew how to read and write Greek, the language of pagans and human belief, outside of Hebrew? And how do you reconcile the many verses in your very own KJV that tell us the inspired word was taught orally and by tradition?

It seems to me Leeann you are making a lot of assumptions and trusting in a lot of people - including mostly the Catholic Bishops and Popes and Historians. Are you willing to only accept Catholics up to a certain point in time to tell you the right thing? If so what “event” happened to make you suddenly not trust Catholics to properly teach the apostolic teaching that Jesus entrusted to them?

The Catholic Bible (as well as the KJV) teaches that private interpretation of scripture is to be avoided. See for yourself: Exod 18:20, Deut. 17:11, 17:12, 33:10, 19:16-17; 2 Chron 15:3, 19:8-10, Mal. 2:6-8, Ezra 7:6, 10, 25-26 Nehemiah 8:1-8, 2 Chron 17:8-9. The last two references demonstrate that the principals do not change from OT to NT. In fact the penalty under OT law was death. So once again we find a key Protestant assumption (Sola Scriptura) simply is not biblical at all. Even Calvin’s double-talk and circular reasoning reduces to absurdity if one depicts his rational in a logic tree (can do it if you like).
The “bible” didn’t need anything added to it way back then or “more officially” at some later date…Council of Trent.
Is this Leeann coming down from Mt. Horeb to tell us this? When did the bible become the bible?
Is this a bit better James?
Seriously…I’m not trying to be flippant…I’ve never claimed to be a great theologian and it must be frustrating to someone who believes they have superior skills in this area to have to deal with someone less privileged…but at least it’s a start?

God Bless
Thank you for your blessing. And yes its a little better Leeann. For the record I never claimed to be a great theologian nor do I consciously look down on those who are making an honest attempt to understand the truth. I do have a problem though with assumptions of authority outside the apostolic succession. I see absolutely no compelling reason to imagine that Joe or Sally Sixpack is more qualified to be pontificate private scriptural interpretation over an authentic apostolicly ordained bishop or pope.

James
 
So you are saying someone should stay in a faith or Church where they are miserable and feel no presence of God vs. where they are happy and feel God’s presence? Am I understanding you correctly?
As a revert myself, having spent 20+ years searching for “feeling happy and God’s presence” I can give personal testimony that this is not a futile search. However, after all this search to avoid “misery” I finally realized it was inside of me, and that going about Christendom looking for “happy” was not going to work. It took me a long time to realize that I never understood what I left, and that what I believed was wrong. The problem was inside, and that is why it could not be solved church hopping.
 
As a revert myself, having spent 20+ years searching for “feeling happy and God’s presence” I can give personal testimony that this is not a futile search. However, after all this search to avoid “misery” I finally realized it was inside of me, and that going about Christendom looking for “happy” was not going to work. It took me a long time to realize that I never understood what I left, and that what I believed was wrong. The problem was inside, and that is why it could not be solved church hopping.
I’m glad you found your path, but its not the same with everybody.
 
Why would I need google when I have the Bible?
Because the incorruptibles did not start showing up until after the Bible was written. 👍
John 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.
It is very Catholic of you to notice this! 👍
Show me the verses which reference the ‘assumption’.
This belongs on another thread. Search “assumption” and pick one. I am happy to discuss it there.
John 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

The Transfiguration event has caused wonder right from the moment that it happened - Peter, James and John certainly were awestruck by it. But why were Elijah and Moses in it? After all, weren’t they “Old Testament”? What were they doing in the New Testament?
I think you are confusing the Ascension of cright with other things. When Moses and Elijah appeared, Jesus had not yet ascended, opening the gates that were shut after the Fall. Therefore, they must have been kickin’ it elsewhere!
Of the two, Moses is perhaps the most straight forward.
So, Moses is straightforward “dead meat”?
But why Elijah?
This is not about who appeared, or why, but your assertion that the saints are “dead meat”.
Show me the biblical verses.
It seems to me that you are laboring under a false notion that the whole revelation of God is found in the Bible.

“So Elisha died, and they buried him. Now bands of Moabites used to invade the land in the spring of the year. 21 As a man was being buried, a marauding band was seen and the man was thrown into the grave of Elisha; as soon as the man touched the bones of Elisha, he came to life and stood on his feet.” 2 Kings 13:20-21
The reason its not in the Bible is because its man-made Paganism. Catholic holidays are not God’s Holy Days.
Also an issue for another thread. At what point do you think Jesus stopped identifying Himself wholly with His body, the Church?

You have been taught some strange cultic things about the Hebrew feast days.
The fact that Jesus was the firstborn Son of Mary means He had no older brothers or sisters. Why do you have a problem with that?
I don’t have a problem with that. The term firstborn does not imply that there were no OTHER (later) siblings.
 
God’s Church means God’s Church. What you said doesn’t appear in the Bible. That’s why I’m not cathiolic.
Actually, it does.

Col 1:5-6
You have heard of this hope before in the word of the truth, the gospel 6 that has come to you. Just as it is bearing fruit and growing in the whole world,

The Gk. words here “kath holos cosmos”

mean “throughout the whole” and this is where the word Catholic comes from.
 
Wrong.

Since the most ancient times, the sun has been a favorite “god” or god symbol of pagan people all around the world. The Babylonians, Persians, Egyptians, Greeks and Romans all had their sun gods. The native peoples of North and South America widely practiced sun worship, as did their Asian ancestors. The Europeans too were deeply involved in sun worship, and many of their sun-god festivals were carried over when they professed conversion to Christianity. These can still be seen today in the Easter bonfire and sunrise services, and the Christmas burning of the Yule log.

Sun worship was also widely practiced by the people of the Middle East, and even the Israelites were sometimes corrupted by it:

“Then he said to me, “Have you seen this, O son of man? You will see still greater abominations than these.” And he brought me into the inner court of the house of The Lord; and behold, at the door of the Temple of The Lord, between the porch and the altar, were about twenty-five men, with their backs to the temple of The Lord, and their faces toward the east, worshiping the sun toward the east.” (Ezekiel 8:15-16 RSV)

The Halo

The heads of Saints didn’t really glow as is so often portrayed in religious art. The use of the halo, or nimbus, originated with the pagan Greeks and Romans to represent their sun god, Helios. Later artists adopted it for use in Christian images.

The halo is actually just the sun behind the person’s head. It’s easy to recognize once one realizes what it is, although it’s also often stylized to make it less obvious. Originally a very devious way of mixing idolatrous sun worship with Christianity by converts who were not all that converted, the pagan halo became an unfortunate tradition in Christian art.

God’s Calendar and The Pagan Calendar

Today, the names that are used for the days of the week are all named after the sun, moon, or pagan gods. Sunday (“sun” day), Monday (“moon” day), Tuesday (“Tiwe’s” day), Wednesday (“Woden’s” day), Thursday (“Thor’s” day), Friday (“Frie’s” day) and Saturday (“Saturn’s” day) are all pagan in origin.

Throughout The Bible, the days of the week were identified by number, from first to seventh. Only the seventh day was given a name, the Sabbath:

“Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work; but the seventh day is a Sabbath to The Lord your God.” (Exodus 20:8-10 RSV)

As well, any day prior to a Sabbath, whether the regular weekly seventh-day Sabbath, or any of the annual Sabbaths (Passover, Unleavened Bread, Pentecost, Trumpets, Atonement, Tabernacles) was designated as a “Preparation day.”

Sabbath To "Sun"day

The Fourth Commandment is to observe the seventh-day Sabbath. All of the righteous people of the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, including Jesus Christ Himself (e.g. Luke 4:16), observed the Sabbath. No where in the Bible, including after Christ’s resurrection, will you find people observing the first day of the week, Sunday, as a replacement for the Sabbath.

This reality was freely admitted by Roman Catholic Cardinal Gibbon in his Faith Of Our Fathers: “But you may read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and you will not find a single line authorizing the sanctification of Sunday. The Scriptures enforce the religious observance of Saturday, a day which we never sanctify.”

So, why do so many Christian-professing churches use Sunday for the Sabbath? And the big question, should they be doing so?

An Unjustifiable Justification

Essentially, Sunday worship is supposedly justified because of the ***assumption ***that Christ was resurrected on the first day of the week. Without a Sunday resurrection, there is no justification what-so-ever for observing Sunday as a day of Christian worship, as Sunday-keeping theologians readily admit.

But, was Christ resurrected on a Sunday?

We know that Christ was crucified on the day before a Sabbath, the “preparation” day (e.g. Mark 15:42). Many have assumed that meant Friday, and commonly refer to it as “Good Friday.” But the Bible record doesn’t say that He was crucified on the day before the regular weekly Sabbath. He was crucified before the ***annual ***Sabbath, the Passover (i.e. John 19:14). That preparation day was not a Friday. “Good Friday” never happened.

Further, Christ said that the ***only ***proof that He was the Messiah was that He would be in the tomb for 3 days and 3 nights (Matthew 12:39-40), which is 72 hours. Friday afternoon to Sunday morning is barely 36 hours, only 2 nights and 1 day. Friday to Sunday doesn’t work.

When Peter, John and Mary of Magdala arrived at the tomb early that Sunday morning, the resurrection had already occurred. It was long before sunrise because it was still dark, but the tomb was then already empty. (John 20:1).

We know that Christ was placed in the tomb in late afternoon near sunset (Matthew 27:57), and would arise 72 hours later as He said. He would therefore have arisen also on a late afternoon, near sunset, 3 days later. Since He was already gone by Sunday morning, He had to have arisen the previous afternoon near sunset, on Saturday, not Sunday.

The crucifixion was on a Wednesday afternoon, with the burial just before sunset, and the resurrection was on the Sabbath afternoon just before sunset. The ***seventh ***day, not the first. Jesus Christ was not resurrected on a Sunday morning, or at any time during a Sunday. Worship on the first day of the week cannot be justified by the facts. It doesn’t have a leg to stand on.

Who Decided On Sunday?

As already stated, Sunday worship did not originate in the Bible, or in the reality of the events of the crucifixion and resurrection. All of the first Christians, including Peter, Paul, all of the apostles, Mary and Joseph, all of the people who wrote the Bible, and Jesus Christ Himself were seventh-day Sabbath keepers. All of them.

So, where did Sunday worship come from?

Gradually, the Roman empire that persecuted Christians began to adopt Christianity, or rather, its own self-serving version of Christianity, which was a blend of politics and religion, a little truth, but mostly outright Roman paganism - which included worship of the Roman sun god. Sunday worship came about as a pagan corruption of God’s holy seventh-day Sabbath.

By the fourth century, only Jews (by then, God’s Sabbath was becoming known as the “Jewish” Sabbath), and a relatively few true Christians, continued to observe the seventh-day Sabbath as God commanded everyone. There is only ***one ***true God, and ***one ***true Sabbath.

In 321, the Roman emperor Constantine issued an edict which outlawed work on the “venerable day of the sun,” Sunday, and within 3 years the corrupted version of Christianity had become the official religion of the Roman empire. From that, the Roman Catholic Church, and its many Protestant daughter churches, got the commonly-accepted Sunday observance of today - utterly pagan in origin, and completely contrary to God’s command.

Traditions of men cannot save you. Only the Truth, and ***genuine ***obedience to it, is the way to salvation. If you didn’t know the truth about Sunday before, now you do. And God knows that you do.
Is this crazy perversion of history worth trying to refute?
 
I’m not sure why you feel the need to twist what I said. You understand I think rather perfectly what I meant. I feel my faith tradition is the better one, and thus I am happy to be a member of it. I am happy you feel the same about yours.
You are correct, I did understand that you meant you feel your faith tradition is the “better one”. My point is that human “feeling” may not be the best guide or judge of “better”. Human feelings are influenced by our experiences and perceptions, which have often become corrupted by living in a sinful world. Humans are also prone to please ourselves, sometimes at the expense of truth.
I don’t understand your continued attempts to turn this into “mine is better than yours.”
Actually, I didn’t do that, you did. 😃

However, I do think the title of the thread lends itself to that kind of adversarial positioning, which is why I don’t like it.
Believe what you wish in the matter and I shall as well. If you don’t feel that God gave you reason and intuition for any particular reason, then so be it.
Of course I do, but human reason and intuition don’t hold a candle to Divine Revelation.
You seem to feel that feeling happy about one’s faith tradition is somehow not correct.
No, I did not say that. I said that feeling happy about them does not necessarily imply that they are correct. There are other more sure standards of measuring correctness than human emotional response.
Do Romans now think that feelings of suffering are required to be sure you have got the right one?
I am not sure. Perhaps you know one, and can ask them? Let me know what you find out.🤷
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top