Is catholicism biblical

[Little_Mary]

You are quating from 2 Mac. I do not accept it as scripture or as the Word of God. So it means nothing to me. Use the 66 books ( Canon)

And who are you…exactly? Did you author all of those canons, written some 2000+ years ago?

Sorry for the sarcasm, but I hope that you will consider doing a teeny weeny bit more research before you decide what you are going to accept and reject.

 

[Trishie]

For a biblical defense of the Catholic Church, you may like to visit this website, for instance:

facebook.com/topic.php?uid=117177065631&topic=15214

 

[Little_Mary]

Something to think about…

Where in the bible are you told to only accept what is in the bible?

Where in the bible are you told that the bible is the sole rule of faith?

Who told you what books should and should not be in the bible? Did the bible tell you this? If so, chapter and verse please.

Who wrote the Gospel of Mark and how do you know?

Who wrote the Gospel of Matthew and how do you know?

Which Old Testament Canon {yes, there’s more than one} matches up with the Dead Sea Scrolls?

Which Old TEstament Canon did Jesus and his disciples teach from?

Thanks…

 

[noobio]

When you see the evidence, will you return to the Catholic Church?

This is a big one, so bear with me…

INFANT BAPTISM PROVED FROM SCRIPTURE

Old Covenant

Genesis 17:9-14
9 Then God said to Abraham, “As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come. 10 This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. 12 For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner—those who are not your offspring. 13 Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant. 14 Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.”

Leviticus 12:3
3 On the eighth day the boy is to be circumcised.

These texts show the circumcision of eight-day-old babies as the way of entering into the Old Covenant.

Connection to New Covenant

Col 2:11-12
In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ; 12and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.

Baptism is the new “circumcision of Christ” for all people of the New Covenant.

We are Born Again Through Baptism

John 3:3-5
In reply Jesus declared, “I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again.” 4"How can a man be born when he is old?" 5Nicodemus asked. “Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb to be born!” Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.

Baptism Washes Away Actual Sins

Acts 22:16
And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.’

Do Infants Need Baptism?

Job 14:1-4
1 "Man born of woman is of few days and full of trouble. 2 He springs up like a flower and withers away; like a fleeting shadow, he does not endure. 3 Do you fix your eye on such a one? Will you bring him before you for judgment? 4 Who can bring what is pure from the impure? No one!

Psalm 51:5
5 Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.

We are conceived in the iniquity of sin. This shows the need for baptism from the moment of conception.

Jesus Extols Child-like Faith

Matthew 18:2-5
2 He called a little child and had him stand among them. 3And he said: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

Jesus says unless we become like children, we cannot enter into heaven. So why would children be excluded from baptism?

Jesus Receives Little Children and Infants

Matt 19:13-15
13Then little children were brought to Jesus for him to place his hands on them and pray for them. But the disciples rebuked those who brought them. 14 Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.” 15 When he had placed his hands on them, he went on from there.

Mark 10:13-16
13People were bringing little children to Jesus to have him touch them, but the disciples rebuked them. 14When Jesus saw this, he was indignant. He said to them, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. 15I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.” 16And he took the children in his arms, put his hands on them and blessed them.

Jesus says to let the children come to Him for the kingdom of God also belongs to them. There is no age limit on entering the kingdom, and no age limit for being eligible for baptism.

Luke 18:15-17
15People were also bringing babies to Jesus to have him touch them. When the disciples saw this, they rebuked them. 16But Jesus called the children to him and said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. 17I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.”

(cont.)

Circumcision is diffrent from babtism. Circumcision was a sighn for a covenant. Babtism is when a person repents which means to trust in Christ and turn away from your sins. John the babtist was cammanding people to repent and be babtized. This is impossible for a baby to do. The verses you mentioned ( the ones from the NT) do not teach about babtism but, what you need to enter the kingdom of God. When Jesus said we need to be like children he was saying that we need to be more humble.

And if the baby dies, he/she will go to heaven.

Also, bringing babies to Jesus is diffrent from babtism.

 

[ESMDHokie77]

Of course Catholicism is biblical… Catholic Apostles and Disciples wrote the NT, and Catholic Bishops determined what the Bible’s table of contents should be!

 

[bargio]

Circumcision is diffrent from babtism. Circumcision was a sighn for a covenant. Babtism is when a person repents which means to trust in Christ and turn away from your sins. John the babtist was cammanding people to repent and be babtized. This is impossible for a baby to do. The verses you mentioned ( the ones from the NT) do not teach about babtism but, what you need to enter the kingdom of God. When Jesus said we need to be like children he was saying that we need to be more humble.

And if the baby dies, he/she will go to heaven.

Also, bringing babies to Jesus is diffrent from babtism.

For a person so interested in Baptism, you’d think they’d at least spell it right…

Anyways, just thought I’d throw in another point… What church composed the New Testament and revised the Old? If I recall, it was the original Catholic Church back in the 300s A.D… the same guys who had a pope, participated in the Eucharist, had confessions, etc.

And one scripture quote that seems to point to Purgatory: Matthew 5:25-26

25 “Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to court. Do it while you are still together on the way, or your adversary may hand you over to the judge, and the judge may hand you over to the officer, and you may be thrown into prison. 26 Truly I tell you, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I do not care about what Maccabees says because it is NOT inspired.

So? It still provides historical context, doesn’t it?

Purgatory refers to a person bieng perged of his sins right after he/she dies. So purgatory happens IMMEDIATLY a person dies.

No, a person may enter purgatory immediately, but there is no definitive basis for saying that the purgation occurs instantly. It may occur over an extended period of time.

In Luke 12: 42-48 Jesus can not be talking about purgatory because Jesus is talking about Judgement day, not when you die. I know Jesus is talking about judgement day because the passage is talking about someone (the Master) returning, which is basicly the last day.

So, the Master returns on the last day and finds one servant who is wise and faithful. This servant goes to heaven. There is another servant who is disobedient; he is beaten with many blows (hell). But wait? What do you make of this third servant who is beaten with few blows? He doesn’t get off scot-free like the wise servant, but he doesn’t get the whipping of the other, either?

If Jesus died for ALL our sins, why does he get any blows at all - even if they are only a few?

1 Corinthians 3: 11-15 does NOT talk about purgatory. I have noticed that almost all Cathloics wrongly interpret this. This passage is also reffering to Judgement day. The silver, gold, wood and stray represent the qaulity of good deeds. On the day of Christ they will be tested. If they pass the test, a reward shall be given ( read verse 14). But, if your works were not good then you will not recieve no reward. If the rewards were not good you will “escape fire” not be purified by “fire”. The works burn up, not the person. No purgatory in that passage.

Heh, right.

So, why does the passage specifically state that the MAN (not his works) survives as one escaping through flames?

Picture a man escaping from a burning building…everything he owned may be left behind and burned up (as one possibility), but he himself comes through the flames. Do you think he does not feel the heat?

In 1 Peter 1:7 it talks about enduring your faith and not losing it. It does not say anything about bieng purified. No purgatory in this passage.

Take another look:

1 Peter 1:7
These have come so that your faith—of greater worth than gold, which perishes even though refined by fire—may be proved genuine and may result in praise, glory and honor when Jesus Christ is revealed.

What do you think purgatory is all about?

Purgatory is not even neccesary because Jesus cleansed us 2000 years ago. The Bible says so.

Hebrew 9:14
“since this is true, how much more is accomplished by the blood of Christ! Through the eternal Spirit he offered himself as the perfect sacrifice to God. His blood will PURIFY our conscience from uselss rituals so that we may serve the living God”.

This passage says that your conscience is purified; it does not suggest anything with regard to the purgation necessary to deal with the temporal effects of sin.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Jesus did not even mention purgatory.

Wrong.

Christ refers to the sinner who “will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come” (Matt. 12:32), suggesting that one can be freed after death of the consequences of one’s sins.

Similarly, Paul tells us that, when we are judged, each man’s work will be tried. And what happens if a righteous man’s work fails the test? “He will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire” (1 Cor 3:15). Now this loss, this penalty, can’t refer to consignment to hell, since no one is saved there; and heaven can’t be meant, since there is no suffering (“fire”) there.

The Catholic doctrine of purgatory alone explains this passage.

 

[JRKH]

You are quating from 2 Mac. I do not accept it as scripture or as the Word of God. So it means nothing to me. Use the 66 books ( Canon)

Right here you have a disconnect that needs to be overcome.

You ask for Scriptural proof and when it is given you reject it…

Why?

Because it is not in the Canon of Scripture you now accept…

But WHY is there two different Canons of Scripture if Scripture is the Word of God?

This is an issue that you will need to resolve…Because I can tell you right now that the Catholic bible does NOT have extra books in it…Maccabees IS a part of Holy Scripture and was so from 400 AD until the late 1500’s when it and the other 6books were dropped by the reformers.

Peace
James

 

[CharlesPaul]

You are quating from 2 Mac. I do not accept it as scripture or as the Word of God. So it means nothing to me. Use the 66 books ( Canon)

Macchabees are Canonical, protestants illicitly pulled them out of their now incomplete canon in the 16th century. To understand Catholic teaching you must use the complete Canon of scripture

 

[Randy_Carson]

Circumcision is diffrent from babtism. Circumcision was a sighn for a covenant.

True. However, circumcision prefigured baptism. Through circumcision, infants entered into God’s Old Covenant with Israel. Through baptism, we enter into God’s New Covenant.

Babtism is when a person repents which means to trust in Christ and turn away from your sins. John the babtist was cammanding people to repent and be babtized. This is impossible for a baby to do.

Was it possible for a Jewish infant to understand the Law of Moses before circumcision? Or did the parents bring the child into the covenant by circumcision

Do Christian parents have the same responsibility to bring their sinful little babes into the family of God through spiritual rebirth in baptism?

The verses you mentioned ( the ones from the NT) do not teach about babtism but, what you need to enter the kingdom of God. When Jesus said we need to be like children he was saying that we need to be more humble.

Agreed, but scripture is true on more than one level. Jesus specifically said, “Let the little children come to me.”

And if the baby dies, he/she will go to heaven.

We hope so, but do you have a verse that proves this?

Also, bringing babies to Jesus is diffrent from babtism.

It depends on how they are brought, I suppose. I brought all my kids to Jesus at the baptismal font.

 

[noobio]

Consider Paul’s directive concerning Onesiphorus…I provide the passage along with commentaries on the passage by PROTESTANT scholars:

**Praying for the Dead Proved from Scripture **

2 Timothy 1:16-18 (RSV)
May the Lord grant mercy to the household of Onesiph’orus, for he often refreshed me; he was not ashamed of my chains, [17] but when he arrived in Rome he searched for me eagerly and found me – [18] may the Lord grant him to find mercy from the Lord on that Day – and you well know all the service he rendered at Ephesus.

.

Alfred Plummer (Anglican)
Certainly the balance of probability is decidedly in favour of the view that Onesiphorus was already dead when St. Paul wrote these words. . . . he here speaks of “the house of Onesiphorus” in connexion with the present, and of Onesiphorus himself only in connexion with the past. . . . it is not easy to explain this reference in two places to the household of Onesiphorus, if he himself was still alive. In all the other cases the individual and not the household is mentioned. . . . There is also the character of the Apostle’s prayer. Why does he confine his desires respecting the requital of Onesiphorus’ kindness to the day of judgment? . . . This again is thoroughly intelligible, if Onesiphorus is already dead.

. . . there seems to be equal absence of serious reason for doubting that the words in question constitute a prayer. . . .

Having thus concluded that, according to the more probable and reasonable view, the passage before us contains a prayer offered up by the Apostle on behalf of one who is dead, we seem to have obtained his sanction, and therefore the sanction of Scripture, for using similar prayers ourselves. . . .

This passage may be quoted as reasonable evidence that the death of a person does not extinguish our right or our duty to pray for him: but it ought not be quoted as authority for such prayers on behalf of the dead as are very different in kind from the one of which we have an example here. Many other kinds of intercession for the dead may be reasonable and allowable; but this passage proves no more than that some kinds of intercession for the dead are allowable; viz., those in which we pray that God will have mercy at the day of judgment on those who have done good to us and others, during their life upon earth (Alfred Plummer (1841-1926) (Anglican): The Expositor’s Bible (edited by W. Robertson Nicoll), The Pastoral Epistles, London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1891, pp. 324-326).

James Maurice Wilson (1836-1931) (Anglican)
We have, therefore, the sanction of St. Paul for remembering inn our prayers, and interceding for, those who have now passed into the other world . . . (Truths New and Old, Westminster: Archibald Constable & Co., 1900, p. 141)

Sydney Charles Gayford (Anglican)
. . . the most satisfactory explanation is that Onesiphorus was dead. . . .

And so we may hold with some confidence that we have in this passage the authority of an Apostle in praying for the welfare of the departed. (The Future State, New York: Edwin S. Gorham, second edition, 1905, pp. 56-57)

John Henry Bernard (1860-1927) (Anglican)
On the whole then it seems probable that Onesiphorus was dead when St. Paul prayed on his behalf . . . (The Pastoral Epistles, Cambridge University Press, 1899, p. 114)

There is no solid proof that this person is dead. The past tense makes sense because this person left Rome, It would be useless to pray for this person ( hebrew 9:27). Also, he was a Godly man, so why even pray? The wording does not even seem like a petition.

 

[Randy_Carson]

There is no solid proof that this person is dead. The past tense makes sense because this person left Rome, It would be useless to pray for this person ( hebrew 9:27). Also, he was a Godly man, so why even pray? The wording does not even seem like a petition.

Gee, did you even read the post in its entirety? The very first Protestant quoted answers both of your objections…

**Alfred Plummer (Anglican)
**Certainly the balance of probability is decidedly in favour of the view that Onesiphorus was already dead when St. Paul wrote these words. . . . he here speaks of “the house of Onesiphorus” in connexion with the present, and of Onesiphorus himself only in connexion with the past. . . . it is not easy to explain this reference in two places to the household of Onesiphorus, if he himself was still alive. In all the other cases the individual and not the household is mentioned. . . . There is also the character of the Apostle’s prayer. Why does he confine his desires respecting the requital of Onesiphorus’ kindness to the day of judgment? . . . This again is thoroughly intelligible, if Onesiphorus is already dead.

**. . . there seems to be equal absence of serious reason for doubting that the words in question constitute a prayer. . . .

**

 

[noobio]

True. However, circumcision prefigured baptism. Through circumcision, infants entered into God’s Old Covenant with Israel. Through baptism, we enter into God’s New Covenant.

Was it possible for a Jewish infant to understand the Law of Moses before circumcision? Or did the parents bring the child into the covenant by circumcision

Circumcision did not require any understanding. It was God’s law to do so. So the Jews had no choice.

Do Christian parents have the same responsibility to bring their sinful little babes into the family of God through spiritual rebirth in baptism?

Agreed, but scripture is true on more than one level. Jesus specifically said, “Let the little children come to me.”

We hope so, but do you have a verse that proves this?

It depends on how they are brought, I suppose. I brought all my kids to Jesus at the baptismal font.

Circumcision did not require any understanding. It was God’s law to do so. So the Jews had no choice.

How is it even a rebirth if you do not even know it? For a spiritual rebirth you need to repent. Which means to trust in Christ and turn away from your sins. Babies can not do this.

Babies do go to heaven. Read about God punishing David by stricking his son. You will notice that David knew the baby was going to heaven.

 

[noobio]

Gee, did you even read the post in its entirety? The very first Protestant quoted answers both of your objections…

**Alfred Plummer (Anglican)
**Certainly the balance of probability is decidedly in favour of the view that Onesiphorus was already dead when St. Paul wrote these words. . . . he here speaks of “the house of Onesiphorus” in connexion with the present, and of Onesiphorus himself only in connexion with the past. . . . it is not easy to explain this reference in two places to the household of Onesiphorus, if he himself was still alive. In all the other cases the individual and not the household is mentioned. . . . There is also the character of the Apostle’s prayer. Why does he confine his desires respecting the requital of Onesiphorus’ kindness to the day of judgment? . . . This again is thoroughly intelligible, if Onesiphorus is already dead.

**. . . there seems to be equal absence of serious reason for doubting that the words in question constitute a prayer. . . .

**

Can you explain Hebrew 9:27 for me.

It says “Everyone must die once and be judged by God”. This verse suggest you get judged after you die.How do you change God’s judgement with a prayer?

 

[SPH1]

I am not part of any group. I follow biblical Christanity.

I will give you my reasons for denying the extra books.

-Contridicts scripture

• Not accepted as the word of God by the jews and it is not in the Tanahk ( Jewish bible)
• Historical inaccuracies

So you follow only yourself?

Your reasons not good:

• Some might say that the canonical texts you do accept contradict one another.
• You’ll get argument re the Jews and their scripture. But the Christian Church looks to the Christian Church for biblical authority. Why not let the Jews also interpret for you?
• Some might say that the texts you do accept contain historical inaccuracies. Some might begin with Adam & Eve.

In any event, since the canon was not finally compiled for some several centuries after Christ, how would it have been possible to be like you back then?

Or before the printing press, how would it have been practical to have been like you back then?

You do know, don’t you, that Luther wanted to toss out some books that you do accept: James most notorious example but I also think Hebrews, Revelation and maybe other. Restrained only by some of his followers.

But come on! You have to be involved with some group. Some so-called Non-Denominational perhaps? How did you PERSONALLY go through each book of the Bible and come to your conclusions as to what you - in your infallibility - say comprise scripture?

You have rejected the authority of Christ’s Church that has stood in every centruy, decade, year and day for your own personal, man-made opinions.

Why not just come to the conclusion that Christ was a fraud, allowing his church to fall off track?

Since you follow no group - only yourself - it is self-evident that you have no authority whatsoever to define Christian doctrine for others…or even yourself.

 

[SPH1]

And if the baby dies, he/she will go to heaven.

Let me get this straight. You believe that some people (babies in this case) have no need for Christ as Savior? Yet Christ said that no one comes to the Father but by Him. Yes, infants and others might be saved, but it is with Christ acting as their unseen savior. Not because they have no need for Christ. Baptism is more certain.

Also, bringing babies to Jesus is diffrent from babtism.

But the point is that they were brought to Christ. In fact, Christ had a stern warning for those who hindered them being brought.

 

[lampstand]

Sure, Catholicism is Biblical. There was that time we compiled the New Testament at one of our councils…

 

[SPH1]

Can you explain Hebrew 9:27 for me.

It says “Everyone must die once and be judged by God”. This verse suggest you get judged after you die.How do you change God’s judgement with a prayer?

Well, perhaps God’s judgment took prayer of others in to account?

In any event, we’re probably speaking of Purgatory, where to even get there you have to already have been “saved”. So prayers aren’t changing God’s judgment even there.

Speaking of which, take Predestination. Taking your line of thought, how can prayers for others in this life change anything? You do pray for others? Why?

 

[KevinAK]

You are quating from 2 Mac. I do not accept it as scripture or as the Word of God. So it means nothing to me. Use the 66 books ( Canon)

It is scripture and the Word of God. It means nothing to me that you do not accept it. Canon is 73 books. Martin Luther removed the books fron the Old Testament and wanted to remove books from the New Testament as well.