I've been invited to a Bible study...

  • Thread starter Thread starter Credendum
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It is important to discern. You have not been invited to a Bible study if it is Protestant. You have been invited to study Protestant theology using a Bible with plans to involve you in conversion. There is no such thing as a Bible study run by any denonimation that does not teach their theology in doing so. Go to a 7th day Adventist bible study and you will learn 7th day Adventist teaching, go to a Jehovah witness bible study and you will learn their theology, go to a Baptist bible study and you will learn Baptist theology, go to a church that is deep in dispensationalism and you will learn Darbyism in that bible study.
This is a great answer…and VERY True…👍👍

One thing that I will caution readers on though is that where Coptic refers to “…plans to involve you in conversion”, this may not be plans to convert you from the sinister Catholic Church. It may simply be plans to draw those in attendance closer to Christ.
Different Church groups will have varying outlooks re: ecumenism Some might welcome learning more of the Catholic perspective, others might be openly hostile.

But - As Coptic says - any given bible study will be built around that group’s theological understanding of the Bible. If one is well grounded and firm in their Catholic faith, participation could be a good experience for all. If a person is a “new” or “unsure” Catholic…it could be disastrous.
Your fear and all emotions are signs and warnings to act. You acted to post and act and you got answers prior to action. Your imagination served you well and now you must decide what to do now that you know.👍
Absolutely - best to stick with Catholic studies for a while.
St Paul (after his conversion) spent three years learning before he began preaching (Gal 1:15-18).
What is ever more important is that there is a person involved that invited you. This person has feelings, motives, thoughts and intentions. If it is someone you know well it is an opportunity to dialogue as to why they asked you. It is an opportunity to dialogue as to what it is they intend to teach you. It is an opportunity to dialogue about where the bible came from, what their theology is, and I would ask to see the statement of faith of the church that holds this bible study as a point of discussion as to why you choose not to attend.😃
Excellent points.
At least for the time being it is probably best for the new Catholic to have “one on one” dialogues so that they do not feel overwhelmed by the views of others. In one on one dialogue it’s easier to keep questions and answers straight and to be sure that any misunderstandings are cleared up in an orderly and charitable manner.
Invite them to join in a discussion on this forum…cmon down…👍
Yup - The more the merrier…😃

Peace
James
 
If it is a Protestant Bible study, I would decline so as not to possibly endanger your faith. If it is a Catholic Bible study then by all means, go! I would like to attend a Catholic Bible study myself but there are none that are close enough as far as I know.
 
My own view would be influenced by who is sponsoring the Bible study.

If it is the Jehovah Witnesses, don’t waste your time. If it is an evangelical church, ditto.

If, however, the Bible study is truly ecumenical, perhaps held at a mainline Protestant church, it may be stimulating. I have discovered that in such groups total freedom of opinion is not only permitted but encouraged. The purpose is not to indoctrinate but to investigate together various texts, inviting and expressing different interpretations.
Code:
When I say mainline, I mean such denominations as Methodist, Episcopal, UCC, and Presbyterian. Check out the specific church and minister to assess the flavor. Personally, I appreciate Bible studies that allow a wide range of opinion. They are good exercise for the mind and help us undestand why different denominations exist. There are plenty of verses that can be interpreted in different ways. They also develop mutual respect among Christians, which is a good thing. 

 I attended a Quaker-founded college and attended a Bible study there. A great experience that strengthen my faith, not in any particular church but in our magnificent and mysterious God.  

 God bless all of his children - of every creed, color, culture and country. Let us make Christianity a bridge instead of a barrier.
 
My own view would be influenced by who is sponsoring the Bible study.

If it is the Jehovah Witnesses, don’t waste your time. If it is an evangelical church, ditto.

If, however, the Bible study is truly ecumenical, perhaps held at a mainline Protestant church, it may be stimulating. I have discovered that in such groups total freedom of opinion is not only permitted but encouraged. The purpose is not to indoctrinate but to investigate together various texts, inviting and expressing different interpretations.
Code:
When I say mainline, I mean such denominations as Methodist, Episcopal, UCC, and Presbyterian. Check out the specific church and minister to assess the flavor. Personally, I appreciate Bible studies that allow a wide range of opinion. They are good exercise for the mind and help us undestand why different denominations exist. There are plenty of verses that can be interpreted in different ways. They also develop mutual respect among Christians, which is a good thing. 

 I attended a Quaker-founded college and attended a Bible study there. A great experience that strengthen my faith, not in any particular church but in our magnificent and mysterious God.  

 God bless all of his children - of every creed, color, culture and country. Let us make Christianity a bridge instead of a barrier.
You use this metaphor of a bridge. It means something to you. If there is a bridge then it bridges something. It allows travel back and forth or perhaps one way. Explain if you will what it is you understand Christianity is as it relates to the bridge metaphor you use.
 
In a word, when I use the bridge analogy I mean that there should be friendly inter- communication among Christians instead of the sharp-tongued bias that so often exists, especially among certain Protestant and Catholic extremists, where tribal loyalty seems to supercede a spirit of Christian amity and cooperation. There is a lot to learn on both ends of that bridge if we’re willing to open our eyes and our minds and our hearts. I know this is a message neither doctinaire “we alone have the truth” Catholics or Protestants want to hear but it reflects what I believe to be the will of Jesus. His great hero in the parable of the Good Samaritan was a despised outsider and heretic, but that Samaritan was a better follower of Christ than the priest and the Levite who passed by on the other side.
God bless everybody.
 
In a word, when I use the bridge analogy I mean that there should be friendly inter- communication among Christians instead of the sharp-tongued bias that so often exists, especially among certain Protestant and Catholic extremists, where tribal loyalty seems to supercede a spirit of Christian amity and cooperation. There is a lot to learn on both ends of that bridge if we’re willing to open our eyes and our minds and our hearts. I know this is a message neither doctinaire “we alone have the truth” Catholics or Protestants want to hear but it reflects what I believe to be the will of Jesus. His great hero in the parable of the Good Samaritan was a despised outsider and heretic, but that Samaritan was a better follower of Christ than the priest and the Levite who passed by on the other side.
Code:
God bless everybody.
Ok. The bridge is a metaphor for communication.

Where does Christian amity and cooperation fit into this metaphor concerning what?

I agree that there is much to learn and I would reference the Catholic/Wesleyan dialogue and others.

What is it you believe to be the Will of Jesus?

The Smaratin is a reflection that preceeded Paul stating that there are those in the Covenant not in the Covenant and those believed to be outside the Covenant that do what the Covenant requires and are a law unto themselves. Do you see this in an another way?

Jesus tells us in the parable what Paul later states is that God is impartial and is God of all Jew, Gentile and Barbarian.👍
 
Exactly.

Some of my suggestions:

Paulist Press - some excellent resources in Bible studies and Patristic literature, tour the whole site.

Collegeville - good materials for Bible studies at home or in groups, notably the Little Rock Scripture Study, but also a good commentary in booklet form.

Jerome Biblical Commentary - again, an excellent resource, if a tad expensive, but it’s a big book and by the pound it’s a solid value 😉

Why not an Introduction to the New Testament by Father Raymond Brown?
I know others have also commented: but I would not recommend the Jerome commentaries to a beginner:It does have more than one imprimatur but they are from the authors: a highly questionable practice.
It Exclusively uses the Historico-Critical method. that method has been stated by the Magisterium to be incomplete. Therefore the Jerome needs to be complimented by commentaries that use other methods as well. - Especially for new Catholics. (Or new Christians)

In less technical language: it uses a critical method which appears to deny the reality or historicity of almost all miracles: not an approach you want to use in isolation.

Don’t get me wrong the Jerome is useful, and is on the reading list for many Seminaries, but the O.P. is looking for a starter, not a Seminary text book to be used with guidance and other sources.

I personally love the Christian Community Bible, & its commentary. I have also just ordered the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible (New Testament).
I want to get hold of A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture in one of it’s versions.
(a much better starting point than the Jerome)
 
and I’m afraid to get involved because I’m a new Catholic. I was involved in Bible studies before when I was protestant, and I just imagine people trying to convert me to a denomination. 😦 What to do?
Here is the only problem I have with this. First let me say its never bad to study and read together Gods word with anyone.

But when they interpret the word for what how they see it, thats the probem. So I would find a bible study outside of the CC impossible.:
 
Cre:

When I came back to the Church in my 20’s, our parish had an interdenominational young adult Bible study. Parts of it ok, but others… :eek I ended up getting confused and some of the Catholic young adults were actually leaning toward leaving & off the main road.

PROBLEM IS: Prots don’t believe in the Eucharist, the Sacraments, Mary, etc. They have part of the info yes but essentially have incomplete puzzle pieces and never will see the whole picture. They are UNPLUGGED from the POWER SOURCE.

Bible info is on Catholic Answers RADIO mon thru fri. afternoons as well as THIS WEBSITE. EWTN.com has a treasure trove of written material!

Here are a some of our BEST and BRIGHTEST: SCOTT HAHN, TIM STAPLES, TIM GRAY, STEVE RAY, EDWARD SRI, JEFF CAVINS, guest after guest… & also on EWTN TV.

MARCUS GRODI has the Deep In Scripture program wednesday afternoons - wonderful.

St Joseph Communications have excellent CD’S you can purchase - so many excellent titles & especially Scott Hahn, Terry Barber & Jesse Romero etc.

IF you don’t have EWTN TV, GET IT. YOU will learn more than you could imagine: Fr. Mitch PACWA and including all the names above. WOW, they are GOOD!

Indispensible is the CCC (Catechism of the Catholic Church) & Wm Jurgens 3 books “The Faith of the Early Fathers” which is about the ECF or early church fathers. Awesome quotes from Didache 80 A.D. to 9th century.

WHEN you get a stock pile of info and start making sense of the Bible & what the Church teaches, then I would say you could go interdenominational. Problem is when you learn the Bible as an informed RCC then the prot angle will frustrate you later anyway. Study and FOCUS on what our fabulous Catholic.com radio & EWTN teachers have to say. It may take years to build these layers of TRUTH but the HOLY SPIRIT WILL HELP YOU:D

Get grounded, get holy & get going :cool:
 
CopticChristian

** I follow events rather closely in Egypt **and have noted with sadness and concern the discrimination against and fears among Coptic Christians there, I recognize that you are not a Coptic Christian in what some would call the ‘Orthodox’ majority of Coptic Christians but assume that Catholic and Protestant Copts face the same problem.
Code:
 **Incidentally, it interests me that these Coptic Orthodox Christians are totally separate** from the three major branches of Christianity in that they have a separate Pope and believe that they are the true remnant of what was the Christianity of the early church. I wonder how you respond to that?
** Anyway, back to your question. To me the parable of the Good Samaritan** shows that Christ put Christian behavior above matters of doctrine. The Samaritan obviously was not a disciple but belonged to a heretical group despised by the religious establishment. Yet, he is cited by Jesus because he followed Matt. 25:31ff. In this gospel passage Jesus said nothing about doctrine or liturgy but focused upon Christian love and kindness as the criteria for entrance into eternal life. Remember, too, that it was in answer to the question: What shall I do to inherit eternal life?, that Jesus gave the parable of the Good Samaritan.

** My basic point is that doctrine and liturgy are not where the emphasis of Jesus was**. Yes, he stated that “I am the way…no one cometh until the Father but by me”. But in Matt. 25 he indicated that we would be judged by our compassion and not by our dogmas or our church connection. I fear that for many millions, of all Christian persuasions, their main loyalty is to their ‘religious tribe’. Many don’t even know that much about the doctrines and liturgies of their church but have developed a tribal loyalty.

** This reminds me of a story**. A man was lauding his Presbyterian faith. Someone asked him what he believed. His response: “I believe what the Presbyterians believe.” What do they believe? was the next question. Well, I don’t know all that much about that, but I believe what they believe.

** I have observed over the years that religion for most people is a form of tribalism** based on the instinct of humankind to divide into competing groups, nations, whatever.
Code:
  **Take the Catholic/Methodist dialogue to which you make reference.** Fine. I strongly support such dialogue. What troubles me is that the Catholic approach to dialogue seems motivated by the intent to convert the other party, because the Methodists (in this case) are wrong. The Methodists I know are usually very respectful of other religions, whether Catholic or whatever. By the way, changing Methodists into Catholics is an enormous challenge. The United Methodists are one of the most ecumenical mainline denominations there is. And they are not all that tribalistic. If Methodists move from one community to another they may attend a Presbyterian or UCC Church, etc. Vice versa, too. In Canada, for example, there are no Methodists, because in Canada - way back in 1925 - the Methodists, Congregationalists, and most Presbyterians merged to create the United Church of Canada.

 **Methodists I know tend to de-emphasize doctrine** and also permit wide variation when it comes to liturgy. When an effort was made to involve John Wesley in sectarian debate, he replied "think and let think" and (paraphrasing) "if your heart is right, if you love God as I love God, let us join hands and walk together." Now, that is Christianity. So much of Catholicism seems intent on proselytizing as on "Journey Home". Evangelical Protestants are big on 'being saved' but are not all that denominational. Mainline Protestants focus more attention upon following Jesus (Matt. 25) rather than concern for 'correct' doctrines concerning him.

 **God bless 'em all.** My personal faith is in God and I try to be a faithful disciple of Christ. As for those doctrinal and litugical differences, they are secondary to me. To begin with, this universe or so huge and mysterious that I doubt if our finite minds know all that much. I am ready to wait until the world-to-come to get a valid view of  it all. 'Now we see through a glass darkly....'
 
Thank you for sharing the doctrine of Roy. However, if it were not for the Church that Jesus Christ came to start up, by teaching his apostles, the first clergymen of Christianityand the disciples, who passed on the truths of Jesus Christ orally for the first 50 years or so and then thru transcription of the documents which came to be known as the Bible and then faithfully copying and keeping sacred all these traditions you would not be able to have created your own set of Christian beliefs now would you? The One true Church of Jesus Christ can be historically proven. All the fragmentation is a human failing brought about through pride. Hence we see today the resulting consequences of discord, including your own decision to be a sole believer in the doctrines of Roy. The formal church has served all of humanity well over generations and has kept the truth alive for everyone. The best source for the study of Scripture is the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Catholic Church. Regardless of the failings of one or more humans, both in and out of the Church, the teachings of Jesus Christ have been preserved for all of us, Praise Be to God.
 
CopticChristian

** I follow events rather closely in Egypt **and have noted with sadness and concern the discrimination against and fears among Coptic Christians there, I

** Anyway, back to your question. To me the parable of the Good Samaritan** shows that Christ put Christian behavior

** My basic point is that doctrine and liturgy are not where the emphasis of Jesus was
** This reminds me of a story****. A man was lauding his Presbyterian faith. Someone asked him what he believed. His response: “I believe what the Presbyterians believe.” What do they believe? was the next question. Well, I don’t know all that much about that, but I believe what they believe.

** I have observed over the years that religion for most people is a form of tribalism** based on the instinct of humankind to divide into competing groups, nations, whatever.
Code:
  **Take the Catholic/Methodist dialogue to which you make reference.** Fine. I strongly support such dialogue. What troubles me is that the Catholic approach to dialogue seems motivated by the intent to convert the other party, because the Methodists (in this case) are wrong. The Methodists I know are usually very respectful of other religions, whether Catholic or whatever. By the way, changing Methodists into Catholics is an enormous challenge. The United Methodists are one of the most ecumenical mainline denominations there is. And they are not all that tribalistic. If Methodists move from one community to another they may attend a Presbyterian or UCC Church, etc. Vice versa, too. In Canada, for example, there are no Methodists, because in Canada - way back in 1925 - the Methodists, Congregationalists, and most Presbyterians merged to create the United Church of Canada.

 **Methodists I know tend to de-emphasize doctrine** and also permit wide variation when it comes to liturgy. When an effort was made to involve John Wesley in sectarian debate, he replied "think and let think" and (paraphrasing) "if your heart is right, if you love God as I love God, let us join hands and walk together." Now, that is Christianity. So much of Catholicism seems intent on proselytizing as on "Journey Home". Evangelical Protestants are big on 'being saved' but are not all that denominational. Mainline Protestants focus more attention upon following Jesus (Matt. 25) rather than concern for 'correct' doctrines concerning him.

 **God bless 'em all.** My personal faith is in God and I try to be a faithful disciple of Christ. As for those doctrinal and litugical differences, they are secondary to me. To begin with, this universe or so huge and mysterious that I doubt if our finite minds know all that much. I am ready to wait until the world-to-come to get a valid view of  it all. 'Now we see through a glass darkly....'
This is strictly my opinion based on observation. The dialogues laud what we see in the other groups. Methodists as you know are spiritually minded. In the OHCAC there are those that are unworldly…Nuns, Priests, Monks, Ascetics…there is no such thing as a Protestant Monastery…In all the dialogues the focus is on things like honoring what each Particular group brings to the table…Reformed/Bible Study…we agree…Methodist/Spirituality…we agree…you will see that the dialogues focus on a refocus on Eucharist, Baptism, and other doctrines. The first is the Eucharist and you will see that many of the dialogues include an agreement in understanding of the importance of the Supper…no one denigrates this.

While I appreciate your concern for the Coptics, I get a lump in my throat and have to swallow hard with the notion of Coptic Protestants…Western thought going East?

The samaritan is parallel to Pauls telling the Jews that there are those in the covenant that are not of the covenant and those outside the covenant that are in the covenant for circumcision is a matter of the heart…the Gentile does what the law requires even though they have not the law…Then the question is what is the Covenant and I disagree…the example is more than just this behavior.

Concerning Liturgy I disagree…The Last Supper is the culmination of the ministry up until the Crucifixion and resurrection and when seen as a continuum as Catholics do you are not understanding by focusing on what you understand as liturgy.

If you would like, why not read the Catholic Postings and see if you can find one Catholic that does not know what they believe and would say they believe what other’s believe. Ask any Catholic if the Eucharistic Worship is the center of our Faith upon which all other beliefs flow? You may find that interesting.

Imagine that you see One Church that has all truths and all methods of experience and all truths…, like an egg, whole, intact…imagine that in your mind as you close your eyes just off to the left of your vision…then imagine that you see splinter groups going off on their own emphasizing

Bible Study
Evangelizatioin
Conversion
Spirituality
Doctrine

Then as you imagine all the varied and sundried Protestant splinter groups, imagine them like stars…imagine for a moment these groups to the right of your vision…

Now you have on the left, an egg, what we call the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church…on the right you have all the Protestant splinter tribes as you say…like stars

Now as you hold both of those images in your mind…imagine that the vision on your left the OHCAC, you see in the egg the stars you see on the right and in an instant you now understand that what you see on the right exists on the left…perhaps that might help you understand how I see it.

The next step is for the stars on the right and the egg with stars on the left to come together with an egg filled with stars…
 
To begin with, most Catholics I know well are not frequently represented here on CAF. They think like liberal Protestants, pick and choose what they can believe - cultural and cafeteria Catholics. Many stick with Catholicism in large measure because of emotional ties, family ties, etc. In fact. I often find Catholics I know more ‘liberal’ than most evangelical Protestants. This is a change during my lifetime (I am a senior). This is especially true among younger Catholics, many of whom carry forward the Church’s superb message on caring for the less fortunate but usually skip Mass and question many central doctrines. There’s an article in the current America, the Jesuit magazine, on this very subject. (As I have mentioned already, I have Catholic and Protestant roots, so follow both traditions rather closely.) Many of these younger Catholics, of course, object to what they view as blanket Catholic condemnation of gays, the Church’s discrimination against women, disallowance of birth control by married couples, etc.

** I understand that Catholics often point to the unity of Catholicism and the many Protestant splinters**. To begin with, I’m not sure the RC is all that united really. It gives that impression but I detect considerabler ferment going on. But what is attractive about mainline Protestantism - Methodists, Presbyterians, UCC, etc. - is that it allows diversity of views within its ranks. They don’t fret about ‘heresies’. When they gather for a Bible study various interpretations may be expressed with no one insisting that there is only the one valid interpretation, the one presented by the Church.

** This is a right I have come to treasure over the years.** I know it is dismissed as egotism, rebelliousness, whatever, but I need such freedom. It makes religion exciting and open to new ideas rather than a straitjacket that limits honest examination of the scriptures and the doctrines of the Church. Evangelical Protestantism often has the same authoritative attitude that Catholicism has. We know the truth, so get on board or else!

More important than doctrine or liturgy is that principal commandment of Christ: let us love another. Too often Christians are believers in Christ, but not really followers. That is the essential challenge of the Christian faith. So much of the rest - in my view - has been impacted and twisted by superstition that is rooted in ancient times, when the three-tier view of the universe was standard - before a decent telescope and any microscope. Christianity must be a living, growing faith and not be saddled with myths that make great parables - for example, the story of Adam and Eve. I’m well aware that millions still adhere to such beliefs, but this is an important factor to turning off well-educated young people from religion.

**But God bless everybody. **
 
To begin with, most Catholics I know well are not frequently represented here on CAF. They think like liberal Protestants, pick and choose what they can believe - cultural and cafeteria Catholics. Many stick with Catholicism in large measure because of emotional ties, family ties, etc. In fact. I often find Catholics I know more ‘liberal’ than most evangelical Protestants. This is a change during my lifetime (I am a senior). This is especially true among younger Catholics, many of whom carry forward the Church’s superb message on caring for the less fortunate but usually skip Mass and question many central doctrines. There’s an article in the current America, the Jesuit magazine, on this very subject. (As I have mentioned already, I have Catholic and Protestant roots, so follow both traditions rather closely.) Many of these younger Catholics, of course, object to what they view as blanket Catholic condemnation of gays, the Church’s discrimination against women, disallowance of birth control by married couples, etc.

** I understand that Catholics often point to the unity of Catholicism and the many Protestant splinters**. To begin with, I’m not sure the RC is all that united really. It gives that impression but I detect considerabler ferment going on. But what is attractive about mainline Protestantism - Methodists, Presbyterians, UCC, etc. - is that it allows diversity of views within its ranks. They don’t fret about ‘heresies’. When they gather for a Bible study various interpretations may be expressed with no one insisting that there is only the one valid interpretation, the one presented by the Church.

** This is a right I have come to treasure over the years.** I know it is dismissed as egotism, rebelliousness, whatever, but I need such freedom. It makes religion exciting and open to new ideas rather than a straitjacket that limits honest examination of the scriptures and the doctrines of the Church. Evangelical Protestantism often has the same authoritative attitude that Catholicism has. We know the truth, so get on board or else!

More important than doctrine or liturgy is that principal commandment of Christ: let us love another. Too often Christians are believers in Christ, but not really followers. That is the essential challenge of the Christian faith. So much of the rest - in my view - has been impacted and twisted by superstition that is rooted in ancient times, when the three-tier view of the universe was standard - before a decent telescope and any microscope. Christianity must be a living, growing faith and not be saddled with myths that make great parables - for example, the story of Adam and Eve. I’m well aware that millions still adhere to such beliefs, but this is an important factor to turning off well-educated young people from religion.
**But God bless everybody. **
Riddle me this Roy. If you take this approach with Adam and Eve…here is what you are saying, doing, and creating…

If there is no Adam and there is no Eve…if there is no one first created human/soul…then there is nothing for Christ to redeem…therefore no necessity for Christ…

If we follow “Roy’s Chrsitianity” and think and believe without boundaries and who is to say what we should agree on and what we should not agree on…once you open the door to myth, parable…you may not but someone else may…widen that door to eliminate the need for Christ…and then…

Too often there will be no Christians that are believers in Christ and no one that are really followers. That is the essential challenge of the Roy’s Christian faith.

I wish you luck in your new religion.
 
[before a decent telescope and any microscope. Christianity must be a living, growing faith and not be saddled with myths that make great parables - for example, the story of Adam and Eve. I’m well aware that millions still adhere to such beliefs, but this is an important factor to turning off well-educated young people from religion.
**

But God bless everybody. **

I read your entire post Roy5. I sympathize with your thoughts. The difference is Catholicism is not man made theology like protestantism. Catholicism is the revelation of God practiced and handed down since pentecost. But protestants refuse to hear this Truth from antiquity and contests the revelations of Jesus Christ practiced these past 2000years since the resurrection.

Freedom and free will has been the poison of protestantism which removes itself from the revelations of Jesus Christ lived out in the Catholic Church when the founders of the reformation were poisoned by “Freedom” removed you from the full deposit of faith in Truth (Jesus). This is not your fault. But freedom and free will allow you to come back and research where you come from. That is up to you.

Three words I would like to close for our young computerized generation to study “Incarnation, Immaculate conception and Transubstantiation.”

Because you do not know Catholicism in the body of Christ, your man made theology in protestantism has given you the freedom to fall for the evil ones tricks that the revelations of Christianity beginning with Adam and Eve is myth and superstitious. Protestantism continues to water down the Word of God as time goes on, but rest assured as Jesus promised “I will be with you always” in the Rock which He built His church upon Peter.

Peace be with you
 
Gabriel of 12

** (1) Frankly, I believe that none of us know all that much about eternal truths.** The universe is simply too huge and awesome for our puny minds to fathom. That in so way diminishes my faith in God, Quite the opposite. I can only believe in a God that I cannot possibly understand. That’s an important part of God being God.

** (2) Of course I don’t believe in a literal Adam and Eve.** To me that is a myth that serves as a powerful parable. It isn’t that important whether they were historic figures. Their story indicates that humankind has a prospensity to sin. But as for the details - pure fiction. Now, as for Noah and the Ark, for example, there probably was an enormous flood in the Middle East. The Gilgamish myth (of Babylonia?) is a similar tale. But building such an ark, getting two of all animals (and seven of some) into that ark, feeding them for 150 days until the water subsided - nonsense! And I don’t for a moment believe that a just God (my God is just) would drown everybody but one family, including little children and even babies in the womb. I also don’t believe that God ‘repented’ that he had created humankind (God made a mistake?), etc. A legend based on some event but exaggerated so much that it became essentially a folktale rather than an historic event.

** (3) One reason that so many have left Christianity and become ‘unidentified’ religiously is because many educated people simply can’t believe the first 11 chapters of Genesis - along with some of the atrocities attributed to God elsewhere in the Old Testament.**
**God bless everybody - no exceptions.**
 
Thank you for sharing the doctrine of Roy. However, if it were not for the Church that Jesus Christ came to start up, by teaching his apostles, the first clergymen of Christianityand the disciples, who passed on the truths of Jesus Christ orally for the first 50 years or so and then thru transcription of the documents which came to be known as the Bible and then faithfully copying and keeping sacred all these traditions you would not be able to have created your own set of Christian beliefs now would you? The One true Church of Jesus Christ can be historically proven.
I never have understood why Catholics feel a need to make comments such as the “doctrine of Roy” unless it is to make themselves feel more secure of their own faith. Because whether it is the Catholic faith or another’s, it all comes down to faith and belief. The Catholic Church can only be “proven” if one accepts in faith the Catholic Church’s interpretations of Herself, of God’s words, and of the ECFs by the men within Her. If you accept by faith and place full faith into the entity interpreting the history of itself, then of course it can be “proven”. But it begins with faith.

As Roy always witnesses to, indeed in faith may God bless everyone with His peace.
 
I never have understood why Catholics feel a need to make comments such as the “doctrine of Roy” unless it is to make themselves feel more secure of their own faith. Because whether it is the Catholic faith or another’s, it all comes down to faith and belief. The Catholic Church can only be “proven” if one accepts in faith the Catholic Church’s interpretations of Herself, of God’s words, and of the ECFs by the men within Her. If you accept by faith and place full faith into the entity interpreting the history of itself, then of course it can be “proven”. But it begins with faith.

As Roy always witnesses to, indeed in faith may God bless everyone with His peace.
Yes Matt it begins with faith and it ends with the word of God. But tell me what happens when one does not accept the Truth of the Catholic Church?

Lets say you do not accept our truth. where do you get your truth. Please do not say the Bible because that comes from the Catholic Church and the Catholic teachings and truth.

SO if you do not accept the Catholic Church or truth why do you believe the bible? Or do you deny it comes from the Church??:confused:
 
Gabriel of 12

** (1) Frankly, I believe that none of us know all that much about eternal truths.** The universe is simply too huge and awesome for our puny minds to fathom. That in so way diminishes my faith in God, Quite the opposite. I can only believe in a God that I cannot possibly understand. That’s an important part of God being God.

** (2) Of course I don’t believe in a literal Adam and Eve.** To me that is a myth that serves as a powerful parable. It isn’t that important whether they were historic figures. Their story indicates that humankind has a prospensity to sin. But as for the details - pure fiction. Now, as for Noah and the Ark, for example, there probably was an enormous flood in the Middle East. The Gilgamish myth (of Babylonia?) is a similar tale. But building such an ark, getting two of all animals (and seven of some) into that ark, feeding them for 150 days until the water subsided - nonsense! And I don’t for a moment believe that a just God (my God is just) would drown everybody but one family, including little children and even babies in the womb. I also don’t believe that God ‘repented’ that he had created humankind (God made a mistake?), etc. A legend based on some event but exaggerated so much that it became essentially a folktale rather than an historic event.

** (3) One reason that so many have left Christianity and become ‘unidentified’ religiously is because many educated people simply can’t believe the first 11 chapters of Genesis - along with some of the atrocities attributed to God elsewhere in the Old Testament.**
Code:
 **God bless everybody - no exceptions.**
So okay if people cannot believe the first 11 Chapters of Genesis, which is the true word of God, how can they believe in God then?
 
👍
Yes Matt it begins with faith and it ends with the word of God. But tell me what happens when one does not accept the Truth of the Catholic Church?

Lets say you do not accept our truth. where do you get your truth. Please do not say the Bible because that comes from the Catholic Church and the Catholic teachings and truth.

SO if you do not accept the Catholic Church or truth why do you believe the bible? Or do you deny it comes from the Church??:confused:
🤷 I don’t know for certain, Rinnie. But I hope we both find out when we see who we meet in heaven. 👍

Rinnie, I am not as well versed in non Catholic beliefs as most non Catholics here. But I know a non Catholic once told me God could have used the Catholic Church at the time for compilation but God can use whoever He wants for whatever purpose. I imagine then some believe God could also use others to reform His Church. So to answer your question I’d have to say if someone does not accept what faithful Catholics believe to be the truth, they can still say they believe in the Bible and get their faith through it and as they strive to listen to God’s Spirit leading them in belief.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top