The Invention of Catholicism?

[Bubba_Switzler]

What we have is the New Testament - which came from the Catholic Church. Which, if the Catholic Church was in the habit of inventing stuff out of thin air…

Are you noticing the pattern here yet? Every post you write rests on hyperbole. Are you using hyperbole because you are a meladramatic sort of guy or because your argument rests on it?

…isn’t any more reliable than the Mass, or the teachings on Mary, or the teachings on the Saints, or the belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist - all of which were being practiced and taught by the Church before the canon of the New Testament was developed. But if you say that the Mass is an invention of man, or that the teachings about Mary are heretical, then you have absolutely nothing to base your trust in the Bible on, since if they “invented” the Mass and the teachings on Mary, then what is to have prevented them from “inventing” the four Gospels and the Epistles of the New Testament?

First of all, I don’t trust the Bible any more than I do other Catholic dogma. If that is your only point, then I agree with you.

But you seem to be implying, still, that one must take it all at face value or discard it all as myth (or worse). There is no reason whatsoever to do that and I have provided several examples where we don’t, with good reason, take such an all-or-knowthing approach.

I’m having a hard time picturing atheists and satanists giving honour to Mary, or participating in the Mass.

Well, I don’t claim to be an expert on atheists and satanists but, by and large, even they don’t claim that the Catholic Church made up everything.

 

[look3467]

First of all, I don’t trust the Bible any more than I do other Catholic dogma. If that is your only point, then I agree with you.

But you seem to be implying, still, that one must take it all at face value or discard it all as myth (or worse). There is no reason whatsoever to do that and I have provided several examples where we don’t, with good reason, take such an all-or-knowthing approach.>>>Bubba

Hence, he New Testament being a workbook?

Salvation is workable in the sense that each individual first must attain it, in order to work out the fleshly gods to begin building treasures in heaven.

It is an individual thing with God that collectively we can worship Him according to personal preference.

That way, we are subject to none.

If you can understand what I mean by none?

Clue: Act 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

If one and not all must pay the price, can we say none but one?

And who is that none if but one, if not Jesus?

Individually, we are subject to Jesus, our High Priest, yet while our independence wills it so.

Peace>>>AJ

 

[jmcrae]

Are you noticing the pattern here yet? Every post you write rests on hyperbole. Are you using hyperbole because you are a meladramatic sort of guy or because your argument rests on it?

Okay. My basis for believing that the Bible is true, is the inerrancy of the Catholic Church. Pope Innocent I gave the list of the 27 books of the New Testament and said, “These 27 books are the product of the inerrant inspiration of God,” and I believe it, because the Pope said it, and I believe the Pope because I believe in the promise of Christ to the Catholic Church.

What (if any) is your basis for believing that the Bible is true? While at the same time not believing the Pope’s statements about Mary, the Eucharist, the Mass, etc.

i.e. Is there some kind of independent way of verifying the Bible, other than the statement of the Pope that it is so?

Well, I don’t claim to be an expert on atheists and satanists but, by and large, even they don’t claim that the Catholic Church made up everything.

Right. But, if you say that it made up this, but didn’t make up that, then you have to have some kind of independent way of knowing which is which, right? So, if you have this independent method, then, please, clue me in. Because as far as I am aware, we have no way of knowing that the Bible is, in fact, the Bible, other than that Pope Innocent I told us so.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Hence, he New Testament being a workbook?..And who is that none if but one, if not Jesus?Individually, we are subject to Jesus, our High Priest, yet while our independence wills it so.

This is an interesting way to look it it. And I wouldn’t restrict it to the NT.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

My basis for believing that the Bible is true, is the inerrancy of the Catholic Church. Pope Innocent I gave the list of the 27 books of the New Testament and said, “These 27 books are the product of the inerrant inspiration of God,” and I believe it, because the Pope said it, and I believe the Pope because I believe in the promise of Christ to the Catholic Church.
What (if any) is your basis for believing that the Bible is true? While at the same time not believing the Pope’s statements about Mary, the Eucharist, the Mass, etc. i.e. Is there some kind of independent way of verifying the Bible, other than the statement of the Pope that it is so?

I think your question presumes too much in each case but rather than go off on that tangent, let me answer simply with a couple examples. Recently the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Judas were unearthed and there was great excitement about them. But as it turned out, both were products of the second century whereas the synoptic Gospels are fairly well established as products of the mid first century. Thus while they can tell us a lot about what the Gnostics believed (in many cases we only know about heretics from the orthodox counter-arguments), there is no reason to think that they are accurate descriptions of their subject.

On the other hand, I am prefectly willing to distinguish between Gospels and John, which most agree was written later (and not all agree it was writtn by John the Apostle). And even within John you can make the distinction between what Jesus is quoted as saying and what John writes by way of exposition (e.g. John 1:1 which is beautiful, poetic theology).

Right. But, if you say that it made up this, but didn’t make up that, then you have to have some kind of independent way of knowing which is which, right? So, if you have this independent method, then, please, clue me in. Because as far as I am aware, we have no way of knowing that the Bible is, in fact, the Bible, other than that Pope Innocent I told us so.

There are all sorts of tools that historians use to evaluate ancient texts, most of which are used by theologeons.

(The question is not whether the Bible is the Bible, that can be so as a matter of arbitrary definition, but what it means for a paritcular book to be in the Bible and the value and meaning of that book itself.)

 

[look3467]

This is an interesting way to look it it. And I wouldn’t restrict it to the NT.

The difference between the old and the new is the cross.
It is the cross-roads between what was lost and what is saved.

The old “lost estate” was independence gained via knowledge, as in free will to decide good from evil.but alienation from God.

The “new estate” meaning the “new creation” is with independence retained without penalty of alienation but subject to independence free will to receive blessings or cursing.

Cursings meaning, God’s allowing this world to be our task master to hold us captive, verses blessings, our allowing God to be our comforter in times of our trials and tribulations.

The first holds while the second frees.

We are free in Jesus to be individuals, to worship Him in heart, or like He says in spirit and in truth.

Peace>>>AJ

 

[jmcrae]

I think your question presumes too much in each case but rather than go off on that tangent, let me answer simply with a couple examples. Recently the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Judas were unearthed and there was great excitement about them. But as it turned out, both were products of the second century whereas the synoptic Gospels are fairly well established as products of the mid first century.

Which we know because of the archaeological work of St. Helena and the scholarship of St. Jerome. (Catholic scholars of the time; not independent scientists of today.)

There are all sorts of tools that historians use to evaluate ancient texts, most of which are used by theologeons.

And which are based on the work of Catholic scholars in the early centuries of the Church. It isn’t an independent source; it’s the same source.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Which we know because of the archaeological work of St. Helena and the scholarship of St. Jerome. (Catholic scholars of the time; not independent scientists of today.) And which are based on the work of Catholic scholars in the early centuries of the Church. It isn’t an independent source; it’s the same source.

Absolutely true. Nobody here, least of all me, are suggesting that Catholics/Catholicism have/has not made amazing contributions to civilization in general and our understanding of God in particular.

In this thread I simply argued that it didn’t all come at once at Pentacost. And in our last exchange I’m arguing that the above is not incompatible with the idea that Catholics are fallible humans and that Catholicism might benefit from taking a more humanistic view of its role in history.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

The difference between the old and the new is the cross. We are free in Jesus to be individuals, to worship Him in heart, or like He says in spirit and in truth.

If by this you mean to contrast Israel in the OT with humanity in the NT, I would agree. There are many interesting difference betwen the OT and the NT and many interesting similarities (and parallels, and forshadoings, etc.).

 

[look3467]

Recently the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Judas were unearthed and there was great excitement about them.>>Bubba

I’ve read those letters and I find them to be in harmony with the spiritual message of what Jesus came to give us to understand, and that is, the change that the heart has to make, from and earthly desire to a heavenly desire.

You’ve read about the heart of stone where the laws were written, meaning that there was no love for it, but now they are written in the hearts of flesh, where love can be exercised towards them.

You know…the two commandments!

1st five = love God
2nd five= love thy neighbor

If we love God as in the first five, we will honor the second five, or if we honor the second five, we will honor the first.

Does this not fit the message of this verse: 1Jo 2:23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also].

If we love Jesus as our brother, we love God, or if we love God, we love Jesus as our brother.

Jesus did come in the flesh right?

And does these verse not describe who our neighbor is?

Peace>>>AJ

 

[CWBetts]

Recently the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Judas were unearthed and there was great excitement about them.>>Bubba

I’ve read those letters and I find them to be in harmony with the spiritual message of what Jesus came to give us to understand, and that is, the change that the heart has to make, from and earthly desire to a heavenly desire.

You’ve read about the heart of stone where the laws were written, meaning that there was no love for it, but now they are written in the hearts of flesh, where love can be exercised towards them.

You know…the two commandments!

1st five = love God
2nd five= love thy neighbor

If we love God as in the first five, we will honor the second five, or if we honor the second five, we will honor the first.

Does this not fit the message of this verse: 1Jo 2:23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also].

If we love Jesus as our brother, we love God, or if we love God, we love Jesus as our brother.

Jesus did come in the flesh right?

And does these verse not describe who our neighbor is?

Peace>>>AJ

So YOU find thin without error? Do you have the same protection from error as the Holy Father or the Magisterium of Holy Mother Church? I think not. Until they are declared canon by the Magesterium, these texts are not t be considered as having the same weight as the recognized Scriptures.

 

[allhers]

Recently the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Judas were unearthed and there was great excitement about them.>>Bubba

Peace>>>AJ

I’m sorry but did you really think that the Catholic Church didn’t know about these?

 

[elvisman]

When I say, “All those who believe in the resurrection are His” I’m only making a distinction between those who believe in the resurrection and those who do not. Certainly I don’t include the demons and the rebellious with those who are saved.

**Then you can’t say, “All those who believe in the resurrection are His”, now can you? **

 

[cazayoux]

Recently the Gospel of Thomas … [was] unearthed and there was great excitement about them.>>Bubba

Really? We’ve knew about the ‘Gospel of Thomas’ at least in the 4th century. It was decided not to allow it into the canon because it was consider a forgery (not from Thomas) and was very late in surfacing (2nd or 3rd century).

michel

 

[ron77nyc]

Then you can’t say, “All those who believe in the resurrection are His”, now can you?

I got it from the Lord. Maybe you should ask Him why He didn’t get anal about it when He was talking to Martha.

John 11:25 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me will live even if he dies, 26 and everyone who lives and believes in Me will never die.

 

[elvisman]

I got it from the Lord. Maybe you should ask Him why He didn’t get anal about it when He was talking to Martha.

John 11:25 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me will live even if he dies, 26 and everyone who lives and believes in Me will never die.

First of all because he didn’t tell her that “all those who believe in the resurrection” are his. Remember the passages I showed you about the demons believing in him. You’re sinking back into “easy believeism”.

**Secondly, when Jesus says that those who believe in him will have everlasting life - he means that those who believe in him take up their cross daily and follow him, do his will and endure to the end (Luke 9:23, Matt. 7:21, Matt. 24, 13, Mark 13:13), **
This is what is known as, "reading the Scriptures in context."

 

[ron77nyc]

**First of all because he didn’t **tell her that “all those who believe in the resurrection” are his. Remember the passages I showed you about the demons believing in him. You’re sinking back into “easy believeism”.

**Secondly, when Jesus says that those who believe **in him will have everlasting life - he means that those who believe in him take up their cross daily and follow him, do his will and endure to the end (Luke 9:23, Matt. 7:21, Matt. 24, 13, Mark 13:13),
This is what is known as, "reading the Scriptures in context."

I don’t condone easy believism. I already made that clear. You seem to be using me to continue an argument that began with someone else.

Now let’s get back to the main topic: The Invention of Catholicism. Can you think of anything that has been added to Christianity that isn’t part of apostolic teaching? Can you think of anything that is apostolic teaching that the Church no longer considers important?

 

[cazayoux]

Can you think of anything that is apostolic teaching that the Church no longer considers important?

I can think of one…

1 Cor 15:29
[29] Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf?

Not sure that Paul condones baptizing on behalf of the dead, but he certainly doesn’t detract those from it.
You and I agree that we do not believe this is okay.

michel

 

[allhers]

I can think of one…

1 Cor 15:29
[29] Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf?

Not sure that Paul condones baptizing on behalf of the dead, but he certainly doesn’t detract those from it.
You and I agree that we do not believe this is okay.

michel

The footnotes in my Bible say this about that passage.
(It’s the NAB edition)
Paul concludes his treatment of logical inconsistencies with a listing of miscellaneous Christian practices that would be meaningless if the resurrection were not a fact.

 

[look3467]

So YOU find thin without error? Do you have the same protection from error as the Holy Father or the Magisterium of Holy Mother Church? I think not. Until they are declared canon by the Magesterium, these texts are not t be considered as having the same weight as the recognized Scriptures.

I was just commenting on those books of what I was able to see and understand of them.
Regardless of what position they hold in the Catholics view matters not in what the message they are portraying.
The general message is that God stirs the heart in a personal one on one situation and where the heart of the matter is.

Anyone can interpret anything they want out of them as with the bible.

The message in whole changes not in the entire bible, books, writings as well as the “thin” as you called them where God deals directly with the heart of mankind.

It is the heart that must change regardless of circumstances, because there, is where the power of God lies, to empower us to become victorious over this world, its circumstances and the will to fight for truth in the face of extreme odds.

If you’ve had a change of heart, understood as repentance, a change of mind to wards the things of God, you have the heavens at your right hand.

Or in other words, simply said, God is backing you up when you strive to do His good works.
To rise above the elements of the flesh in the spirit is the desired goal, for there is where treasures in heaven are built.

Mat 6:20 But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:

So, in short, the matter of all religion has to do with the heart.

Peace>>>AJ