Why do Catholics believe these unscriptural things? (Split)

[Stevo2112]

Hello everyone,

So, my daughter attends a Catholic school and my wife grew up Catholic. I had a born-again experience when I was 9, and have always considered myself simply to be a Christian. I’ve never been a big fan of Christian labels. By the way, I was also baptized in the Holy Ghost and began speaking in tongues when I was about 20.

Okay, with that said I’m very intrigued with Catholicism. However, when I look at the doctrines, I can’t seem to find a lot of biblical backing. For example, why are kids being sprinkled with water during baptism ? John clearly baptized in the Jordan, as the bible states, “Because there was much water ?”

And that’s a somewhat minor issue compared with doctrines of praying to saints and the near deification of Mary. Mary, by the way, is not the mother of the God or else she would have to be eternal. Jesus said, before Abraham was, I am. Was Mary before Abraham ?

So, really my question is: Who, after the Apostles, really started practicing Catholicism ? Clearly, the people in the bible were not. Nothing I read in the bible brings imagery of a Mass taking place. I’ve heard the quote about Peter being the founder because Jesus said,“Upon this rock will I build my church. . .” However, when I read that it is clear to me that the rock was the revelation of Jesus Christ, not Peter. Peter received the revelation and Jesus said basically, “That’s it !, You got it !.” That’s the foundation for the christian church.

I guess I’m looking for history because it’s not in the bible.

 

[Kopratic]

Luke 1: 43.
“And whence is this to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” {spoken by Elizabeth to Mary after John the Baptist leaps in her womb}

There’s also the whole thing about how Jesus is God, and Mary is the mother of Jesus. Therefore, Mary is the mother of God. {I’m sure someone else will be able to elaborate more on this, explaining it more eloquently than me.}

I just did a quick search and other biblical references that came up were:
Galatians 4: 4-7, Romans 8: 15-17, Revelation 12: 17.

In short, it clear that Mary is, in fact, the mother of God.

 

[loozcannon]

I’ve heard the quote about Peter being the founder because Jesus said,“Upon this rock will I build my church. . .” However, when I read that it is clear to me that the rock was the revelation of Jesus Christ, not Peter. Peter received the revelation and Jesus said basically, “That’s it !, You got it !.” That’s the foundation for the christian church.

Stevo,

First, let me say

[SIGN]WELCOME![/SIGN]
Second, I would try giving this a read and see if that helps.

You did mention that you are intrigued by the Church. It seems you still have your sola scriptura glasses on though.

Welcome to CAF! And I hope you find what you’re looking for here.

God bless you!

P.S.

Also try this as it may have more of what you’re seeking.

 

[po18guy]

As to the point of the thread, those who claim that Catholicism is man-made can only do so by revealing their ignorance of what they condemn. They follow the incomplete bible and whatever pastor thinks it says - but that’s not man-made.

The “bible alone” Jesus tends to appear much more human than divine, and the concept, development and proclamations of the “Jesus Seminar” bear this out

 

[Stevo2112]

po18guy:

I find it strange that Peter was the first Pope and yet the New Testament is dominated by the writings of Paul. What church was Paul a member of ?

 

[bzkoss236]

The “bible alone” Jesus tends to appear much more human than divine, and the concept, development and proclamations of the “Jesus Seminar” bear this out

I agree, from my experience with Protestant worship services and retreats. They seem to refer to Jesus as a separate entity from God more often than denoting Jesus as the second person in God (aka. the Trinity), which always bothered me. Prayers too, seem often only directed towards Jesus (mostly) or God, not often both or all three in the Trinity.

 

[pablope]

po18guy:

I find it strange that Peter was the first Pope and yet the New Testament is dominated by the writings of Paul. What church was Paul a member of ?

Paul was catholic…but a the time of Paul’s it was known as The Way (Acts 9) or the Way of the Lord.

Please ponder: Where is it in the Bible that one has to have many writings to be the pope?

Peter was chosen by Christ. There are many instances of him practicing this leadership.

But I will just cite the following to make this short:

Peter’s preeminent position among the apostles was symbolized at the very beginning of his relationship with Christ. At their first meeting, Christ told Simon that his name would thereafter be Peter, which translates as “Rock” (John 1:42). Given the culture of that time…giving a new name meant that the status of the person was changed, as when:

Abram to Abraham……Gen 17:15….Neither shall thy name be called any more Abram: but thou shalt be called Abraham: because I have made thee a father of many nations.

Jacob to Israel….Gen 35……. 10And God said unto him, Thy name is Jacob: thy name shall not be called any more Jacob, but Israel shall be thy name: and he called his name Israel………. 11And God said unto him, I am God Almighty: be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall be of thee, and kings shall come out of thy loins;

Simon to Cephas/Peter…Matt 16…17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter,** and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[c] will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[d] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[e] loosed in heaven.”

Notice the commands with the name change…give to Abraham, Israel and Peter.**

 

[po18guy]

po18guy:

I find it strange that Peter was the first Pope and yet the New Testament is dominated by the writings of Paul. What church was Paul a member of ?

You are zeroed in only on the writings, which did not exist in the early Church. For the first 20+ years, there was no writing, only preaching. We err if we assume that the Church was founded on, or nourished by NT scriipture at its inception. Not true then, even if it is today. It was a Gospel that was orally preached, and reduced to writing at a much later date. Even then, the writings we have reflect only a tiny fragment of the Gospel message (John 20:30, 21:25). This was a primitive world, and writings, even if intended for the universal Church, took years, even decades, to compose, be copied and distributed. The New Testament writings were not even finished until 11 of the Twelve, and Paul, were long dead. There was no 'bible" as we know it for almost 400 years!

Read the Prologue to Luke (Luke 1:1-4). From these four short verses, we see that the Gospel was taught exclusively via the oral Apostolic Tradition. Theophilus learned nothing, zip, zero, nada, from Luke’s Gospel. Luke wrote that Gospel only to confirm the oiral teaching that Theolphilus had already received. It added nothing to the oral teaching he had received.

As to Peter:

Let’s look at just a few things that our Lord Jesus said to Peter: “You are Kepha, and on this kepha I will found my Church”, “I will give you the keys to the Kingdom of God”, “Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven”, “Whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven”, “Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat”, “When you have turned (repented), strengthen your brothers”, “Follow Me”, “Come” (across the water). This is off the top of my head. There are many, many other significant things Jesus said to Peter.

Of the twelve, Peter is named 195 times. The closest is John “the beloved disciple” at just 29 times. The rest are named even less - some only in the list of the Apostles.

Peter’s words alone convicted the first 3,000 members of the Church on the Pentecost (Acts 2). Peter’s words silenced the assembly at the first council at Jerusalem (Acts 15). Peter’s shadow healed the sick (Acts 5:15). Peter held Ananias’ and Saphira’s sin bound on earth and in heaven (Acts 5:1-10).

As to Paul:

To Ananias regarding Paul, Jesus said “Go thy way; for this man is to me a vessel of election, to carry my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel.”

To Paul, He said “I am Jesus, Whom you persecute”, “Arise, and go into the city, and there it shall be told thee what thou must do.” (Paul elaborated a bit on this in Acts 26).

Paul traveled to see Peter, and to the Church in Acts 15, to establish the doctrine on circumcision. He travelled to Peter to confirm that his Gospel was consistent with that of the Church (Galatians 2:2). And yes, Paul rebuked Peter when he sinned.

Despite his sinfulness, Jesus chose Peter first, made him first among equals, and gave Peter control over the gates of heaven, power over all things on earth and in heaven - especially sin, and made him the shepherd of his brothers. Paul was a preacher sent to the Gentiles. Even so, this in no way reduces the amazing work of the glorious Apostle Paul!

The Lord had foreordained vastly different, but equally important roles for these two men. As well, we must remember that Saul’s conversion came much later, as the persecution of the Church increased.

The NT is dominated by Paul’s writings because Peter simply wrote less than Paul did, and used a translator when he did. Remember that Paul was an educated, erudite Pharisee, while Peter was an uneducated fisherman. Secondly, we have Paul’s writings because the Church, over several centuries, tested Paul’s writings and approved them.

As the Church developed, Peter and Paul performed two different missionary functions relating to the Jews and the Gentiles. Could it be that Paul wrote more because he travelled more, and had to write to the Churches he established as his traveled?

Remember that Jesus assigned Peter the task of strengthening his brothers, and to Paul to preach to many nations. Even so, there was crossover between their preaching, as we see from Acts 10 in Peter’s case. Paul, for his part, also preached to the Jews.

Evidence that Peter was the leader of the Church, if it is not plainly seen in scripture, is found in Church records of the successors to Peter in the Bishopric of Rome. There is no list of successors of any other Apostle. I think we should pay attention to this action of the very early Church. They assembled the list for a reason, and we have that list today.

When you base your faith solely on the written record, Paul wins by sheer volume of words. Yet, notice that Luke’s second book is the ACTS of the Apostles, not the writings of the Apostles. It was a Church of preaching and physical acts, not one of writing. They had to enter the synagogues to even see the OT scrolls.

As to Peter and Paul, Jesus chose both of them, and the Catholic Church honors both of them with a feast day.

 

[ConstantineTG]

po18guy:

I find it strange that Peter was the first Pope and yet the New Testament is dominated by the writings of Paul. What church was Paul a member of ?

It has nothing to do with the number of books written in the Bible. Consider that one of the greatest figures for the Jews is Abraham, yet he didn’t even write one book in the Old Testament.

 

[Church_Militant]

Hello everyone,

So, my daughter attends a Catholic school and my wife grew up Catholic. I had a born-again experience when I was 9, and have always considered myself simply to be a Christian. I’ve never been a big fan of Christian labels. By the way, I was also baptized in the Holy Ghost and began speaking in tongues when I was about 20.

Maybe you should read My Testimony since we have some similar experiences.

Okay, with that said I’m very intrigued with Catholicism. However, when I look at the doctrines, I can’t seem to find a lot of biblical backing.

Okay…lets start with a question for you Steve. Where does it say in the Bible that everything that Christians believe and practice has to be found within the Bible? I’d appreciate it if you could supply chapter and verse, since no one has been able to do so so far. You might take a look at the following threads.
“If anyone teaches/preaches something that is not in scripture”
It’s NOT in the Bible, okay?
It’s NOT in the Bible, okay? (Part II)

For example, why are kids being sprinkled with water during baptism ? John clearly baptized in the Jordan, as the bible states, “Because there was much water ?”

Where do you get the idea that we sprinkle? That is not true. We generally pour for Baptism, however we also immerse sometimes as well, though not for infants. Further, I know the passages you refer to and they nowhere state that John was immersing. The fact is that we do not have that information, so your assumption can be wrong. Was the Philippian jailor and his whole household immersed…in the middle of the night after they washed the apostles wounds? Something else you might see and then seriously reconsider your beliefs would be found in the following articles of mine on my blog. The Case For Infant Baptism & Baptism~ Necessary or Not?

And that’s a somewhat minor issue compared with doctrines of praying to saints

The Intercession & Communion of Saints is quite Biblical, as this article of mine shows.

and the near deification of Mary.

Kindly provide any authentic and authoritative Catholic document that teaches any such thing. You would be wise to perhaps have a look at the following recent thread on that very topic to get more accurate information on this. Worship of Mary?

Mary, by the way, is not the mother of the God or else she would have to be eternal. Jesus said, before Abraham was, I am. Was Mary before Abraham ?

Really? Perhaps you need to get more accurate information, so see Mother of God here on Catholic Answers.

In fact: The three “pillars of the reformation”, Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli, all believed that Mary was the mother of God.

Mother of God

Martin Luther: “In this work whereby she was made the Mother of God, so many and such good things were given her that no one can grasp them… Not only was Mary the mother of Him who is born [in Bethlehem], but of Him who, before the world, was eternally born of the Father, from a Mother in time and at the same time man and God.” (The Works of Luther, English translation by Pelikan, Concordia, St. Louis, Vol. 7, page 572)

John Calvin: “It cannot be denied that God in choosing and destining Mary to be the Mother of His Son, granted her the highest honor…Elizabeth calls Mary Mother of the Lord, because the unity of the person in the two natures of Christ was such that she could have said that the mortal man engendered in the womb of Mary was at the same time the eternal God.” (Calvini Opera, Corpus reformatorum, Braunschweig-Berlin, 1863-1900, Vol. 45, page 348 and 335.)

Ulrich Zwingli: “It was given to her what belongs to no creature, that in the flesh she should bring forth the Son of God.” ( Zwingli Opera, Corpus reformatorum, Berlin, 1905, in Evang. Luc., Op. Comp., Vol.
6, I, page 639.)

So, really my question is: Who, after the Apostles, really started practicing Catholicism ? Clearly, the people in the bible were not. Nothing I read in the bible brings imagery of a Mass taking place.

Then you are not reading the Bible like you should and are probably taking someone else’s word for this, because I, and many others here at CAF, have recently completed an intensive Bible study course by Dr, Edward Sri entitled A Biblical Walk Through the Mass which you would do well to purchase and “Carefully study to present thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.” You might also read the following blog article of mine. What Was Authentic Early Christian Worship Really Like?

I’ve heard the quote about Peter being the founder because Jesus said,“Upon this rock will I build my church. . .” However, when I read that it is clear to me that the rock was the revelation of Jesus Christ, not Peter. Peter received the revelation and Jesus said basically, “That’s it !, You got it !.” That’s the foundation for the christian church.

Unfortunately, you have been taught wrong and do not know that Our Lord was speaking to him in Aramaic and not the Greek of the New Testament. Just to get you started, what is the other name that Peter is called by in the New Testament, other than Simon? See Peter the Rock

I guess I’m looking for history because it’s not in the bible.

Again…please show me where the Bible says that everything has to be from the Bible. I don’t believe that you can, which makes that belief unscriptural.

I find it strange that Peter was the first Pope and yet the New Testament is dominated by the writings of Paul. What church was Paul a member of ?

Paul was clearly a Catholic because he taught the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. See The Eucharist IS Scriptural on my blog.

 

[snarflemike]

Hello everyone,

So, my daughter attends a Catholic school and my wife grew up Catholic. I had a born-again experience when I was 9, and have always considered myself simply to be a Christian. I’ve never been a big fan of Christian labels. By the way, I was also baptized in the Holy Ghost and began speaking in tongues when I was about 20.

Okay, with that said I’m very intrigued with Catholicism. However, when I look at the doctrines, I can’t seem to find a lot of biblical backing. For example, why are kids being sprinkled with water during baptism ? John clearly baptized in the Jordan, as the bible states, “Because there was much water ?”

So were you baptized in the Jordan? If not, was your baptism unbiblical?

And that’s a somewhat minor issue compared with doctrines of praying to saints and the near deification of Mary. Mary, by the way, is not the mother of the God or else she would have to be eternal. Jesus said, before Abraham was, I am. Was Mary before Abraham ?

Who is Mary the mother of, then?

And what in the world is “near deification”?

 

[Marc_Anthony]

I don’t know why we’re dancing around the issue. You’re right. Not everything in Catholicism has direct backing in the Bible. Catholicism doesn’t use the Bible as the source of all its doctrine. We also use Sacred Tradition, passed down from the earliest days of Christianity, to derive our doctrines.

Might as well just admit it.

 

[po18guy]

I don’t know why we’re dancing around the issue. You’re right. Not everything in Catholicism has direct backing in the Bible. Catholicism doesn’t use the Bible as the source of all its doctrine. We also use Sacred Tradition, passed down from the earliest days of Christianity, to derive our doctrines.

Might as well just admit it.

Since the bible tells us that it is incomplete in numerous verses (Luke 3:18, John 20:30, John 21:25, Acts 2:40, 1 Corinthians 11:34, Ephesians 6:21, Colossians 4:7 and many others), and since man lives by “every word that issues from the mouth of God” (Deuteronomy 8:3, Matthew 4:4), clearly the fulness of revelation lies outside of the bible. The extremely sad fact is that so many today encounter God solely via the bible. This is a tragedy. Christ remains always with us, as He proclaimed in Matthew 28:20, but there was no bible when he said that! One must then wonder just how this is.

 

[Farsight001]

Okay, with that said I’m very intrigued with Catholicism. However, when I look at the doctrines, I can’t seem to find a lot of biblical backing.

I can’t seem to find a lot of biblical backing for sola scriptura either. Why would something have to be in the bible to be allowed?

For example, why are kids being sprinkled with water during baptism ? John clearly baptized in the Jordan, as the bible states, “Because there was much water ?”

First, it is important to note that we do not “sprinkle”. That is a word some of the less kind apologists against Catholicism use as a jab at the faith. (Not saying you are, but that you heard it from one). Sprinkling is allowed only in life or death emergencies and in which there isn’t enough water to do more. We pour, which is actually exactly what was done in scripture. In the bible, one getting baptized would go down into the water, usually up to their waste, but sometimes even just the knees, and someone else would use a container to lift up the water and pour it over their head.

And that’s a somewhat minor issue compared with doctrines of praying to saints and the near deification of Mary. Mary, by the way, is not the mother of the God or else she would have to be eternal. Jesus said, before Abraham was, I am. Was Mary before Abraham ?

A mother is simply a woman who carries for about nine months and gives birth to a child. Did Mary do this? Yes, of course. Then, by definition, she is Jesus’ mother, and since Jesus is God, she is the mother of God. Nothing in the definition of the word mother necessitates her being eternal or pre-existing.

So, really my question is: Who, after the Apostles, really started practicing Catholicism ?

Historically, Catholics were there from the very beginning, whether Catholic teachings are unbiblical or not. The earliest mention of the Catholic Church by name dates to 110 A.D. in the writings of Ignatius of Antioch, who spoke of a well organized Church with a defined hierarchy that had been around for some time already.

Nothing I read in the bible brings imagery of a Mass taking place.

Really? Nothing in the bible brings to mind the dozens of scripture quotes laced throughout the mass? Nothing in the bible brings to mind communion? No offense, but, are you sure its the bible you’re reading?

I’ve heard the quote about Peter being the founder because Jesus said,“Upon this rock will I build my church. . .” However, when I read that it is clear to me that the rock was the revelation of Jesus Christ, not Peter. Peter received the revelation and Jesus said basically, “That’s it !, You got it !.” That’s the foundation for the christian church.

No. You were told that it was the revelation of Jesus Christ. Don’t try to tell us that you read it and came to that conclusion personally. No one does that. Why? Because it’s a grammatically impossible conclusion. According to the rules of grammar, there is precisely one noun in that entire discourse that could be the rock Jesus was talking about, and that is Peter. Not his confession of faith, not Jesus, not any revelation. Just Peter.

I guess I’m looking for history because it’s not in the bible.

I say this in the most gentle way possible - stop reading the bible. Start studying it.

I know it’s a strange thing, but I have often pictured in my mind a political cartoon, which I would have drawn by now, if I could draw, where there are numerous people at a lake, which is called bible lake. At the shore there are a bunch of Catholics wary of the water and afraid to get in. All over the lake, swimming, and in boats are tons of non-Catholic Christians wondering why the Catholics won’t jump in. But unknowns to all of them, there is actually a large group of Catholics who have dived in and are down beneath the surface in diving bells, scuba gear, and submarines, doing more than a surface study of the lake.

My point is that I have never seen a protestant attain anywhere near the depth of study and understanding of, or love for, the bible that some Catholics have.

 

[sw85]

The Bible is the highest theological authority in the Catholic Church.

But it’s worth remembering that “highest” means “there is no higher.” It does not mean “there is no equal.”

God is just as capable of revealing truth through canonized texts as He is through papal pronouncements, through ecumenical councils, etc.

As far as the “I don’t see it in Scripture, therefore it must be false” argument is concerned, the simple answer is that you aren’t an exegetical authority.

 

[bmonk]

Hello everyone,

So, my daughter attends a Catholic school and my wife grew up Catholic. I had a born-again experience when I was 9, and have always considered myself simply to be a Christian. I’ve never been a big fan of Christian labels. By the way, I was also baptized in the Holy Ghost and began speaking in tongues when I was about 20.

Okay, with that said I’m very intrigued with Catholicism. However, when I look at the doctrines, I can’t seem to find a lot of biblical backing. For example, why are kids being sprinkled with water during baptism ? John clearly baptized in the Jordan, as the bible states, “Because there was much water ?”

And that’s a somewhat minor issue compared with doctrines of praying to saints and the near deification of Mary. Mary, by the way, is not the mother of the God or else she would have to be eternal. Jesus said, before Abraham was, I am. Was Mary before Abraham ?

So, really my question is: Who, after the Apostles, really started practicing Catholicism ? Clearly, the people in the bible were not. Nothing I read in the bible brings imagery of a Mass taking place. I’ve heard the quote about Peter being the founder because Jesus said,“Upon this rock will I build my church. . .” However, when I read that it is clear to me that the rock was the revelation of Jesus Christ, not Peter. Peter received the revelation and Jesus said basically, “That’s it !, You got it !.” That’s the foundation for the christian church.

I guess I’m looking for history because it’s not in the bible.

I admit that, at times, we reduce the symbols (such as water at baptism) to a bare minimum. However, we do insist on that minimum. What of those who are saved not through baptism, but simply by professing their faith in God? Where is the biblical backing for that? Always, when someone turns to God, their next step is baptism, as happened with the Eunuch in Acts 8, or Cornelius in Acts 10, and so on.

Mary is the “Mother of God” as defined in the Council of Ephesus (431) because her son Jesus is one being, both fully human and fully divine. This doctrine actually says more about Jesus than Mary: he is not a human attached to a divine being, or something like that. He is one being, one person.

As for praying to the saints, that comes from a faith in the unity of the Body of Christ. We are not divided by death–rather, those still on Earth, and those who have died are united in the “communion of saints” as the Apostolic Creed says it. Asking someone you meet here in life to pray for you is not different, in principle, from asking the saints to pray for you.

“Nothing in the bible brings about the imagery of a Mass taking place”?

Look at the Eucharistic language in John 6: Jesus takes bread, blesses it, (breaks it) and distributes to the disciples for the crowds. The same verbs used in the Mass. The same actions we do in the Mass. The similar story in Mark 6 has Jesus first teaching the crowds, then having them sit down in 50s and 100s (parishes?), then he takes, blesses, breaks and gives the loaves and fish to be distributed, before he dismisses them. Again, it is all reflected in the ritual of the Mass. This is besides the descriptions of the Last Supper in Matthew, Mark and Luke. Finally, Paul writes in 1 Cor 11 about an abuse in how they were celebrating the Lord’s Supper, and tells them what he received, and reduces it to the “essential” meal we still celebrate today.

Beyond that, the Apostolic Fathers, concurrent with the Apostles or very soon after, already have many Catholic elements. The Didache (written by 120) has the Eucharist described, in basically the same form we still use. Ignatius of Antioch (died between 105 and 115) has the Bishop-Priests-Deacons structure in local churches.

Peter is the rock, because that’s the name Jesus gave him: Cephas (Aramaic, as Paul uses in Gal 1:18 and 2:9) means “Rock,” and the Greek form is “Petra,” masculinized as Petras, which is brought into English as Peter. His given name was Simon, Son of Jonah. So you are very much mistaken: Peter is the Rock.

 

[po18guy]

po18guy:

I find it strange that Peter was the first Pope and yet the New Testament is dominated by the writings of Paul. What church was Paul a member of ?

Steve, you can really benefit from a copy of Catholicism for Dummies (I have my own copy). It is used in many RCIA programs, and should probably be in all of them. It will explain, bit by bit, the Catholic teaching on nearly everything. You will have a much more favorable (and informed) opinion of Catholicism if you were to read through it.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Since the bible tells us that it is incomplete in numerous verses (Luke 3:18, John 20:30, John 21:25, Acts 2:40, 1 Corinthians 11:34, Ephesians 6:21, Colossians 4:7 and many others), and since man lives by “every word that issues from the mouth of God” (Deuteronomy 8:3, Matthew 4:4), clearly the fulness of revelation lies outside of the bible. The extremely sad fact is that so many today encounter God solely via the bible. This is a tragedy. Christ remains always with us, as He proclaimed in Matthew 28:20, but there was no bible when he said that! One must then wonder just how this is.

Exactly

 

[JonNC]

=Stevo2112;9652289]Hello everyone,

So, my daughter attends a Catholic school and my wife grew up Catholic. I had a born-again experience when I was 9, and have always considered myself simply to be a Christian. I’ve never been a big fan of Christian labels. By the way, I was also baptized in the Holy Ghost and began speaking in tongues when I was about 20.

Who, Steve, interprets when you speak in tongues?

Okay, with that said I’m very intrigued with Catholicism. However, when I look at the doctrines, I can’t seem to find a lot of biblical backing. For example, why are kids being sprinkled with water during baptism ? John clearly baptized in the Jordan, as the bible states, “Because there was much water ?”

Does scripture say that St. John the Baptist actually immersed people?

And that’s a somewhat minor issue compared with doctrines of praying to saints and the near deification of Mary. Mary, by the way, is not the mother of the God or else she would have to be eternal. Jesus said, before Abraham was, I am. Was Mary before Abraham ?

If one believes in the Incarnation, then it seems clear, based on scripture, that Mary was, indeed, the Mother of God.

My point is that when you start a thread like this, you cast a wide net.

Jon

 

[po18guy]

Who, Steve, interprets when you speak in tongues?

Does scripture say that St. John the Baptist actually immersed people?

If one believes in the Incarnation, then it seems clear, based on scripture, that Mary was, indeed, the Mother of God.

My point is that when you start a thread like this, you cast a wide net.

Jon

Jon, the sad fact is that many “bible Christians” actually use two books: scripture and a Greek dictionary. Thus, imposing the dictionary definition of a word upon scripture, despite its contextual historical usage, leads many completely astray.