Are Catholic Beliefs and Practices Biblical?

[McGinn77]

IMO as someone from the outside here is what makes you a "Christian":

1. Do you Believe Jesus is the only son of god
2. do you believe he died for the sins of man
3. do you believe he was physically ressurected from the dead

That's it, the rest defines denominations not Christianity. Feel free to begin the "but out way of believing is right, theirs is wrong". I won't join in that one.

 

[SeekYeFirst]

So Muslims use the OT, Christians don't? Only the NT is to be taken literally? ...sounds like an interpretation...

BTW, does it actually SAY in the NT that the OT is to be thrown out?

Not thrown out. Certain parts of the Law were originally intended to point to Christ and have been fulfilled by Him.

Matthew 5:17
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

 

[UNA]

I've gathered that you have no deity. Forgive me if I'm wrong. I don't mind too much anyway. Atheists and other "non-believers" can make a thread fun.

But I am a believer, just not in what you believe

 

[McGinn77]

Not thrown out. Certain parts of the Law were originally intended to point to Christ and have been fulfilled by Him.

Matthew 5:17
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

But then he said a bunch of the Torah no longer applies....

 

[UNA]

Not thrown out. Certain parts of the Law were originally intended to point to Christ and have been fulfilled by Him.

Matthew 5:17
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

But isn't that a 'non-literal' interpretation?

Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

 

[SeekYeFirst]

But then he said a bunch of the Torah no longer applies....

If Jesus fulfilled the requirements for sacrificing lambs for example, because the sacrifice was a picture of His ultimate sacrifice, is it needful for us to continue to sacrifice our sheep?

When I say we take the Bible literally, it does not mean continuing to practice the parts that are no longer meant for us. It does mean understanding them and knowing why they are in the Bible, and what can be learned from them.

 

[Anabaptist]

But then he said a bunch of the Torah no longer applies....

"For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope." (Romans 15:4)

 

[SeekYeFirst]

But isn't that a 'non-literal' interpretation?

Jesus brought a sword by setting members of people's own households against each other. Swords cause a lot of division and damage. I've definitely seen that one happen.

 

[UNA]

Jesus brought a sword by setting members of people's own households against each other. Swords cause a lot of division and damage. I've definitely seen that one happen.

Well then why did Jesus bring one?

So does it say in the NT specifically what parts of the OT are meant for Christians and which parts aren't? Or even that ANY of the OT isn't meant for Christians?

 

[McGinn77]

"For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope." (Romans 15:4)

For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving

That flies in the face of the idea of "unclean" animals. NT saying the OT no longer applies.

 

[libby]

Every metaphor has a literal application to the Christian.

You guys are masters at talking out of both sides of your mouths.

 

[Anabaptist]

You guys are masters at talking out of both sides of your mouths.

What do you do with biblical metaphors? Completely ignore them or literally apply their intended meaning to your belief?

Here is an example:

"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!" (Matthew 23:37)

Does that mean the Jews would have been gathered under the literal wings of a hen or that they would have been surrounded by his love and protection?

 

[UNA]

What do you do with biblical metaphors? Completely ignore them or literally apply their intended meaning to your belief?

Here is an example:

"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!" (Matthew 23:37)

Does that mean the Jews would have been gathered under the literal wings of a hen or that they would have been surrounded by his love and protection?

A metaphor is a literary tool with a definition. It's when the Bible says to slaughter non-believers and Christians say "well that not what He really meant" that people take issue. That's not a metaphor.

 

[Anabaptist]

Jesus brought a sword by setting members of people's own households against each other. Swords cause a lot of division and damage. I've definitely seen that one happen.

We could come up with some silly things if we were forced to literally believe every biblical metaphor in terms of its wording rather than its literary meaning.

 

[Anabaptist]

A metaphor is a literary tool with a definition. It's when the Bible says to slaughter non-believers and Christians say "well that not what He really meant" that people take issue. That's not a metaphor.

That's exactly right. The Catholics want to pick and chose what metaphors to believe and then tell us that we don't believe in applying the bible literally when we define these metaphors.

 

[UNA]

That's exactly right. The Catholics want to pick and chose what metaphors to believe and then tell us that we don't believe in applying the bible literally when we define these metaphors.

How do you take The Parable of the Ten Minas? The lesson seems to be

But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.

As far as I've been able to tell; Protestants pick and choose as well. The story above illustrates that non-believers will be slaughtered, Jesus told this story just before entering Jerusalem and did not clarify that this king was doing wrong, he told the story because people were expecting the Kingdom of Heaven to appear in front of them. Christians (most) do not interpret this story to be literal, why not? Because it's ugly? Because literal interpretation of it doesn't fit their idea of God?

 

[Anabaptist]

That flies in the face of the idea of "unclean" animals. NT saying the OT no longer applies.

"God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;" (Hebrews 1:1-2)

"For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth." (Romans 10:4)

"Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster." (Galatians 3:24-25)

The purpose of the Leviticus Law was to separate the Israelite people as a nation. "I am the LORD your God, which have separated you from other people." (Leviticus 20:24) This is a foreshadow of New Testament Christianity. "Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you." (2 Corinthians 6:17)

The Hebrew word translated as "unclean" in the Old Covenant means "1. unclean, impure:

a) ethically and religiously

b) ritually

c) of places"

In the Greek the word translated as "unclean" is "1. not cleansed, unclean:

a) in a ceremonial sense: that which must be abstained from according to the levitical law

b) in a moral sense: unclean in thought and life"

 

[Anabaptist]

How do you take The Parable of the Ten Minas? The lesson seems to be

It's a parable, but it does have a literal meaning. The Bible speaks of destruction for those the refuse to let Jesus reign over their life.

 

[McGinn77]

"God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;" (Hebrews 1:1-2)

"For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth." (Romans 10:4)

"Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster." (Galatians 3:24-25)

The purpose of the Leviticus Law was to separate the Israelite people as a nation. "I am the LORD your God, which have separated you from other people." (Leviticus 20:24) This is a foreshadow of New Testament Christianity. "Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you." (2 Corinthians 6:17)

The Hebrew word translated as "unclean" in the Old Covenant means "1. unclean, impure:

a) ethically and religiously

b) ritually

c) of places"

In the Greek the word translated as "unclean" is "1. not cleansed, unclean:

a) in a ceremonial sense: that which must be abstained from according to the levitical law

b) in a moral sense: unclean in thought and life"

Can I get your plain English translation? I want to make sure I know how you're interpreting this.

 

[UNA]

It's a parable, but it does have a literal meaning.

OK...not literal...you're not picking and choosing at all...

The Bible speaks of destruction for those the refuse to let Jesus reign over their life.

So do you believe those who "refuse to let Jesus reign over their life" should be destroyed? When? Should I avoid your neck of the woods?