Why would anyone look to the Catholic Church when

[Amused_despair]

Mathew 6:5-9 " 5 And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

7 But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.

8 Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.

9 After this manner therefore pray ye:......" KJV......so what do we do, we repeat the Lord's Prayer over and over. I wonder if the thunder is just a Cosmic Face-Palm from God at how we are.

 

[onel0126]

Are you meaning "for yours is the kingdom........glory for ever. Amen." thingy? I understand it was in some later found manuscripts. That's what it reads in all my my KJV. That ending may have been added later, but before the Bible was assembled.

I have read the reason for adding the doxology to the ending of the prayer from many prominent theologians, professors, etc. Some try to say it comes from Chronicles, some give explanations that sound an awful lot like Catholic explanations as to why the Apocrypha should be in the Bible. In the end ALL OF THEM admit it was added. By men. Later. And therefore repeated by most Protestants whenever they say the prayer. There are others, but this tiny little example literally destroys all arguments made by Protestants that tradition/additions to scripture are unbiblical and something they are not guilty of. Typically the response is "it doesn't matter since we don't pray the prayer at services or the addition is in agreement with scripture." Same for the Johannes Comma issue I raised with Hot Coffee the other day. It was added, you say it, period.

 

[b23hqb]

I have read the reason for adding the doxology to the ending of the prayer from many prominent theologians, professors, etc. Some try to say it comes from Chronicles, some give explanations that sound an awful lot like Catholic explanations as to why the Apocrypha should be in the Bible. In the end ALL OF THEM admit it was added. By men. Later. And therefore repeated by most Protestants whenever they say the prayer. There are others, but this tiny little example literally destroys all arguments made by Protestants that tradition/additions to scripture are unbiblical and something they are not guilty of. Typically the response is "it doesn't matter since we don't pray the prayer at services or the addition is in agreement with scripture." Same for the Johannes Comma issue I raised with Hot Coffee the other day. It was added, you say it, period.

Don't put inaccurate words in your fingertips, onel.

I didn't say it was added. I said it MAY have been added due to the finding of a new manuscript, before the OT and NT Bible was canonized by the Jews, for the Jews, who were the keepers of the manuscripts. Jesus himself affirmed the 39 books, and only 39 books, of the OT.

The existing church leaders, who simply called themselves "Christians", finalized the book about 200 years after the resurrection of Jesus, with the first fully assembled 66 book about AD 160 - the Pesh#tta, or Aramaic bible. That was only about 60-70 years after the books had been written. That gave the Jews plenty of time to authenticate the writings of the 66 books.

That did not include your Apocrypha, which was dismissed by your own early church fathers from the beginning of your rcc in the mid-300's AD, as not being divinely inspired and were not to be included to the holy canon.

 

[onel0126]

Don't put inaccurate words in your fingertips, onel. I didn't say it was added. I said it MAY have been added due to the finding of a new manuscript, before the OT and NT Bible was canonized by the Jews, for the Jews, who were the keepers of the manuscripts. Jesus himself affirmed the 39 books, and only 39 books, of the OT. The existing church leaders, who simply called themselves "Christians", finalized the book about 200 years after the resurrection of Jesus, with the first fully assembled 66 book about AD 160 - the Pesh#tta, or Aramaic bible. That was only about 60-70 years after the books had been written. That gave the Jews plenty of time to authenticate the writings of the 66 books. That did not include your Apocrypha, which was dismissed by your own early church fathers from the beginning of your rcc in the mid-300's AD, as not being divinely inspired and were not to be included to the holy canon.

errors everywhere but it will have to wait until this evening...

 

[Radiant1]

Show me in the NT where anyway but through Jesus only, leads to salvation.

Catholics believe salvation comes through Christ, so...go stab your straw-man elsewhere.

And your part of Peter being the "rock"upon which the church would be built - not quite so.

So you say, but who are you and why should I take your word for it? I and my fellow Catholics interpret scripture differently than you. According to *your own doctrine* everyone is their own interpreter, right? So, what's your problem?

We have been over that a number of times in the past. The only rock the Christian church is built on is Christ. Peter (Petros - rock, or rock-man "upon this rock petra - small stone, a feminine form for "rock", and not a name)" was appointed to be one of the leaders and builders, not the leader, and he certainly was not the foundation.

Yes, we have and it's getting old. We can go into the Greek (Petros vs petra) and subsequently Aramaic (Kephas as mentioned about Peter elsewhere in the bible) if you really want to, but it doesn't really matter as far as I'm concerned. Throughout the NT Peter is mentioned first, does things first, and leads the apostles. So keep that in mind when you read Matthew 13 thru 19 in its context:

Matthew 16:13 When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” 14 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” 15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” 17 Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. 18 And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” 20 Then he strictly ordered his disciples to tell no one that he was the Messiah.


So the context is:

1) Peter just made a confession of faith -- not anyone else, just Peter.
2) Jesus changes Peter's name -- an OT tradition of when one is given a mission from God (do I need to list them for you?) -- OR Jesus called Him a little rock girlie dude to build his church on.
3) Jesus promised that evil will not prevail against His church -- and we've found that to be true.
4) Jesus then gives Peter the keys to the kingdom of Heaven -- not everyone, just Peter.

You can interpret that passage anyway you choose, but don't tell Catholics they're wrong for being rational and taking it in context.

We can now get into the nature of the church and apostolic succession if you really want to go there.

Should I quote specific portions of the ccc that require works to gain salvation according to rcc doctrine? There's a whole lotta workings going on added to faith to be saved in the rcc.

No need. Faith and works go hand-in-hand. Can't have one without the other, and they both come from GRACE. You might rely on yourself and your faith or lack thereof, but I'm saved by God's grace. The scripture passages are far to numerous to list here, but I'll do so if you require it. Oh, and here is a quote out of the catechism that you seemed to have missed (emphasis mine):

CCC 1996 Our justification comes from the grace of God. Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life.

 

[b23hqb]

Catholics believe salvation comes through Christ, so...go stab your straw-man elsewhere.




So you say, but who are you and why should I take your word for it? I and my fellow Catholics interpret scripture differently than you. According to *your own doctrine* everyone is their own interpreter, right? So, what's your problem?




Yes, we have and it's getting old. We can go into the Greek (Petros vs petra) and subsequently Aramaic (Kephas as mentioned about Peter elsewhere in the bible) if you really want to, but it doesn't really matter as far as I'm concerned. Throughout the NT Peter is mentioned first, does things first, and leads the apostles. So keep that in mind when you read Matthew 13 thru 19 in its context:

Matthew 16:13 When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” 14 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” 15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” 17 Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. 18 And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” 20 Then he strictly ordered his disciples to tell no one that he was the Messiah.


So the context is:

1) Peter just made a confession of faith -- not anyone else, just Peter.
2) Jesus changes Peter's name -- an OT tradition of when one is given a mission from God (do I need to list them for you?) -- OR Jesus called Him a little rock girlie dude to build his church on.
3) Jesus promised that evil will not prevail against His church -- and we've found that to be true.
4) Jesus then gives Peter the keys to the kingdom of Heaven -- not everyone, just Peter.

You can interpret that passage anyway you choose, but don't tell Catholics they're wrong for being rational and taking it in context.

We can now get into the nature of the church and apostolic succession if you really want to go there.




No need. Faith and works go hand-in-hand. Can't have one without the other, and they both come from GRACE. You might rely on yourself and your faith or lack thereof, but I'm saved by God's grace. The scripture passages are far to numerous to list here, but I'll do so if you require it. Oh, and here is a quote out of the catechism that you seemed to have missed (emphasis mine):

CCC 1996 Our justification comes from the grace of God. Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life.

Hey, Radi, onel - Don't take MY word for it. Check out the scriptures on your own. Don't rely on your priest to give you what the Bible preaches. They'll be unemployed if they do. I'll check out of this with this: We've been over this before, and we will probably eternally agree to disagree.

Here are some of your ccc, by number, and other good old catholic references that demand works for salvation, and only through the rcc and your councils:

Works needed for salvation:

846, 977, 980, 1129, 1257, 1816, 1999, 2010, 2036, 2068, Council of Trent, Canon 9, 14, 24, 2070, 2556.

Your church also believes you must maintain your salvation by works:

1129, 2023, Council of trent, 14 chapter 2, 6 chapter 14, canon 29, 2016, 2080, 2068 again, 1862, 1863, 1416, 1452, 1468, 1496

On regaining your Catholic salvation, in which the believing Christian never has to worry about:

1861, 1033, 980 and 1468 again, Council of Trent 14 c.i, session 6, chapter 14, 987, catholic encyclopedia on penance, "our father and hail mary's" - 1460, 1459, 1430.

Amazing how none of the above references will be found in scripture.

Probably more, and I have read every one of the above posted. Have you and all other good catholics read them and just for a second pondered what they actually say?

So don't sit there and tell me or anyone that catholics in the rcc place their trust ONLY in Jesus and his work on the cross, burial, and resurrection. Ya'll need a whole lot of workin' to do beside that. I'm sure that makes the Lord feel all warm and fuzzy knowing that a billion of his living children, and uncountable souls past, have to do many other works on their own to make his work real. What a diss, slap in His face, insult.

I'm out for now.

 

[Radiant1]

Hey, Radi, onel - Don't take MY word for it. Check out the scriptures on your own. Don't rely on your priest to give you what the Bible preaches. They'll be unemployed if they do. I'll check out of this with this: We've been over this before, and we will probably eternally agree to disagree.

I see you're still stabbing that straw man.

What makes you think we haven't? You may not recall, but I wasn't born a Catholic. I'm a convert and I chose the Catholic faith after much prayer, study, and deliberation. Catholic interpretations were much more in line with my own. With a few exceptions, I found Protestant writings to be more eisegenic than exegenic. Regardless of what you may think, Catholics have their own conscience and follow it. But, in all fairness, we kind of think the same about you. You are woefully ignorant of history and just read some "non-denominational" denomination tract and go with it without giving it any real thought. That kind of crap goes both ways.

Two questions -- Do you listen to sermons? When you do bible study, do you listen to what others think about a passage?

Here are some of your ccc, by number, and other good old catholic references that demand works for salvation, and only through the rcc and your councils:

Works needed for salvation:

846, 977, 980, 1129, 1257, 1816, 1999, 2010, 2036, 2068, Council of Trent, Canon 9, 14, 24, 2070, 2556.

Your church also believes you must maintain your salvation by works:

1129, 2023, Council of trent, 14 chapter 2, 6 chapter 14, canon 29, 2016, 2080, 2068 again, 1862, 1863, 1416, 1452, 1468, 1496

On regaining your Catholic salvation, in which the believing Christian never has to worry about:

1861, 1033, 980 and 1468 again, Council of Trent 14 c.i, session 6, chapter 14, 987, catholic encyclopedia on penance, "our father and hail mary's" - 1460, 1459, 1430.

Amazing how none of the above references will be found in scripture.

Neither are your words but you expect us to believe them none the less. There are COUNTLESS references to scripture found in the catechism. I could go through each one of these one-by-one if you're prepared for all that Catholicism being put out there. The only reason you take issue is because of your different interpretation. See my previous post about that (and the ones before that, and the ones before that, etc).

In fact, I invite everyone to read it and judge for themselves. http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-te...echism-of-the-catholic-church/epub/index.cfm#

Probably more, and I have read every one of the above posted. Have you and all other good catholics read them and just for a second pondered what they actually say?

I think it safe to say I've read them.

So don't sit there and tell me or anyone that catholics in the rcc place their trust ONLY in Jesus and his work on the cross, burial, and resurrection. Ya'll need a whole lot of workin' to do beside that.

Oh good Lord. Don't *you* sit there and tell *me* what *I* believe. I'm more than capable of handling that on my own, thank you very much.

I'm sure that makes the Lord feel all warm and fuzzy knowing that a billion of his living children, and uncountable souls past, have to do many other works on their own to make his work real. What a diss, slap in His face, insult.

Well now, aren't you getting nasty. I have no doubt that you and your ilk think you know exactly what God thinks, and I'm pretty sure most Catholics are willing to take their chances regardless. Do you want to know why that is?

 

[Radiant1]

errors everywhere but it will have to wait until this evening...

I count at least four, how about you?

 

[onel0126]

I hate memes but sweet baby Jesus in the manger is this one relevant...

 

[Chuckt]

I hate memes but sweet baby Jesus in the manger is this one relevant...

View attachment 108379

They actually forbid Bible reading in the modern tongue. The Protestant Reformation made school mandatory so people could read the Bible. I have a whole series of posts from another message board where Catholics argued it with me.

 

[Chuckt]

There are no other requirements than accepting Christ as your savior. Being born again. Other things (love in a new light, serving others, giving of the heart, giving through the heart, fellowship, etc…) are a result of this, not preconditions; nor are ALL of these requirements in order to retain your salvation.

And what is your definition of being born again?

 

[Chuckt]

I'd like some of the other Protestants on this forum to reply to the above quoted comment besides HC who already put aside any denominational leanings and was intellectually honest enough to respond.

So then you do care about the other 30,000 protestant denomination's opinions as truth? I think you are arguing the opposite.

 

[Chuckt]

Wow, too much muck and mire to wade through individually. I will say this:

1) Catholics are saved through grace by the merits of Jesus Christ. Through that grace comes both faith and works.

Romans 11:6 And if (Salvation) by grace, then (salvation) [is it] no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if [it be] (salvation) of works, then is it (salvation) no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

If salvation is of works then salvation is no more of grace so if you think you have grace, you don't have it because if salvation is of grace, salvation is no more work according to Romans 11:6. The Bible is on my side.

Work is a debt so you are working for something you can't pay and haven't received.

Hebrews 11:1 ¶ Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Faith is the substance of things not seen and work is the substance of things seen. Work would be seen so according to Hebrews 11:1, work couldn't be faith.

 

[Chuckt]

Chuckt, the Catholics don't have the monopoly on covering up abuse. The Protestants have been doing it as well. Recently a Jewish Rabbi was arrested for taking pictures of women while they were participating in their ritual bath.

I'm not a Catholic but I'm sick to death of everyone blasting one faith when abuse is ramped through all faiths. What about Jim and Tammie Faye? What about the preachers who jump up and down in their pulpits yelling about how God can only love you if you give them money to pay for the yacht. What about the preachers who would take a widow's last penny and lie to her guaranteeing her that she'll get financially wealthy for giving it? Didn't Jesus teach us that we should be taking care of the widows and orphans? The priests don't have a monopoly on abuse.....

Instead of tracking court cases.... wouldn't you do more to search the Bible for the meaning of forgiveness and compassion. If someone is an ex-catholic, perhaps their time would be better spent learning to forgive. Jesus forgave a man while He was on the cross. It's one of the last examples He gave for us to follow.

I once didn't want to become a Christian because I grew up in the era of Jim Baker and Tammy Faye.

Where does the Bible say to give forgiveness and compassion to a false teacher?

1 Corinthians 5:13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away (G1808) from among yourselves that wicked person.

What does "Put Away" G1808 mean? It means "to lift up and take away":

http://www.blbclassic.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1808&t=KJV

Try doing that today and see how hard it is.

Love that doesn't protect isn't love.


Can you fire your boss?

Can Catholics fire their bishops or popes? Biblical Christians can fire their leaders if they want to. Catholics can't in the sense that the lay person almost has no power.
Do you know how? I know how:

http://www.watchman.org/
https://carm.org/
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/

 

[PsyOps]

And what is your definition of being born again?

"Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new has come!" - 2 Corinthians 5:17

What is your definition?

 

[Radiant1]

Romans 11:6 And if (Salvation) by grace, then (salvation) [is it] no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if [it be] (salvation) of works, then is it (salvation) no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

If salvation is of works then salvation is no more of grace so if you think you have grace, you don't have it because if salvation is of grace, salvation is no more work according to Romans 11:6. The Bible is on my side.

Work is a debt so you are working for something you can't pay and haven't received.

Hebrews 11:1 ¶ Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Faith is the substance of things not seen and work is the substance of things seen. Work would be seen so according to Hebrews 11:1, work couldn't be faith.

Umm, yeah, ok. Like I said, salvation by grace. *Your interpretation* is on your side; I could easily say the bible is on my side as well, but it's really *my interpretation* of it. Until you get this through your head you're going to come across a lot of opposition. Stop being proud. I'm guessing you know what the bible says about pride, right?

As far as my interpretation goes, Paul is here speaking specifically of the Jews in Romans, and that puts things into a different light now doesn't it.

Btw, I never said work was faith. I said they go hand-in-hand because of grace.

 

[Bird Dog]

I once didn't want to become a Christian because I grew up in the era of Jim Baker and Tammy Faye.

Where does the Bible say to give forgiveness and compassion to a false teacher?

1 Corinthians 5:13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away (G1808) from among yourselves that wicked person.

What does "Put Away" G1808 mean? It means "to lift up and take away":

http://www.blbclassic.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1808&t=KJV

Try doing that today and see how hard it is.

Love that doesn't protect isn't love.


Can you fire your boss?

Can Catholics fire their bishops or popes? Biblical Christians can fire their leaders if they want to. Catholics can't in the sense that the lay person almost has no power.
Do you know how? I know how:

http://www.watchman.org/
https://carm.org/
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/

Quite full of yourself....eh?

 

[stgislander]

Hey, at least we're all not picking on the Muslims. They kill people.

 

[Radiant1]

Hey, at least we're all not picking on the Muslims. They kill people.

Meh, I'm pretty sure Catholics would be told we weren't picking on the Muslims the right way.

 

[PsyOps]

Hey, at least we're all not picking on the Muslims. They kill people.

We can talk about The Crusades. :shrug: