The Biblical Basis for Catholic Distinctives
- Thread starter Berserk
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Taken
Well-Known Member
Ok, thanks. :)
No.
I believe sin is ONLY against God. And ONLY the Lord God forgives sin.
And would say, to make your confession to the Lord God.
Nor would I forgive you for what you might say, is a sin you committed against me.
I believe sin is ONLY against God. And ONLY the Lord God forgives sin.
Thus if you were confessing a Trespass against me, that you believed was your fault, Yes, I would forgive you your Trespass against me.
I believe I have the authority to forgive men of Trespasses Against me.
I do not in any sense, believe I have the authority to forgive sin.
Taken
Well-Known Member
Yes, I understand about the other books not being in the bible, BUT...
I see the bible as somewhat of a "law" book. To me, the 7 books missing from the KJV of the bible is like eliminating certain sections of law. For example, it's like eliminating the section of law about Real Estate...and/or Wills, Trusts and Estates. To me, without those books, the "law" is incomplete.
Take the "Wisdom of Sirach" for example. Nowhere in the other books does it explain the idea of free will other than Wisdom.
The Catholic church doesn't so much "dismiss" books such as "Susanna". But just like law, they see those books like that as secondary law. It doesn't mean it's lesser than. More like supplementary...
Taken
Well-Known Member
The List I provided ARE in my Bible. Point being they are not missing, so not sure why you understand they are missing, when they are not missing.
Freewill...?
Not for mans creation and making.
Not for man being put in the Garden.
Freewill...?
Sure...do this, don’t do that...man freely chooses to do this or don’t do that.
Adam freely made choices.
All men thereafter freely make choices.
Explaining freewill is elementary...
* Freewill is expressly the act of a individual to choose, and the consequence of their act (good or bad) is accounted to them.
* meaning, if I choose to do something, because you said it was what you do, or you convinced me it was a good idea....and I do it....and turns out the act has a negative consequence....the negative consequence is upon me...
Ie MY burden. You are not to blame for what I do. Nor do you receive the positive consequence for what I do.
The Big picture taught in Scripture is to LEARN Gods teaching of what HE desires one TO DO and NOT TO DO.....and hopefully notice the long list of revealed examples of Positive and Negative Consequences men before us received for things THEY did.
God Bless,
Taken
Taken
Well-Known Member
Under the Mosaic Law, violations of any Law, IS a sin.
Speak ill of God....a Law violation...resulting in sin against God.
....Remedy? Yearly pilgrimage to Temple in Jerusalem, bringing a particular animal for their Sin Offering, to receive forgiveness for their Sins Against God.
Steal from a man....a Law violation..resulting in sin against man.
....Remedy? Go to the man, admit your fault, offer your restitution, as his forgiveness. That fails, go to the Priest, with witnesses.
Weave certain fabrics together....a Law violation...resulting in sin against oneself (ie the weaver).
....Remedy? Confess your sin to the cloth you weaved? No.
I do not know the consequence, but would presume it would be in Mosaic Law of curses.
...The primary weaving of certain fabrics for the common people was to not weave Wool and Linen, which was reserved for Priestly garments.
Point being...these were Laws given the Hebrews, passed down to the Tribes of Israel, of which I am neither a Hebrew or a Tribesman., nor was made subject to their Laws, thus do not consider their Laws, relevant to me.
(Similar to, I am not Chinese, I do not live in China, so what applies to a Chinese person, or citizen living in China; I also do not consider applicable to me.)
Addressing between man and man...
Not sure what SINS you are committing against another person...less it be according to Mosaic Law? IS Mosaic Law, your basis for determining your sin against a man?
Addressing between a man and God...
You mentioned it a sin against God, to look at a picture of Jesus, laugh, then say that laughing at that picture was a sin.
I don’t get that. First of all where did “pictures” of Jesus come from? An artists IDEA? Do you really think that IS a picture of Jesus? I’ve seen them. I do not believe there is one scriptural reference to anyone even sketching a likeness of Jesus. The indication in Scripture that I’ve read is He looked like an average Jew, nothing “outstanding” in being particularly handsome or particularly taller than the average Jew.
The “artists” pictures, generally show a clean shaven, pale skinned, blue eyed, fairly light haired handsome man....Which I do not to this day, see that the average persons looks, whose long ancestral history is the Middle East.
Maybe you can address those points for clarity.
I believe MY SIN AGAINST God “was” solely HAVING HAD DISBELIEF IN God and Christ Jesus.
First, being naturally born, with that ^ condition.
Secondly, from babe ... until hearing and believing having had that ^ condition.
And subsequently remedying that condition, according to Gods Order and Way.
And Trusting His Remedy is fully “forgiven” and established, according to His Order and Way, impossible for me to ever again, “have that condition”.
As far as me Trespassing against men....ya sure that occurs on a regular basis. As well regularly men Trespass against me.
It’s the INTENT of Trespassing against men, that is my focus. Meaning DO I set out with INTENT to Trespass against men? Steal, lie, cheat, embezzle, harm, etc, against others, or their property? No. Yet if there is something I do inadvertently that infringes on an others person or property, yes I will offer my apology and make attempts to correct.
God Bless,
Taken
Having recently picked up a KJV version of the bible, those books were not in that particular bible. Also, have heard from others on other forums that those books were not in their bible's either. So, I'm not completely off-base.
If they're in *your* bible, then kudos to you!
I only gave free will as an example of a teaching that others (not necessarily *you*) have claimed isn't 'biblical'.
ScottA
Well-Known Member
That would only be true if you leave out verse 17-- just as you have:
17 Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” Matthew 16:17-19
Verse 18 begins with "And I also say to you"...but you left out the first part of what Jesus said. Which is the error of Catholic doctrine. You left out what Peter is "not."
The Catholic doctrine accredits all of what Jesus said, to Peter. But Jesus stipulates that His church is not a succession of flesh and blood or what apostolic men build--not anything that Peter did or would do, or any who follow him, but rather of the Rock, whom is God--not flesh and blood. That is His main point--and you, and the church fathers, completely missed it.
Who is blind but My servant, Or deaf as My messenger whom I send? Who is blind as he who is perfect, And blind as the Lord’s servant? Isaiah 42:19
And woe is coming.
Now you are lashing back, for which I should not ever respond. But that others may know the true: Jesus clarified this too:
Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, 2 saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do. 4 For they bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers. 5 But all their works they do to be seen by men. They make their phylacteries broad and enlarge the borders of their garments. 6 They love the best places at feasts, the best seats in the synagogues, 7 greetings in the marketplaces, and to be called by men, ‘Rabbi, Rabbi.’ 8 But you, do not be called ‘Rabbi’; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren. 9 Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. 10 And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ. 11 But he who is greatest among you shall be your servant. 12 And whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted. Matthew 23:1-12
What Israel did, the church repeats. Woe again.
Last edited:
ScottA
Well-Known Member
That is not at all true.
Both King Saul and Peter's rolls among men came as a result of men looking to men, rather than wanting God to be their king or priest.
These are among the greatest departures from God in all of biblical history--only the titles were changed. Woe, and Woe.
Last edited:
BreadOfLife
Well-Known Member
- Jan 2, 2017
- 21,657
- 3,591
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
And, like every other anti-Catholic ever spoke with - you have a warped understanding of Apostolic Succession.
It doesn’t ONLY apply to the Bishop of Rom (the Pope) – it applies to ALL of the ordained clergy.
As for “what happened” to the other 11 Apostles – EVERY Bishop alive today was ordained by a Bishop who was ordained by a Bishop – going ALL the way back to one or more of the Apostles. Those Bishops appointed and ordained the rest of the clergy in an unbroken chain..
THAT is Apostolic Succession.
And – IF you’re going to hold every Bishop to Peter’s measuring stick regarding miracles – Peter wasn’t the ONLY one who performed miracles. And you ALSO need to remember that Judas was a Bishop (Acts 1:20). Should they uphold HIS standards as well?
As to your nonsense about Linus being the “first” Bishop of Rome – The Early Church Fathers attest UNANIMOUSLY to Peter being that first Bishop of Rome. This INCLUDES the Eastern (Orthod0x) Fand Western athers. As I stated earlier – in his treatise, Against Heresies, Irenaeus actually LISTS the Bishops of Rome from his own time going back to Peter over a century earlier.
Finally – your claim that Peter “hung out” in Jerusalem until it was destroyed in 70AD is also historically bankrupt. Peter being condemned by Nero to death by crucifixion I Rome is amply attested to by the Early Church.
James was the Bishop of Jerusalem until his death around 62AD. He was succeeded by Simon, son of Clopas (Matt. 27:56, Mark 15:40, John 19:25)
Once again – the ECFS attest to Peter’s presence, leadership and death in Rome.
Dionysius of Corinth
You have also, by your very admonition, brought together the planting that was made by Peter and Paul at Rome and at Corinth; for both of them alike planted in our Corinth and taught us; and both alike, teaching similarly in Italy, suffered martyrdom at the same time (Letter to Soter of Rome [inter A.D. 166 -174] as recorded by Eusebius).
Tertullian
Let us see what milk the Corinthians drained from Paul; against what standard the Galatians were measured for correction; what the Philippians, Thessalonians, and Ephesians read; what even the nearby Romans sound forth, to whom both Peter and Paul bequeathed the Gospel and even sealed it with their blood (Against Marcion 4:5:1 [inter A.D. 207-212]).
Peter of Alexandria
Peter, the first chosen of the Apostles, having been apprehended often and thrown into prison and treated with ignominy, at last was crucified in Rome (Canonical Letter, canon 9 [A.D. 306]).
Lactantius
When Nero was already reigning Peter came to Rome, where, in virtue of the performance of certain miracles which he worked by that power of God which had been given to him, he converted many to righteousness and established a firm and steadfast temple to God. It was he (Nero) that first persecuted the servants of God. Peter, he fixed to a cross; and Paul, he slew (The Deaths of the Persecutors 2:5 [inter A.D. 316-320]).
Eusebius
The Apostle Peter, after he has established the Church in Antioch, is sent to Rome, where he remains bishop of that city, preaching the Gospel for twenty-five years (The Chronicle, Ad An. Dom. 42 [A.D. 303]).
When Peter preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had been for a long time his follower and who remembered his sayings, should write down what had been proclaimed. Having composed the Gospel, he gave it to those who had requested it (Ecclesiastical History 6:14:1 [A.D. 325]).
Cyril of Jerusalem
[Simon Magus] so deceived the City of Rome that Claudius erected a statue of him, and wrote beneath it in the language of the Romans Simoni Deo Sancto, which is translated To the Holy God Simon. While the error was extending itself Peter and Paul arrived, a noble pair and the rulers of the Church; and they set the error aright… for Peter was there, he that carries about the keys of heaven (Catechetical Lectures 6:14 [A.D. 350]).
Damasus
The first see (bishopric), therefore, is that of Peter the Apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it. The second see, however, is that at Alexandria, consecrated in behalf of blessed Peter by Mark, his disciple and an evangelist, who was sent to Egypt by the Apostle Peter, where he preached the word of truth and finished his glorious martyrdom. The third honorable see, indeed, is that at Antioch, which belonged to the most blessed Apostle Peter, where first he dwelt before he came to Rome, and where the name Christians was first applied, as to a new people (The Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).
BreadOfLife
Well-Known Member
- Jan 2, 2017
- 21,657
- 3,591
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
WRONG.
Peter's rols - and that if his successors has NEVER been about kingship - but about servitude.
Their role has been that of Pastor (John 21:15-19) and Vicar (Matt. 165:18-19).
A pastor CARES for his flock.
A Vicar is merely the chief AGENT - not the King.
ScottA
Well-Known Member
The historic precedence for the error of this is when Israel felt they would like rather to have a man as king over them than God.
That is the error: Not wanting God 100% over us. What God showed Israel, is you are either all-in, or you're out-- not regarding salvation, but regarding His favor and being subject to wrath, weeping and gnashing of teeth.
And just as the Priests lead Israel astray, so have the church fathers. In the case of the Priests of Israel, Jesus received them with Woe. And the Priests and church fathers will receive nothing less. They have repeated the same folly, preferring a man over them rather than God alone. Woe again.
Which is not to say that there are not to be leaders in the church--there are. Just not as Head, but all as fellow servants; and “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them. Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant. And whoever desires to be first among you, let him be your slave— just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.” Matthew 20:25-28
Last edited:
ScottA
Well-Known Member
You are apparently too close to see clearly, and blinded by all the gaudy priestly finery.
Indeed Peter's roll was not that of King, nor was he the gaudy one. It was the church fathers who made him a Priest and a Father, and who gave him (and them) a legacy of errors--which was completely against the instruction of Christ: "Do not call anyone on earth your father"..."It shall not be so among you"...etc., etc.
And what should we expect from you? --You serve in the same legacy of errors.
Nonetheless, Jesus prayed for Peter, and we pray for you.
Last edited:
BreadOfLife
Well-Known Member
- Jan 2, 2017
- 21,657
- 3,591
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
Really??
I hinestly thought that you might be above this kind of idiocy - but I see that I was wrong.
The anti-Biblical fallacy that Jesus forbade calling men "Father" is an example of ignprance of the Scriptures.
In Matt. 23, Jesus was speaking about the Scribes and Pharisees who exalted themselves before all:
Matt 23:6-7
“They love places of honor at banquets, seats of honor in synagogues, greetings in marketplaces, and the salutation 'Rabbi.”
Then, in verse 9, He says:
“And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven.”
In the verse that precedes this (Matt: 23:8), Jesus tells us not to call people “Teachers”. Is Jesus telling us that we can’t call certain people "fathers" or “teachers” when they may actually be fathers or teachers? Only a Scripturally-bankrupt moron would believe this.
He is telling us that no man is to be considered father above our Father in heaven and no person is to be considered teacher above our Teacher in heaven.
Consider the following passages:
- God COMMANS us to, “Honor your FATHER and mother (Exodus 20:12).
- Jesus said, “Your FATHER Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.” (John 8:56).
- St. Stephen refers to "our FATHER Abraham," (Acts 7:2).
- St. Paul speaks of "our FATHER Isaac” (Romans 9:10).
- For I became your FATHER in Christ Jesus through the gospel" (1 Cor. 4:14–15).
- "For this I was appointed a preacher and apostle . . . a TEACHER of the Gentiles in faith and truth" (1 Tim. 2:7).
- "For this gospel I was appointed a preacher and apostle and TEACHER" (2 Tim. 1:11).
- "God has appointed in the church first Apostles, second prophets, third TEACHERS" (1 Cor. 12:28).
As for when Jesus told His apostles about NOT lording power over each other – it was because they were arguing among themselves as to who would be the greatest (Luke 9:46).
Peter never CHOSE to be the preeminent Apostle.
He was given this responsibility (Matt. 16:18-19, Luke 22:31-32, John 21:15-19) and he obediently fulfilled the will of his Lord.
Illuminator
Well-Known Member
Typical fundie nonsense. Your hatred is matched by your ignorance. Even your grammar is off. You don't name or quote any ECF, just airhead assertions (because you are afraid of them). The "Do not call anyone on earth your father" is a standard mantra by ignorant fundies who twist and distort scripture. "Do not call anyone on earth your father" has been explained repeatedly. Fashioning weapons using scripture to attack Catholics is a form of witchcraft. The Bible never attacks the Church the way you do, but you don't care, you do it anyway. When you stop trolling with lies and falsehoods, if that's possible, I'll take you out of my iggy bin.
Curtis: "The Protestants haven’t paid out over a billion dollars to victims, as the RCC has."
LOL, that's because the Catholics are more morally and legally responsible than sexually promiscuous evangelical leaders and their churches.
In any case, thanks for conceding my case that Protestants desperately need to learn from Catholic biblical exegesis. When fundamentalists need to resort to the desperate expedient of stereotyping Catholics on the basis of their worst exemplars, they are exposing the fact, well recognized by neutral biblical scholars, that they have no rational answer to Catholic biblical exegesis. You just need to find an informed Catholic who can lead you into the Word!
LOL, that's because the Catholics are more morally and legally responsible than sexually promiscuous evangelical leaders and their churches.
In any case, thanks for conceding my case that Protestants desperately need to learn from Catholic biblical exegesis. When fundamentalists need to resort to the desperate expedient of stereotyping Catholics on the basis of their worst exemplars, they are exposing the fact, well recognized by neutral biblical scholars, that they have no rational answer to Catholic biblical exegesis. You just need to find an informed Catholic who can lead you into the Word!
Gracious!Typical fundie nonsense. Your hatred is matched by your ignorance. Even your grammar is off. You don't name or quote any ECF, just airhead assertions (because you are afraid of them). The "Do not call anyone on earth your father" is a standard mantra by ignorant fundies who twist and distort scripture. "Do not call anyone on earth your father" has been explained repeatedly. Fashioning weapons using scripture to attack Catholics is a form of witchcraft. The Bible never attacks the Church the way you do, but you don't care, you do it anyway. When you stop trolling with lies and falsehoods, if that's possible, I'll take you out of my iggy bin.
:)
BreadOfLife
Well-Known Member
- Jan 2, 2017
- 21,657
- 3,591
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
Correct - and the reasons WHY arr documented in the book, Pedophiles and Priests, by Protestant authoror, Philip Jenkins.
Jenkinns documents the FBI and Law Enfotrcement statistics regarding molestations within American churches - and the evidence is disturbing, to say the least.
He notes that there is MORE molestation going on in PROTESTANT groups than in the Cathoilic Church. The reason it gows largely unnoticed by the media is that, whereas, EVERY Catholic Archdiocese carries insurance - MANY Protestant chiurches don't.
This doesn't leavfe much money for the Lawyers to go after - get it??
The problem within the Catholic Church has ben largely resolved and rectified.
There have been MANY safeguargd and measure put in into place - whereas, the problem in the Protestant sects continues to go largely ignored.
Bottom line: Clean up the mess in youo OWN back yard before you go around pinting fingerse (Matt. 7:3) . . .
Here are some stories from the media on the matter:
Evangelicals ‘worse’ than Catholics on sexual abuse
Evangelical Sex Abuse Record ‘Worse’ Than Catholic, Says Billy Graham’s Grandson
Protestants can no longer dismiss abuse as a ‘Catholic problem’
Child Sex Abuse More Prevalent Among Protestants Than Among Catholics
There Is More Sexual Abuse In The Protestant Churches Than Catholic
Catholic priests no guiltier of sex abuse than other clergy
Data Shed Light on Child Sexual Abuse by Protestant Clergy
Blogger Who Exposed Protestant Sex Abuse Cover Up Sued By Her Pastor
Denial About Sexual Abuse In Evangelical Churches
Southern Baptists Apologize For Sex Abuse Coverups
U.S. Protestants’ Views Mixed about Extent of Clergy Sexual Abuse
Churchgoers Split on Existence of More Sexual Abuse by Pastors
Confronting Evangelical Enabling of Sexual Abuse
Child abuse a Calvinist problem, podcast says
Similar threads
