If Perchance Catholicism Is Mistaken

[Webers.Home]

.

Thank you. I appreciate your regard.

At Luke 7:40-50, an incident in the Lord's life is told.

A common courtesy extended to guests in people's homes back in his day
was to offer them some water to wash their feet, give them a kiss of
greeting, and a dollop of fragrant lotion for their hair. I don't know what the
problem was, but Jesus' host denied him that whole routine.

One of the common courtesies in our day is that of extending our
condolences to someone who's lost a loved one.

I've placed the topic of this thread on a number of forums across the
internet and it's curious to me how few Christians expressed the slightest
sympathy for my loss; which is just common courtesy.

Incidentally, the dinner host was a Pharisee. It's interesting that Jesus got
more respect from common folk than he did from the religious elite. What is
there to be proud of as a member of the one true church when one's
sensitivities are those of a cave-dwelling Neanderthal?
_

 

[garee]

Right, the Quran does not tell about the one true God, the god that Muslims claim that they worship.

What would you say about the Jehovah's witnesses? They talk about just one God, and they say that God gave us the Bible, and that the Bible tells the truth about God. Okay, so I agree with them there.

But then they go on to say that Jesus is Michael the archangel. So I disagree with them there. But are they talking about the same God?

I would think it could be. You would have to look as to how the word Michael designed by God is used in the Bible. It means. . . coming as a query. . . "Who is like God??" (unseen) obviously no one. Even the Son of man, Jesus refused to stand in that good holy place of faith.

Messenger or the word angel (angelos) seems to be where some differ. Some would say in the last days God has not spoken to us through his Son as the messenger and witness. . . . our High Priest of the new order.. and others say it does apply. It would seem to hinge on the word messenger . Like apostles, sent ones. The father sent the Son .The high Priest sent to set the example of the new order.

Hebrews 3:1Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus;

A greater distant from mainline would seem to be is the blood issue as to how they would define "drink the blood" which is similar to the Catholic understanding making it about real literal blood and not what blood as a metaphor represents in the parables. One performs a work by denying it and the other by pretending what you see and eat are not what they seem to be . . use your imagination.

 

[Dan_473]

It seems you are simply saying, we are not to judge the hearts of others. Paul said we are only allowed to judge a “professed” believer. He also seems to cover every aspect of humanity in these verses, do you agree?

9 There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek, 10 but glory and honor and peace to everyone who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 11 For there is no partiality with God. For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law; 13 for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified. 14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, 16 on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.

Yes, that sounds right.

 

[notuptome]

No, it doesn't make God incapable of reaching people.

One of the things I'm saying is this
Let's take three people
The first believes that there is one God, and that God incarnated himself as Jesus.

The second believes that there is just one God, but does not believe in the incarnation.

The third believes that there are hundreds of gods, and that Jesus, if they have heard of him, was just a wise man.

The first person is right about two things, the second is right about one thing, and the third is right about 0 things.
So I would say that the second person is better off than the first, because having the wisdom that there is just one God is better than not having that wisdom.

Regarding soteriology, I think the Catholic position is that all theology properly comes to the church, the body of Christ operating as a whole. The correct interpretation of the scriptures is given by God to the body of Christ as a whole, not to each individual separately.

I think the Protestant view tends to be that the correct interpretation of the scriptures is found by each individual reading the Bible by themselves, and with the help of the holy Spirit, arriving at the correct interpretation.

Now, just as an observation, the idea of reading the Bible for yourself would only have been available to rich people if you go back more than about five or six hundred years, before printing. Bibles were handwritten on expensive paper. And there was no public education, so unless you could afford to buy a Bible and someone taught you how to read, you wouldn't be able to read the Bible for yourself.

The only commonality between Roman Catholics and Muslims is that they both change God into an image that they can accept. Romans 1. Romans 10 tells us that we must believe in Jesus Christ according to what the bible teaches about Him. In other word we must believe with a correct knowledge of Christ to be saved.

We must know more than just the name of Jesus Christ. There remains only one way to be saved. There is only one God who is God.

Mega churches tend to be over inclusive and dilute the gospel with man driven decisions not Holy Spirit wrought conversions to Christ.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[Dan_473]

Let's focus on the Old Testament, which is where the CC has added 7 books. The Lord Jesus Christ (who is also God the Word) clearly stated that the Hebrew Tanakh (OT) consisted of only 24 books. He called them "all the Scriptures". That implied that none of the apocryphal (so-called Deutero-canonical) were Scripture.

LUKE 24
25 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: [THE PROPHETS = THE OT]
26 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?
27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.... [MOSES AND ALL THE PROPHETS = THE SCRIPTURES = THE TANAKH = THE OT]
44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in [1] the law of Moses [TORAH], and in [2] the prophets [NEVIIM], and in [3] the psalms [KETUVIM], concerning me.
45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, [TORAH, NEVIIM, KETUVIM = THE SCRIPTURES = THE TANAKH]

There are three major divisions in the Hebrew Bible: (1) Torah (the Law) = 5 books (also called Moses or the Law of Moses), (2) Neviim (the Prophets) = 8 books, and (3) Ketuvim (the Psalms or the Writings) = 11 books. Those are now the 39 books of the Protestant Bibles (since several of them were split up).

NOW EVEN THOUGH YOU HAVE RECEIVED THE TRUTH FROM SCRIPTURE YOU WILL NOT GIVE UP YOUR CATHOLIC BIBLE. AM I CORRECT?

As to the New Testament, Peter already identified all of Paul's epistles as well as his own as Scripture. That is 60% of the NT. Several of the other books are also shown to be divinely inspired by their writers. Indeed there are only five books in the NT which do not explicitly say that they are inspired. But they are consistent with the Scriptures, and are shown through other early Christian documents to be Scripture.

What I'm hearing is that your answer to the question of who decided what books should be in the Bible is
The Jews.

Then I would ask,
Which Jews?

Back when I used to have a physical copy of the Septuagint, translated by Jews in Alexandria, it included several books not found in many Protestant Bibles today. And some extra parts to Daniel, I believe.


I agree that the Jews, at least some of them, divided the scriptures at the time into the law the prophets and the Psalms. But as I understand it, there was not a list of which books were in those sections that all Jews agreed on.

Regarding the New testament, it was a common thing, as I understand it, for people to write books in someone else's name. The official name for this is pseudepigrapha.

earlier I talked about whether the book of Jude should be in the New testament. I heard that Martin Luther said no. It claims to be written by Jude. I believe Jude was a very common name back then, related to Judah.

I also talked about this above
http://earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-roberts.html
Is it in line with the rest of the New testament? Should it be accepted?

I do not have a Catholic Bible to give up. The Catholics have a canon, the Protestants have a Canon that many of them agree on, although the episcopalians use a different Canon. I heard from a Lutheran pastor that lutherans as a group never agreed on a Canon.. The Eastern Orthodox, a very large group second only to Catholics, also have a different Canon.

So, and I don't mean to sound snarky in any way, but you can pick one of the above or compile one of your own.

 

[Dan_473]

Let's focus on the Old Testament, which is where the CC has added 7 books. The Lord Jesus Christ (who is also God the Word) clearly stated that the Hebrew Tanakh (OT) consisted of only 24 books. He called them "all the Scriptures". That implied that none of the apocryphal (so-called Deutero-canonical) were Scripture.

LUKE 24
25 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: [THE PROPHETS = THE OT]
26 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?
27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.... [MOSES AND ALL THE PROPHETS = THE SCRIPTURES = THE TANAKH = THE OT]
44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in [1] the law of Moses [TORAH], and in [2] the prophets [NEVIIM], and in [3] the psalms [KETUVIM], concerning me.
45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, [TORAH, NEVIIM, KETUVIM = THE SCRIPTURES = THE TANAKH]

There are three major divisions in the Hebrew Bible: (1) Torah (the Law) = 5 books (also called Moses or the Law of Moses), (2) Neviim (the Prophets) = 8 books, and (3) Ketuvim (the Psalms or the Writings) = 11 books. Those are now the 39 books of the Protestant Bibles (since several of them were split up).

NOW EVEN THOUGH YOU HAVE RECEIVED THE TRUTH FROM SCRIPTURE YOU WILL NOT GIVE UP YOUR CATHOLIC BIBLE. AM I CORRECT?

As to the New Testament, Peter already identified all of Paul's epistles as well as his own as Scripture. That is 60% of the NT. Several of the other books are also shown to be divinely inspired by their writers. Indeed there are only five books in the NT which do not explicitly say that they are inspired. But they are consistent with the Scriptures, and are shown through other early Christian documents to be Scripture.

Also, yes we do have a document that we call 2nd Peter, which refers to the letters of Paul as scripture.

But first we may wish to ask
Is 2nd Peter scripture? Was it written by Peter? Again, it's possible for someone to write a letter and claim it's from Peter. Not necessarily with bad motives, sometimes disciples of a teacher would write a letter in the teacher's name, I've heard.

There's an Apocalypse of Peter which it looks like some early Christians like to read
http://earlychristianwritings.com/text/apocalypsepeter-roberts.html

 

[Dan_473]

Let's focus on the Old Testament, which is where the CC has added 7 books. The Lord Jesus Christ (who is also God the Word) clearly stated that the Hebrew Tanakh (OT) consisted of only 24 books. He called them "all the Scriptures". That implied that none of the apocryphal (so-called Deutero-canonical) were Scripture.

LUKE 24
25 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: [THE PROPHETS = THE OT]
26 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?
27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.... [MOSES AND ALL THE PROPHETS = THE SCRIPTURES = THE TANAKH = THE OT]
44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in [1] the law of Moses [TORAH], and in [2] the prophets [NEVIIM], and in [3] the psalms [KETUVIM], concerning me.
45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, [TORAH, NEVIIM, KETUVIM = THE SCRIPTURES = THE TANAKH]

There are three major divisions in the Hebrew Bible: (1) Torah (the Law) = 5 books (also called Moses or the Law of Moses), (2) Neviim (the Prophets) = 8 books, and (3) Ketuvim (the Psalms or the Writings) = 11 books. Those are now the 39 books of the Protestant Bibles (since several of them were split up).

NOW EVEN THOUGH YOU HAVE RECEIVED THE TRUTH FROM SCRIPTURE YOU WILL NOT GIVE UP YOUR CATHOLIC BIBLE. AM I CORRECT?

As to the New Testament, Peter already identified all of Paul's epistles as well as his own as Scripture. That is 60% of the NT. Several of the other books are also shown to be divinely inspired by their writers. Indeed there are only five books in the NT which do not explicitly say that they are inspired. But they are consistent with the Scriptures, and are shown through other early Christian documents to be Scripture.

Also, I had a memory of talking about this exact train of thought with you earlier. I did some searching and found this post from trofimus. If you follow it backwards, I believe we talked about the same subject.

https://christianchat.com/threads/k...e-vs-modern-english-bible.163358/post-3462209

So all the Jews were using a single list? It might depend on which historian you ask, but my feeling is that there were multiple lists that different Jews were using back then.

 

[Dan_473]

The specification who is God by moslim is not the same specification by Christian


For Example Christian God have a Son,His name is Jesus

Muslim God do not have a son.

So Christian God and muslim God is not the same person, prove that catholic is Lie


Catholic have thausand bible scholar they must know that It is 2 different specification

So they deliberatly Lie

They say muslim is in the plan of salvation,It mean we do not need to witness to them

It is demonic strategy to block gospel Being spread.

I hear what you're saying, and using the same logic we can say

The specification who is God by the Jews is not the same specification by Christians.


For Example Christian God have a Son,His name is Jesus.

The Jew's God do not have a son (or if he does it's definitely not Jesus).

So using the above logic, and I'm not saying it's wrong, but using the same logic we would have to say that the Jew's God is not the Christian God.

 

[Hazelelponi]

.



At Luke 7:40-50, an incident in the Lord's life is told.

A common courtesy extended to guests in people's homes back in his day
was to offer them some water to wash their feet, give them a kiss of
greeting, and a dollop of fragrant lotion for their hair. I don't know what the
problem was, but Jesus' host denied him that whole routine.

One of the common courtesies in our day is that of extending our
condolences to someone who's lost a loved one.

I've placed the topic of this thread on a number of forums across the
internet and it's curious to me how few Christians expressed the slightest
sympathy for my loss; which is just common courtesy.

Incidentally, the dinner host was a Pharisee. It's interesting that Jesus got
more respect from common folk than he did from the religious elite. What is
there to be proud of as a member of the one true church when one's
sensitivities are those of a cave-dwelling Neanderthal?
_

I apologize for not offering my condolences. The topic for me as a whole is a difficult one for me to discuss, and I answered you with my heart and shared how I personally deal with, and learned to deal with the loss of an unsaved loved one.

Drawing from my own loss, I did not keep yours in the forefront of my mind and for that I am truly sorry.

And I am, in fact, sorry for your loss.

 

[Dan_473]

Usualy tak or tidak prounonce what It is with the K and mean No or No need depend oN the context

Thanks!

 

[Dan_473]

I would think it could be. You would have to look as to how the word Michael designed by God is used in the Bible. It means. . . coming as a query. . . "Who is like God??" (unseen) obviously no one. Even the Son of man, Jesus refused to stand in that good holy place of faith.

Messenger or the word angel (angelos) seems to be where some differ. Some would say in the last days God has not spoken to us through his Son as the messenger and witness. . . . our High Priest of the new order.. and others say it does apply. It would seem to hinge on the word messenger . Like apostles, sent ones. The father sent the Son .The high Priest sent to set the example of the new order.

Hebrews 3:1Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus;

A greater distant from mainline would seem to be is the blood issue as to how they would define "drink the blood" which is similar to the Catholic understanding making it about real literal blood and not what blood as a metaphor represents in the parables. One performs a work by denying it and the other by pretending what you see and eat are not what they seem to be . . use your imagination.

I would say that Jesus is not Michael the archangel, but that Jehovah's witnesses are seeking to worship the same God, the one true God who created heaven and earth, and the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob. They are just misled about other things.

 

[Dan_473]

The only commonality between Roman Catholics and Muslims is that they both change God into an image that they can accept. Romans 1. Romans 10 tells us that we must believe in Jesus Christ according to what the bible teaches about Him. In other word we must believe with a correct knowledge of Christ to be saved.

We must know more than just the name of Jesus Christ. There remains only one way to be saved. There is only one God who is God.

Mega churches tend to be over inclusive and dilute the gospel with man driven decisions not Holy Spirit wrought conversions to Christ.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

I don't understand why you were talking about alleged commonality between Roman Catholics and Muslims, they look very different to me.

I can agree that correct knowledge of Christ is required for salvation. Again, is that correct knowledge arrived at by each individual reading the Bible for themselves? Or is the correct knowledge found in and by the body of Christ operating as a whole?

 

[Hazelelponi]

I hear what you're saying, and using the same logic we can say

The specification who is God by the Jews is not the same specification by Christians.


For Example Christian God have a Son,His name is Jesus.

The Jew's God do not have a son (or if he does it's definitely not Jesus).

So using the above logic, and I'm not saying it's wrong, but using the same logic we would have to say that the Jew's God is not the Christian God.

The Jewish God says HE is the I Am, this means, His acknowledgement of Himself, His description of Himself is that He exists.

The God of Islam says (la ilhaha ilallah - There is no God but Allah)

So in order to acknowledge it's existence as a god, it must first negate all else.

The issue with negating all else being necessary before you can affirm, is that you can't negate what doesn't exist to be negated.

So in spite of the plethora of various "gods" that the pagans worshipped in early history (Ancient Sumer, the Mesopotamian cultures that lived around the early Jews etc) all the God of Abraham needed to say was I AM.

Why? Because other gods either didn't exist except in the minds of people or simply weren't Gods in the same manner as the I AM was God.

This is actually quite a contrast to the Islamic God who must negate what exists before the affirmation of its existence, specifically, its saying its not God so long as anything else exists (whose existence we must negate)

Noting they are both Semitic languages so there is more similarity than difference in styles of the two languages.

Secondly, the Name of God was given to Moses as the name of God who said, I AM the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

First, God repeated the Abrahamic covenant with three generations, first with Abraham, then with Isaac, and lastly with Jacob.

This descriptor then, The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, is specific to one God, the I AM. The God who exists. the God over the Jews - the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

This full name which is a description is never once found in the Qur'an, or ahadith.. not even one time.

I could go on for days, but in the two texts - the Bible and the Qur'an it is clearly two separate entities, and the later is simply trying to convince you he's the first, and doing a very poor job of it.

So if the Catholics think Muslims will be in their heaven, well, I don't find it likely I'll be there, as I left Islam to follow a different God.

All that said, isn't this off topic?

 

[Nehemiah6]

So all the Jews were using a single list? It might depend on which historian you ask, but my feeling is that there were multiple lists that different Jews were using back then.

I pointed you to the AUTHORITY of Christ, and this is your feeble response about historians and Jews? Which means that you do not wish to deal with spiritual matters honestly.

The Catholic Church has DISHONESTLY twisted the Scriptures and changed the Gospel as well as Bible doctrine. And you wish to continue in the same direction.

 

[Jackson123]

I hear what you're saying, and using the same logic we can say

The specification who is God by the Jews is not the same specification by Christians.


For Example Christian God have a Son,His name is Jesus.

The Jew's God do not have a son (or if he does it's definitely not Jesus).

So using the above logic, and I'm not saying it's wrong, but using the same logic we would have to say that the Jew's God is not the Christian God.

Jew God as oN the old testament also have a son and that is Jesus.

Not all jew interprate old testament correctly

But quran state God do not have son.

Jew that say God do not have son, is because he not interprate old testament correctly

Muslim that say God do not have son interprate quran correctly

 

[Dan_473]

The Jewish God says HE is the I Am, this means, His acknowledgement of Himself, His description of Himself is that He exists.

The God of Islam says (la ilhaha ilallah - There is no God but Allah)

So in order to acknowledge it's existence as a god, it must first negate all else.

The issue with negating all else being necessary before you can affirm, is that you can't negate what doesn't exist to be negated.

So in spite of the plethora of various "gods" that the pagans worshipped in early history (Ancient Sumer, the Mesopotamian cultures that lived around the early Jews etc) all the God of Abraham needed to say was I AM.

Why? Because other gods either didn't exist except in the minds of people or simply weren't Gods in the same manner as the I AM was God.

This is actually quite a contrast to the Islamic God who must negate what exists before the affirmation of its existence, specifically, its saying its not God so long as anything else exists (whose existence we must negate)

Noting they are both Semitic languages so there is more similarity than difference in styles of the two languages.

Secondly, the Name of God was given to Moses as the name of God who said, I AM the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

First, God repeated the Abrahamic covenant with three generations, first with Abraham, then with Isaac, and lastly with Jacob.

This descriptor then, The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, is specific to one God, the I AM. The God who exists. the God over the Jews - the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

This full name which is a description is never once found in the Qur'an, or ahadith.. not even one time.

I could go on for days, but in the two texts - the Bible and the Qur'an it is clearly two separate entities, and the later is simply trying to convince you he's the first, and doing a very poor job of it.

So if the Catholics think Muslims will be in their heaven, well, I don't find it likely I'll be there, as I left Islam to follow a different God.

All that said, isn't this off topic?

If you follow my conversation with Jackson backwards, I think it relates to a Catholic document called lumen gentium, or something like that.

So what would be your opinion of this
Jews and Christians worship the same God.
When Jews say that Jesus of Nazareth is not God's son, that does not mean that they are then worshipping a different God.

 

[Dan_473]

I pointed you to the AUTHORITY of Christ, and this is your feeble response about historians and Jews? Which means that you do not wish to deal with spiritual matters honestly.

The Catholic Church has DISHONESTLY twisted the Scriptures and changed the Gospel as well as Bible doctrine. And you wish to continue in the same direction.

It is not a feeble response, I believe it was you who appealed to the Jewish Canon.

I presented a piece of evidence that indicates that the Jews were using books that many Protestants do not today include in their Canon. I talked about a physical copy of the lxx that I had when I was younger.

If you wish to present a piece of evidence that indicates that all the Jews agreed on which books were in the law, the prophets, and the Psalms, please do so.

Also your reasoning assumes that the book we call Luke is reliable. Why would a person think that, without looking at Christian tradition? There were many gospels floating around in the early centuries.

 

[Dan_473]

Jew God as oN the old testament also have a son and that is Jesus.

Not all jew interprate old testament correctly

But quran state God do not have son.

Jew that say God do not have son, is because he not interprate old testament correctly

Muslim that say God do not have son interprate quran correctly

Well, going along with that line of reasoning, the Jewish person who is not interpreting the old testament correctly, which would be nearly all of them, would they be worshiping the same God as Christians? They would say that God did not have a son named Jesus.

 

[Dan_473]

I pointed you to the AUTHORITY of Christ, and this is your feeble response about historians and Jews? Which means that you do not wish to deal with spiritual matters honestly.

The Catholic Church has DISHONESTLY twisted the Scriptures and changed the Gospel as well as Bible doctrine. And you wish to continue in the same direction.

Here's another piece of evidence that you can look at online if you wish

https://orthodoxwiki.org/Septuagint

Of course, like I talked about above, I wouldn't want to pressure anyone into looking into issues of canonicity. The results can be life changing, but they can also be disturbing.

 

[Jackson123]

Well, going along with that line of reasoning, the Jewish person who is not interpreting the old testament correctly, which would be nearly all of them, would they be worshiping the same God as Christians? They would say that God did not have a son named Jesus.

Jews that is not interprate old testament correctly to the point do not believe Jesus as God not whorship Abraham god.

Jews that are atheis not whorship Christian God.

Catholic is not whorship Christian God because Christian God never teach to pray to Mary.

Muslim is not worship Christian God because between muslim and Christian God have different specification

Quran say Jesus son of Mary, Moses sister

So in moslim Jesus eartly mother is Moses sister.