Posted on 09/02/2011 9:07:47 AM PDT by marshmallow
It might be things like their popes kissing the Koran...We know Jesus would never have kissed a Koran...
So prove it was a Koran and not an Arabic language Bible. It should be easy since what you are referring to is not a matter of interpretation and belief, but a simple matter of documented history.
GREAT POINTS.
Plenty true.
Thx.
INDEED.
People attend church for many varying reasons.....and they don’t leave when they should for varying reasons as well.
Everyone has their list of what they “like” about their church....some remain in churches that are outright flat in scripture teachings but they love the people. Generally it’s the same people every week and no growth.
If the Pastor isn’t preaching from Gods word...what’s the point? If it’s not there then move to where it is. Preferably not one that requires various long lists of repetitive sayings or rituals.... IMO.
We shall see who’s construction on reality best matches God’s.
He only has one opinion.
God and time will tell.
Uhhhh . . .
Likely that would be . . .
1. The outrageously intense and !!!DEMANDING!!! arrogance.
2. The idolatry.
“Church attendance is nice and all, but not the mainstay of anyone’s spiritual walk. It should be able to take second or even third place in their lives.”
We have a fundamental difference in religious beliefs then. What you describe is not the belief of Catholics. We believe that the # 1 source and summit of our spiritual life is the Mass, which provides the grace-giving sacrament of the Holy Eucharist. At Mass we also have always at least four inter-related Scripture readings, but that is not the only important aspect.
I am not arguing about this, just telling you how it is as I can see it’s very different from your idea of spiritual growth by reading a Bible every day. Of course we are free to walk around with Bibles too, or rosaries, or any number of ways to walk with God. I hear you that they are important, and Catholicism also encourages Scripture study and prayer.
I did NOT post from a website. Show me word for word what that website says. I have never been to that website and if the RM wants to go into my computer to find if I’m telling the truth, then please do. This information came from my study Bible. Do NOT accuse me of going onto a website and taking information and posting it word for word. Now prove it to me, or apologize.
I have told you before I will not respond to you.
There are Catholics who think other Catholics are going to hell, and most aren't even sure if they're going to make it themselves. And of course, hell is going to be populated with non-Catholics according to Catholic teaching and doctrine, not to mention the opinion of FR Catholics on this board.
Catholics are in no position to point fingers at what you're complaining about.
Just Google the following direct quote from your post and you get at least 5 hits. It ain't rocket science so when you are caught with your hand in the cookie jar it's best to just fess up.
"They were first added after 300 A.D. But the Laodicean Council rejected them in 363 as being uninspired. The Vatican Version of Scripture of the 4th century."
That Rome did not overall promote Biblical literacy is true, and until recently little of the Bible was read in Mass, and today this is still not much. The average Catholic does not even get to Mass weekly, less alone daily as would be needed to get just 12.7% of the Bible over the two year reading cycle, and it has already been established that historically Rome did not encourage Bible literacy among the laity, and even discouraged it. Even by 1951 just a little of the gospels and the epistles were read on Sundays, with just 0.39% of the Old Testament (aside from the Psalms) being read at Vigils and major feast days in 1951. (http://catholic-resources.org/Lectionary/Statistics.htm) Also “at mid-century study of Bible texts was not an integral part of the primary or secondary school curriculum. At best, the Bible was conveyed through summaries of the texts. (The Catholic Study Bible, Oxford University Press, 1990, p. RG16) While that amount has increased since Vatican Two, just going to Mass will NOT give a functional knowledge of Scripture.
See http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Ancients_on_Scripture.html#Supplementary
Also,
68% of Evangelical Christians attend a regular Bible Study or participate in some other small-group activity. 47% of other Protestants take part in small groups related to their faith, along with 24% of Catholics. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/general_lifestyle/december_2008/catholics_protestants_practice_faith_in_different_ways
25% of Evangelical Christians read the Bible on a daily basis along with 20% of other Protestants. Just 7% of Catholics do the same. At the other extreme, 44% of Catholics rarely or never read the Bible along with only 7% of Evangelical Christians and 13% of other Protestants. ^
44% of Evangelical Christians reflect at least daily on the meaning of Scripture in their lives. 36% of other Protestants and 22% of Catholics do the same; ^
Bible Reading: the highest was 75%, by those going to a Pentecostal/Foursquare church who reported they had read the Bible during the past week (besides at church), while the lowest was among Catholics at 23%. http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/5-barna-update/54
The typical Catholic person was 38% less likely than the average American to read the Bible; 67% less likely to attend a Sunday school class; 20% less likely to share their faith in Christ with someone who had different beliefs, donated about 17% less money to churches, and were 36% less likely to have an “active faith,” defined as reading the Bible, praying and attending a church service during the prior week. Catholics were also significantly less likely to believe that the Bible is totally accurate in all of the principles it teaches. 44% of Catholics claimed to be “absolutely committed” to their faith, compared to 54% of the entire adult population. However, Catholics were 16% more likely to attend a church service and 8% more likely to have prayed to God during the prior week than the average American. Barna Reaearch, 2007, “Catholics Have Become Mainstream America” http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/12-faithspirituality/100
More: http://www.peacebyjesus.com/RC-Stats_vs._Evang.html
You are calling me a liar. I do not know where that website is, have never visited it, nor do I have any interest in visiting it. Perhaps that website took information from a study Bible. All I know is I have a study Bible in front of me, and I do NOT lie.
Well, then, smvoice obviously learned something new.
Why not give him the benefit of the doubt then and accept what he said as the truth?
Why the implication that he’s lying just because you found something different and knew about it. It doesn’t mean everybody knows something just because you do.
Brought to you by "Pimp My Blog"
http://www.ourcatholicfaith.org/john6.html
John 6 - The Bread Of Life Discourse
While you are pondering the Church and its teachings, I hope you will take a moment to look at how each Church approaches the teachings and words of Christ. In particular, read John 6:48-68. It reads as follows”
“I am the bread of life. Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died; this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.”
The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?” Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.”
These things he said while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum. Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?” Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, “Does this shock you? What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you who do not believe.”
Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him. And he said, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father.” As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him. Jesus then said to the Twelve, “Do you also want to leave?” Simon Peter answered him, “Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.”
The Eucharist is much more than a memorial service using grape juice and crackers. It is a sacrifice and a meal. The sacrifice comes in two forms: 1) us giving our whole selves to Christ and 2) the continuation of the sacrifice made by Christ of His flesh and blood. The meal is accepting the gift of holy food in the form of the body and blood of Christ.
Many Protestant Churches misinterpret John 6 and believe it is symbolic. The passage “It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.” often confuse people that do not understand that the terms “flesh” and “blood” are used two different ways in the passage. Initially, Jesus is speaking literally of His flesh and blood. This is what we now call the Eucharist. His use of flesh and blood in the last portion is moving to the familiar analogy between flesh (earthly things) and spirit (heavenly things). He is simply stating that His (literal) flesh and blood are of spirit (of heaven) while flesh (all earthly things) are of no use. He is simply telling us that His flesh and blood are spiritual food. Real food!
Most Protestant Churches teach the truth about Jesus, but do they teach the whole truth? Are you like one of the followers of Jesus who found this hard to believe? When considering the Catholic Church, remember these powerful words of Christ:
“Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.”
Shouldn’t your answer be: “Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.”
So I guess that Jesus was a liar, at least according to you.
Imagine that.
The Nicene Creed was in response to the Arians, which most of the church once was, which held that the Son of God did not always exist, but was created by God, that God the Father and the Son did not exist together eternally (contra Mic. 5:2; cf. Ps. 90:2), and which was a controversy that began to rise in the late 3rd century and extended over the greater part of the 4th century.
Of the roughly three hundred bishops in attendance at the Council of Nicea, only three bishops did not sign the Nicene Creed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism
The Nicene Creed has been normative to the Anglican Church, Assyrian Church of the East, Eastern Orthodox Church, Oriental Orthodox churches, the Roman Catholic Church including the Eastern Catholic Churches and the Old Catholic Church, the Lutheran Church and most Protestant denominations.
There are two versions, that of 325 and 381, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed#Comparison_between_Creed_of_325_and_Creed_of_381 and which has also different versisn today: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_versions_of_the_Nicene_Creed_in_current_use
That most all of Protestantism (actually all according to warranted definition) hold to it, as well as certain other core salvific truths, is a testimony against the idea that a centralized infallible head (which the scribes and Pharisees were not) is necessary for unity and perpetuating truth. See http://peacebyjesuscom.blogspot.com/2011/09/unity-under-sola-scriptura-versus-rc.html
The one line in the 381 version that is interpreted different by us is, “We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church,” as regards what constitutes apostolic.
The Apostles’ Creed came circa 5th c. and is briefer.
There is nothing wrong with conciliar creeds, any more than there is with us stating our beliefs, as long as they are Scriptural and subject to Scripture, and do not take the place of it.
The Wesminster Confession, the prime Prot. statement on faith, says in part, “It belongeth to synods and councils, ministerially, to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God.”
But as Scripture is the only transcendent material source of truth on faith and morals that is is wholly inspired of God, so it is the standard for faith and morals.
As far as the NC influencing the canon, insofar as the NC was Scriptural and the complimentary of Scripture disallows real contradiction, it would, but that is not how Scripture was established. Nor does being the instruments or stewards of Holy Writ (which Rome presumes they were), confer assured infallibility, for Israel was, (Rm. 3:2; cf. 9:4) was were reproved for teaching the extra Scriptural “tradition of the elders” as doctrine. (Mk. 7:1-13) And truth was preserved with a Romish type AIM.
See PeaceByJesus post at top here: http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=19795707&postID=5956412264159965452&page=1&token=1315089884350
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.