The Passion of the Christ

[Timebuilder]

If G-d has something to say to the Jews I’m sure it’ll be so obvious and unequivocal that debate will be unnecessary.

Funny.

That's exactly how I see the ministry of Jesus, the Messiah of the Old Testament.

Unmistakable.

 

[TWA Dude]

That's exactly how I see the ministry of Jesus, the Messiah of the Old Testament. Unmistakable.

Okay then, on behalf of the approximately 15 million Jews, 1 billion Muslims, 2 billion Hindus and Buddhists, and 1 billion other non-Christians on planet Earth, let me humbly apologize for being such a thorn in your side. If as you say your version of truth is G-d's truth then we're all in Big trouble. I can live (and die) with that. If you can too then maybe you'll learn a little respect for others. If I had to guess, though, I'd say you probably won't.

 

[surplus1]

Surplus1,
I find your condemnation of Protestantism to be misplaced.

And why pray tell is that? If you will take the time to check back you will note that a full 6 pages of this thread had been written and yours truly never wrote a single word until page 7. At that point, I did write, but only AFTER I read that "Christianity contradicts Catholicism", posted by Tony C.

Do you really expect me to remain silent after that? Well, if you do your expectations evidently have not been realized. I did not start out by attacking Protestantism. What I did was respond to an attack on Catholicism.

Candidly, I think that people who did not even exist for 1500 years of Christianity have a he!! of a nerve telling me that "Christianity contradicts Catholicism". I'm old enough to have spent nearly sixty years listening to Reformists, otherwise known as Protestants, telling me that they are Christians and I am not. I'm sick of it and feel no need to be "politically correct" in responding. If Protestants expect me to be tolerant of their beliefs, then they need to be equally tolerant of mine.

It happens that I think Luther had a very valid point when he objected to the "sale of indulgences" by the Medici Pope. The Pope was wrong and Luther was right. However, let us not forget that Luther was a Catholic long before he became a reformer. Luther was not anti-Catholic, he was anti-a crooked Pope.

While we're at it, let us not also forget that the English were Catholics before they became Anglicans. Let us also remember why the English left the Church. It was because their King sought to divorce his lawful wife because he wanted another woman. When the Pope refused to annull his marriage, he ordered his people out of the Church and started his own. I should accept that he and his followers are more Christian than Catholics? That day will never come. In that instance, the King was wrong and the Pope was right.

Does The Word permit divorce and condone adultery? Well maybe it does if you happen to be a King and you have the money to rewrite Scripture to justify your deviations. Isn't that the true reason why King James (who was not the adulterer) commisioned the King James Version?

While you may feel a deep commitment to the Catholic Church, it is not my intent to tear down your Church

I believe you. It is not my intent to tear down anyone's church either. I don't agree with Judaism, but I did not attempt to tear it down or challenge the beliefs of TWA Dude. I simply said to him that while I did not agree with him, I admired his defense of his Faith.

With respect to Mr. Gibson's movie, I have not seen the film, I don't have a clue about the book on which it is based, and I have made no comment at all about Gibson's work or the accuracy of his account of the Passion. I've never heard of Anne Cathering Emmerich or her book until you mentioned it. Whether she's a Catholic nun or otherwise is of no consequence to me. It's a movie, and nothing more. I'll get around to seeing it, but I won't learn about the passion of Christ from the film, I've been intimately familiar probably before Mel Gibson was born. I know that Gibson is a conservative Roman Catholic, but his movie is not the Roman Catholic version of anything. It is Mel Gibson's version. Whether the film is good, bad or indifferent, it will not bring me to Christ nor will it keep me away. My faith has nothing to do with movies.

God can use anything to call to His sheep.

With that I agree completely. I also agree that whatever causes a person to hear The Word and come to believe it and accept the Christ, is a good thing.

That does not mean that I accept the concepts or the practices of the so-called fundamentalists. The truth is I think most of them are much like Chiropractors, i.e., quacks. If that offends them it's just too bad, they have offended me, and they did it first. If I am attacked, and I was, I am able to defend myself and will do so.

They have the ability to attack my Faith, and call it whatever they choose. I have the ability to defend it and I think I have a far more solid foundation from which to do so. Earlier on I said that they have over 1000 different denominations, and that is a fact. I also pointed out that the reason for this is because they can't agree on whatever it is they believe. That is also a fact. If they did agree, there would not be all those different denominations.

I am very much aware that it was evil and errant Popes who gave rise to the reform movement and Protestantism. However, the level and quantity of "protests" have expanded over the years far beyond the wildest imaginations of Martin Luther. At this point there are far more "protests" by protesters against other protesters than there are against errant Catholic leaders.

They (not I) claim that their various religions are all based on "the Bible". They claim that "the Bible" is to be taken literally in every respect. Well, since they are all different in some way one from the other, different enough to form "new churches" whenever they disagree, I guess that means that they must have 1000 different Bibles, each of which is to be taken "literally". Candidly, that is an absurdity.

Based on what you yourself have written, it is evident that you are way above the average student of the Bible. I respect your views, and I am not trying to tear down anything that you have said. What I have done is try to point out some of the differences and the varying claims of authenticity.

In my earlier post, I quoted a lot about the KJV and the newer versions of the Bible. Those quotations did NOT come from Roman Catholics. They came from Protestant advocates of the authorized KJV. The criticisms of the NIV, NASB and NWT are not mine, they are Protestants criticising other Protestants. So, its not this Roman Catholic attacking Protestants, it's Protestants attacking each other. It is not Catholics that you have to worry about, it is each other.

For the most part Catholics keep to themselves and don't attack anyone. Protestants are the one's that are always attacking us. About the only thing Protestants can find any unity about is their attacks on Catholics. Usually, most Catholics don't even bother to defend themselves. Well, this Catholic does.

I don't profess to be an expert on the Bible. I honestly have the impression that you know a lot more than I do about the details of Bible origin. However, contrary to the opinion of the fundamentalists, it is not true that Catholics don't read the Bible, don't know anything about it, and get their information only from priests who tell them what to believe (as Tony C implied to me).

I agree in principle with a lot of what you say about different versions and I'm willing to go along with the idea that as long as we do not change the key elements, the minituae is not that important. That has been the whole trend of my posts.

In the last post, I told you what I believe by posting the Credo. Now I will tell you further that it is my opinion that a person who cannot profess to believe in ALL of that Creed, cannot call himself a Christian with accuracy.

I also do not believe that salvation comes as a consequence of merely believing in Jesus Christ and nothing else. To me, that concept is a contradiction of Scripture. Belief is of course necessary, but how one lives (works) is also necessary to salvation.

I have not said that anyone has to believe what I believe. What I have said is that those who do not believe the items outlined in the Creed are at odds with Christianity. They are the contradiction, not the Catholics.

When a Bible version condones divorce, and adultery, I find that Bilble to be in error to a degree that renders it useless. If that offends anyone, I make no apology. I don't take any of the Bible "literally", but there is nothing "muddy" about the basic teachings of the Christ. When someone tells me that the Commandments are no longer valid because they are the "old law" and Jesus did away with them, I say that's baloney. Jesus did not eliminate the Commandments, He merely defined the two most important and showed us by example how to live the rest. We don't have the luxury of excluding the things that we find objectionable to our lifestyle. "Versions" of the Bible that change that meaning are erroneous, regardless of whether they were translated from Hebrew, Greek, or any other language.

Again, I do not attempt to divide. I have voiced my own beliefs and my opinions as to what I don't believe and what I think is hogwash. No one has to accept what I have said if they do no choose to do so. I have stated that Christianity is a function of Faith. That faith is supported by the Scriptures, but stories and accounts of what happend more than 2000 years ago cannot be totally substantiated with flawless accuracy. That brings us back to the same place, i.e., Faith.

I don't have the power or the right to judge another man's faith. Only God can do that. I will gladly respect anyone's faith as long as they also respect my faith. I haven't challenged anyone's faith, what I have challenged is the authenticity of some Bibles and their being taken literally, word for word. I can't really apologize for that, it is what I believe.

Again, I admire your knowledge of the Bible. You have not showered me with Chapter and verse, for which I am thankful. What you have done is demonstrate your own understanding and therefore enhanced mine. I don't take what you said as an argument but rather as a series of legitimate, studied, and learned explanations, for which I thank you.

 

[Super 80]

It’s an erroneous and arrogant assumption that my refusal to debate Biblical verses means I’m afraid I may suddenly accept Jesus.

My apology, dude. I was inferring intent or motivation to you. Of course, I have no ability to be able to read your mind, much less get how much you feel from something as sterile as a message board.

I was struck however that you started a response and failed to follow through. You responded to the Catholic issues raised here by Tony C, and you responded to Timebuilder by chiding him for quoting the New Testament, however, you failed to respond to my post in answer to yours whereby I kept myself within the bounds of the Tanach.

Now you don't have to be a rabbi or even an Orthodox Jew. I don’t expect you to be a spokesman for your people. I am trying to discuss theological points in Scripture with you personally.

I am not nor is anyone else here trying to persecute, torture or murder you or others for their beliefs. That is now the norm for other religions against each other and against Judaism and Christianity in the world though. Some Christians may be anti-Semitic but anti-Semitism as the norm is no longer practiced in the Christian community at large.

I fail to see where discussing what is written in the Prophets shows disrespect for your ancestors. The Law and Prophets were regularly discussed in synagogues before the Diaspora. This is not so much a debate as a discussion and I know of no qualification other than to be a thinking individual. I am prepared to qualify my interpretation with word study from a firm basis in learning from the books I have acquired by authorities on Hebrew in theology. You could likewise add to the discussion from other sources so we could establish a foundation from which to elevate the discussion.

I think examining the covenant God made with Abraham is an excellent starting point to examine where God says in Isaiah:

ISA 42:9 See, the former things have taken place,
and new things I declare;
before they spring into being
I announce them to you."

and:

ISA 48:6 You have heard these things; look at them all.
Will you not admit them?

"From now on I will tell you of new things,
of hidden things unknown to you.

ISA 48:7 They are created now, and not long ago;
you have not heard of them before today.
So you cannot say,
`Yes, I knew of them.'

So since then as you say: "others have come along with “new” covenants that “supercede” the Tanach," didn't God in conjunction with the servant passages proclaim that there would be something new? And against your fear that "many more will come along to reinterpret the Hebrew," the Christian's goal is to try to remain faithful to the teaching of Jesus which in part He said was not to do away with the Law, but to fulfill it.

If G-d has something to say to the Jews I’m sure it’ll be so obvious and unequivocal that debate will be unnecessary.

And to this day the most controversial figure in history is Jesus of Nazareth.

 

[Timebuilder]

Okay then, on behalf of the approximately 15 million Jews, 1 billion Muslims, 2 billion Hindus and Buddhists, and 1 billion other non-Christians on planet Earth, let me humbly apologize for being such a thorn in your side. If as you say your version of truth is G-d's truth then we're all in Big trouble. I can live (and die) with that. If you can too then maybe you'll learn a little respect for others. If I had to guess, though, I'd say you probably won't.

You are not a thorn in my side. You are a brother, and worthy of concern. So are the billions you mentioned. That's the ultimate respect for someone, to stick your neck out for them and show that you care.

Once again, I can't emphasize enough that I don't promote "my version" of anything.

It's God's version. And HE wants YOU to know it.

 

[Snakum]

And to this day the most controversial figure in history is Jesus of Nazareth.

Uhhh ... in the West, maybe. You guys fail to realize that there's a big wide world out there, and I've been MANY many places in it where people don't know who he is ... nor do they care.

Assumptions people ... assumptions.

Minh

 

[TWA Dude]

My apology, dude. I was inferring intent or motivation to you. Of course, I have no ability to be able to read your mind, much less get how much you feel from something as sterile as a message board.

Apology accepted.

I was struck however that you started a response and failed to follow through. You responded to the Catholic issues raised here by Tony C, and you responded to Timebuilder by chiding him for quoting the New Testament, however, you failed to respond to my post in answer to yours whereby I kept myself within the bounds of the Tanach.

I chided Timebuilder because he's unable to respectfully discuss any issue with me. I don't take anything he says seriously anymore.

I've tried to explain why I won't get into Biblical debates with you. Sorry if it seems that I'm backing down. It's a tightrope walk with me because sometimes I'm speaking for myself and sometimes I'm relaying what I believe Judaism teaches. I can defend myself if you challenge my beliefs (which may or may not match Judaism) but if you challenge Jewish belief in general I must refer you to an expert.

I fail to see where discussing what is written in the Prophets shows disrespect for your ancestors.

If I try to discuss Biblical verses I may "lose" the discussion but only in the sense that I'm not learned enough to counter your arguments. The implications of me losing this discussion would be an embarrasment to the memory of my ancestors who could've easily "won" the discussion. So I'll leave the debating to the experts.

didn't God in conjunction with the servant passages proclaim that there would be something new?

I'm once again caught in a place without the full Tanach translated. My Torah translation happens to have Isaiah 42:9 so I can actually agree with your version. So what does "something new" mean? Well, golly, it could mean anything, couldn't it? There; that's the extent I'm able to debate this verse.

And against your fear that "many more will come along to reinterpret the Hebrew," the Christian's goal is to try to remain faithful to the teaching of Jesus which in part He said was not to do away with the Law, but to fulfill it.And to this day the most controversial figure in history is Jesus of Nazareth.

It's not a fear; it'a prediction that more sacred texts will materialize in the future. You don't accept Islam as the Truth, do you? Muslims believe they've "got it right". Well, who the heck doesn't believe they're right? "Proof" requires a court to verify it but in the case of religion the Judge is keeping mum these days.

 

[Timebuilder]

"Proof" requires a court to verify it but in the case of religion the Judge is keeping mum these days.

He has already told you, in fact, He was telling your people far longer than anyone else.

It's a shame it didn't "stick." That's why He has others reminding you. He was prepared.

 

[Herman Bloom]

Timebuilder

Your last post really scares me. And it sould scare a whole lot more of you folks out there.

These guys are dangerous, and they don't even know it.

 

[Timebuilder]

Oooooh. Scary!!!!

OOOga, Boooga, BOOOO!



Seriously, Herman old man, there is no need to fear any of this. God has made a very meaningful sacrifice on your behalf. He asks you, not forces you, to take Him up on His free gift. That's it.

Scary, huh?

 

[TonyC]

surplus1 3 parts...

No, I didn’t give up on this thread or loose interest in the subject. I had a 3-day trip with no computer access, and I must say - - I missed a lot. I almost don’t know where to start, and I don’t want to start off with a half dozen posts. So, I think I’ll work my way from the most recent post backwards, and try to keep this all to one post.

I am very much aware that it was evil and errant Popes who gave rise to the reform movement and Protestantism.

It happens that I think Luther had a very valid point when he objected to the "sale of indulgences" by the Medici Pope. The Pope was wrong and Luther was right. However, let us not forget that Luther was a Catholic long before he became a reformer. Luther was not anti-Catholic, he was anti-a crooked Pope.

If the Pope is infallible, as I understand the Catholic Church to believe, how could there have ever been a “crooked Pope”?

These are just a couple of the Biblical objections that we have against the Catholic Church that lead me to conclude that Catholicism contradicts Christianity.

Your response, attacking Protestantism, hinges on the assumption that we cannot take words of the Bible literally, and I believe Super 80 has done an excellent job of answering that charge, so I’ll not belabor the point. I WILL point out, though, that you must rely on literal translations of scripture, yourself, to arrive at your own beliefs.

For example,

I rarely quot Scripture, but here is something thay you might find of interest.

"And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." Revelation 22:19

I respectfully submit that presuming you accept that quote as accurate, it serves to confirm the problems I have raised.

OK, let me ask you this: In the first phrase, which book is referred to? When we’re talking about taking away from the book, are we talking about the Bible? Or the New Testament? Or the Book of Revelation? If you’re wondering now what the original words were (Greek) and what they meant, and how they would best be translated to English, then you’re on the same sheet of music with me, and Super 80, and most other sincere students of the Word. It doesn’t matter, you see, what the NIV says, or what the KJV says, or what the Catholic Bible says, or what any of the footnotes or commentaries might say. It doesn’t matter what the priest says, or what a preacher says. The ONLY thing that matters here is what God meant when He delivered the Revelation to John.

Now… in that same vein, we can consider similar passages. The preceding verse addresses the opposite of “taking away”:

Rev. 22:18
For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

Similar admonitions concerning the commands of God are contained in Deuteronomy and Joshua:

Deut. 4:2
Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.

Deut. 12:32
What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.

Joshua 1:7
Only be thou strong and very courageous, that thou mayest observe to do according to all the law, which Moses my servant commanded thee: turn not from it to the right hand or to the left, that thou mayest prosper whithersoever thou goest.

Proverbs 30:5-6
Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. [6] Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

Although it might be argued that the admonition in Revelation applies only to that book, and the admonitions in the Old Testament apply only to that law, we might agree that the same principle applies to the New Covenant. If such is the case, how does one justify adding other books, or doctrines, or even creeds as an essential part of their faith?

Continued…

 

[TonyC]

Re: surplus1 3 parts...

Continued…

Are there certain things that people who call themselves Christians should believe. Yes, in my opinion, there are. What I personally, and people who share my Faith believe, can be summed up in the Nicene Creed. Here it is.

As approved in amplified form at the Council of Constantinople (381), it is the profession of the Christian Faith common to the Catholic Church, to all the Eastern Churches separated from Rome, and to most of the Protestant denominations.

The following is a literal translation of the Greek text of the Constantinopolitan form, the brackets indicating the words altered or added in the Western liturgical form in present use:

We believe (I believe) in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, and born of the Father before all ages. (God of God) light of light, true God of true God. Begotten not made, consubstantial to the Father, by whom all things were made. Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven. And was incarnate of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary and was made man; was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, suffered and was buried; and the third day rose again according to the Scriptures. And ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father, and shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, of whose Kingdom there shall be no end. And (I believe) in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father (and the Son), who together with the Father and the Son is to be adored and glorified, who spoke by the Prophets. And one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. We confess (I confess) one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for (I look for) the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen."

Isn’t this adding to the commandments of God? And isn’t it convenient that this Creed, borne of man, requires belief in a “catholic” church? (And yes, I know it’s lower-case, and can mean “universal.”)

But it boils down to this. If you believe the Bible is inspired by God, profitable for teaching, reproof, correction and training in righteousness, and that it thoroughly equips us for every good work, then you must reconcile this belief with the position that the addition of a Creed can be pleasing to God.

When a Bible version condones divorce, and adultery, I find that Bilble to be in error to a degree that renders it useless. If that offends anyone, I make no apology. I don't take any of the Bible "literally", but there is nothing "muddy" about the basic teachings of the Christ. When someone tells me that the Commandments are no longer valid because they are the "old law" and Jesus did away with them, I say that's baloney. Jesus did not eliminate the Commandments, He merely defined the two most important and showed us by example how to live the rest. We don't have the luxury of excluding the things that we find objectionable to our lifestyle. "Versions" of the Bible that change that meaning are erroneous, regardless of whether they were translated from Hebrew, Greek, or any other language.

Were a version of the Bible to condone remarriage after unscriptural divorce, or were it to condone adultery, I would agree - - that version would be in error. (Jesus taught of certain circumstances under where divorce is allowed, and remarriage after that divorce. If your partner commits adultery, you may divorce and remarry. Your partner, however, may not. (Matthew 5:31-32; Matthew 19:3-12; Mark 10:2-11)) Now, have we gotten muddy here? You see, you just can’t take a simplistic view of issues as you understand them to be and divorce yourself of the teachings of the Bible. The supreme authority is the Bible - - what the Bible says, goes.

Now, for the bologna. The Law of Moses is no longer in effect. Jesus Christ fulfilled that law when he was nailed to the cross. As a type of the New Law, it embodied the same principles that the same God requires of those who worship Him today. We no longer, under the New Law, observe the Passover, or the Sabbath, or any other day or feast, for that matter, that was proscribed by the Law of Moses. We do not offer animal sacrifices, though we do recognize them to be the TYPE of the ultimate sacrifice that was offered for our sins - - Jesus Christ. The so-called Ten Commandments were part of that Law of Moses, and have in effect the same force of law as any other element of the Law of Moses - - none.

Does that mean it’s OK now to kill? Certainly not. Jesus instructed us to love our neighbors as ourselves, and certainly that prohibits murder. Does that mean we are not required to love God, or that we should worship other Gods? Certainly not. He taught us to love God with all our heart soul and mind. (Matthew 22:34-40)

Does it mean we’re no longer required to remember the Sabbath and keep it holy? Yes. Why yes here, and no in the previous examples? Because the New Testament contains no instruction to remember the Sabbath and keep it holy.

Nothing required of worshippers under the Old Law is required of worshippers under the New Law BECAUSE it was in the Old Law. The mere fact that it was part of the Old Law, apart from any New Testament teaching, is insufficient to bind that practice on the New Testament Christian. That is to say, apart from instruction under the New law, all of the Old law is set aside.

Many Christians of the first century did not fully understand this concept, as we can see from Acts and several of Paul’s epistles. The topic in Acts 15 was circumcision, and the questions was, shouldn’t we be circumcised in order to completely serve God and be saved? Circumcision was certainly required under the Law of Moses, so why isn’t it required of Christians? Some of the believers who were also Pharisees asserted that circumcision was necessary in order to keep the law of Moses. Peter, Barnabus, Paul, and James spoke out to explain that the requirement to keep the Old Law does no longer exist. The same issue was addressed in I Corinthians 7:18-19, Galatians 2:3-4, Galatians 5:2-11, Galatians 6:12, Ephesians 2:11-16, Colossians 2:11, and Colossians 3:11. Paul writes to the Christians in Corinth (I Cor 7:18-19) that circumcision counts for nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is the important thing. In his letter to the Christians in Colossi (Col. 2:11-12), he explains that the physical circumcision of the old law is but a type of the spiritual circumcision we perform when we put off the flesh, taking on a new body when we are buried with Him in baptism, and raised to walk with Him in faith. He instructed the Christians in Galatia (Gal 5:2-11) that any man who accepts circumcision as a requirement for salvation is obligated to keep the whole law of Moses, and that doing so severs one from Christ and His gift of grace. (Since no man has ever kept that law perfectly, save Christ, that would put one in a terrible predicament.) In his letter to the Christians at Ephesus (Eph 2:11-16) he explained that Christ abolished the law of commandments and ordinances so that we are no longer strangers and aliens to God, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God.

If that’s bologna, wrap it up, I’ll take it.

It is equally right for either of us to "cling to a tenant of faith", just as it is equally right for TWA Dude to cling to the tenants of Judaism, which is his faith.

What happens, then, one my tenant of faith is in direct disagreement with your tenant of faith. Can they both be true? Can they both be right? Can they both be correct? If yes, then we can end the discussion and carry on about our own happy ways. If no, then it would behoove us to determine which of the two is correct, right, and true, or if there is another that neither of us has yet discovered which is true, right, and correct. If adherence to truth is important, and I believe it is, then we must diligently pursue the truth. And the only true source for that truth, of which I am aware at least, is the Bible. As such, as the source of truth, then I feel it is worthy of much study. I share your skepticism about various versions of the Bible, and you might have seen me discussing that very topic with Super 80 some time ago. Where we might not agree to the voracity of a particular translation, or even mode of translation, we DO agree that a disagreement between different versions requires a study of the original texts, and that the text of the original author is the only thing that matters - - not the opinion of King James’s scholars, and not the opinion of any other group of translators.

Continued…

[Edited for punctuation and grammar (Spellchecker seems to like "fro"... )]

 

[TonyC]

Re: Re: surplus1 3 parts...

Conclusion...

Since we are sharing opinions, I don't hesitate to tell you that I think most Protestant denominations are in fact centered around some particular preacher. That is especially true of the "born again" variety. That is exactly why you have so many different denominations. A "preacher" comes up with some new "interpretation" that is popular and before you know it you have a new Church. Is that a shallow perspective? Yes it is, but no more so than your perspective of my adherence to the word of some priest. That my friend is one of the very basic differences between us. Catholics don't form "churches" or religions around preachers. Our Faith is universal and it does not change from country to country, language to language, preacher to preacher, church to church, day to day. We don't start a new "religion" because we don't like what some preacher preaches or because we do "like" some other preacher more. The "pastor's" name is not emblazoned on the church's front door, for the Pastor is Jesus himself. There is no such thing as "my priest", they are all the same. The house of God is not in any particular church, it is every church and the world at large.

I share your opinion that most Protestant denominations are centered around some human being, from Martin Luther on down the line. You are correct in surmising that this is NOT the pattern of New Testament Christianity. What you are wrong in doing is assuming that I am Protestant, and that an attack on Protestants constitutes a defense of Catholicism. I do not subscribe to the creed of any human - - only to the teachings of the Bible. I do not wear the name of any human being, or any movement. I am a Christian. I can join you in criticizing many aspects of Protestantism. But I cannot join you in defense of Catholicism. I have seen nothing in your discussion that really appears to defend the Catholic Church.

Your idea that Catholics believe whatever some priest tells them to believe demonstrates your lack of knowledge and understanding of the catholic Faith. In nearly 60 years as a Catholic, I have never been told what part of the Bible I should read or how I should interpret it by any priest. I have been told that the Bible contains the "Word of the Lord", and that I should read it and accept The Word. I have also been told, and studied in depth, what my "Church" professes and believes and, that if I choose to be a part of that Church, then I should believe those things as well. What "the priest" believes or doesn't believe is irrelevant.

In other words, it is a question of Faith. The choice is mine to make. I do not have to believe everything that the Catholic Church does or says in order to be a "good Catholic". I don't have to believe anything that any priest says either. The Faith of Catholics is not centered on or around priests. They are simply people that have chosen to dedicate their entire lives to the service of God. Stewards of the Faith, not creators of the Faith.

We might be talking about two separate, although similar concepts here. I’m talking about Catholicism, and you’re talking about your faith. I believe Catholicism requires that you believe everything that the Church says or does, and that a good Catholic does not have a right to deviate from those tenants as he sees fit. If you don’t believe everything that the Catholic church teaches, then you must have an objection to Catholicism yourself. Perhaps you have made my point for me.

I cannot by generalization speak for all men and women who claim to wear the label Catholic, no more than you can by generalization assign a set of beliefs to all those who claim to be Protestant. When I compare Christianity to Catholicism, I can only compare the Bible to the Catholic church. I am not a Protestant, and you apparently have some reservations about the Catholic church. Let’s keep this in mind as we continue this discussion.

 

[PurpleInMEM]

Whoa...

Dude, you've obviously not been hub turning enough.

Other dudes...let it go already...

 

[Timebuilder]

You're the first Penn guy I've seen here. It was once my second home.

Good to see this meeting of the minds, guys. It could lead to a better understanding. Over 4,000 views. Wow.