Christianity vs Catholicism

[gashin]

Christianity is believing in Jesus' teachings and promise of salvation from sin in his death. Catholicism on the other hand teaches that only through going through the Catholic rites, believing in the infallibility of the pope, and praying to God through additional mediators such as Mary and the Saints can we really save ourselves from hell. They de-emphasize the meaning of Christ's death as saving us from sin through their teaching that only through man-made Catholic doctrines can we be really be saved.

Ok, so christianity vs. catholicsm....can we define christianity as it isn't a sect within itself?

 

[gashin]

So are you going to claim that all historical records that weren't written at exactly the time when events occured aren't accurate? How do events that occur become recorded history but through word of mouth? Even modern news and history is based on peoples' subjective experiences yet we never question them for not being written instantly as the events are occuring...

Wild,
There are no references to christ from any third party historian from his time. This is not made up, and is verifiable. By saying this, I am not attempting to start a debate or upset you, because its true. The reference you brought up by Josephus has been found to be added in later by the church in an attempt to further the jesus myth. Josephus never mentioned jesus in his writings.
To your defense, up until the time when the add on was discorvered as such, this quote from him was the "go to" when christians needed external proof of jesus's life. But it was only ONE... and as stated, now is a known fake. Sorry.

My best,
-VP

 

[Nuck]

Christianity is believing in Jesus' teachings and promise of salvation from sin in his death. Catholicism on the other hand teaches that only through going through the Catholic rites, believing in the infallibility of the pope, and praying to God through additional mediators such as Mary and the Saints can we really save ourselves from hell. They de-emphasize the meaning of Christ's death as saving us from sin through their teaching that only through man-made Catholic doctrines can we be really be saved.

So the way you believe is God inspired but Catholic belief is 'man made doctrine'. I think I got the gist of it.

And Lu, this is nothing but intolerant drivel. There is no debate here. This is nothing more then the OP promoting his beliefs at the expense of another.

 

[let_there_be_vaping]

He wasn't a kind person all the time and in fact was a jerk to a lot of people if you read the Bible -

That may be true. Yet, I believe that all the beams from Jesus' eye had been removed and what he did may not always be in the best interest of our own soul to do if all the beams have not been removed from our own. If they haven't been, Jesus called those individuals hypocrits.

 

[gashin]

I'm not trying to debate atheists - I just want to know why Catholics believe what they do or if there's anyone who understands Catholic doctrine enough to explain how they can assume authority in making non-Christian doctrines. I'm not saying what I personally believe is God-inspired because I'm still human myself and will be flawed in my own beliefs no matter how good I try to be - I believe what's in the Bible while Catholicism has deviated so much from the Bible that it openly contradicts certain passages with the authority of "Church Tradition."

So the way you believe is God inspired but Catholic belief is 'man made doctrine'. I think I got the gist of it.

And Lu, this is nothing but intolerant drivel. There is no debate here. This is nothing more then the OP promoting his beliefs at the expense of another.

 

[let_there_be_vaping]

I'm not trying to debate atheists - I just want to know why Catholics believe what they do or if there's anyone who understands Catholic doctrine enough to explain how they can assume authority in making non-Christian doctrines. I'm not saying what I personally believe is God-inspired because I'm still human myself and will be flawed in my own beliefs no matter how good I try to be - I believe what's in the Bible while Catholicism has deviated so much from the Bible that it openly contradicts certain passages with the authority of "Church Tradition."

I think that even in the higher hierarchies of the Catholic religion that they may not always know why they do what they do, but that the reasons are rooted in the Judaic religion. They teach that the written Torah (the Bible) is a curse without the Oral Torah.

The Judaic religion also has a strong history of "interpretation". Jesus said (paraphrased) to do as the High Priest instructed, but not do as they did.

Oh, and P.S. they take their authority from apostolic succession... from what I have read.

 

[gashin]

You're right about that - but Jesus taught that he came to establish a new relationship based on love and compassion rather than on strict adherence to the old doctrines. I question their claims to apostolic succession as even Bones pointed out, the Catholic Church was created by the Byzantine Empire and Catholic teachings and services rarely emphasize the Acts and Letters of the apostles beyond the teachings that don't support their doctrines.

I think that even in the higher hierarchies of the Catholic religion that they may not always know why they do what they do, but that the reasons are rooted in the Judaic religion. They teach that the written Torah (the Bible) is a curse without the Oral Torah.

The Judaic religion also has a strong history of "interpretation". Jesus said (paraphrased) to do as the High Priest instructed, but not do as they did.

Oh, and P.S. they take their authority from apostolic succession... from what I have read.

 

[ZambucaLu]

Let's see if I can say this again. This thread is for Christian and Catholic debate. The OP is not looking to get into debates with atheists....there are other threads for that...or start your own thread.

Hope that is clear now.

Lu

 

[Vapor Pete]

Yeah they will - Hitler was pretty Catholic in his wording and appealed to peoples' anti-semetism at times with the old claim that the Jews are all guilty of killing Jesus.

Funny this should be brought up. I've been told he was an atheist, which is of course why he commited the crimes that he commited, dispite my references to his catholic and/or religious remarks?

My best,
-VP

 

[Vapor Pete]

I'm not trying to debate atheists - I just want to know why Catholics believe what they do or if there's anyone who understands Catholic doctrine enough to explain how they can assume authority in making non-Christian doctrines. I'm not saying what I personally believe is God-inspired because I'm still human myself and will be flawed in my own beliefs no matter how good I try to be - I believe what's in the Bible while Catholicism has deviated so much from the Bible that it openly contradicts certain passages with the authority of "Church Tradition."

Well gashin, it has been my findings that catholics assume alot of what they do based on the fact that it was was basically the catholic church that cannonized the bible that most christians use today. I personally have always found it amusing when a born again, with no church affiliation, will call the catholics a "cult" (which by its definition includes them) and yet the very book they study every night was put together by the catholics.
So my point is that even you, who say you believe in the bible, call into question the catholics. But they put the bible together. If I am wrong in my understanding, please clearify.

My best,
-VP

 

[WILDJC]

You're right about that - but Jesus taught that he came to establish a new relationship based on love and compassion rather than on strict adherence to the old doctrines. I question their claims to apostolic succession as even Bones pointed out, the Catholic Church was created by the Byzantine Empire and Catholic teachings and services rarely emphasize the Acts and Letters of the apostles beyond the teachings that don't support their doctrines.

gashin-Paul often spoke of doctrine and taught that doctrine should not divide us. With so many denominations today, (myself not belonging to any), I revert back to what Jesus said, "If they are not against us, then they are for us."

Jesus is greater than doctrine. He also said that the sabbath was made for man and not man for the sabbath. This simple statement I think puts it all in perspective.

Peace

 

[Vapor Pete]

So are you going to claim that all historical records that weren't written at exactly the time when events occured aren't accurate? How do events that occur become recorded history but through word of mouth? Even modern news and history is based on peoples' subjective experiences yet we never question them for not being written instantly as the events are occuring...

Of course not. To do so would be ignorant. And I think you know the point I was making. But adding words to a dead mans writings is not being "subjective", it is not "reporting news after it happened"... it is adding words to a dead mans writings to further a belief. Thats all I was saying.
If UFO enthusiasts added to Mother Theresa's journals that UFO's visited her on a weekly basis, to further the belief in UFO's...that would be wrong. So is what they found in Josephus's writings.
My statement has nothing to do with the time between occurances and the reporting of them, it has to do with faked reporting. Hope that helped clear it up.

My best,
-VP

 

[Vapor Pete]

Please don't let me lose respect for you VP. I have admired your discipline in most of your threads, and I would like to continue amicably.

Peace

My appologize Wild... perhaps I was a bit harsh. But you still took Bones out of context to build a sarcastic retort.

My best,
-VP

 

[Vapor Pete]

VP-I just don't understand why the gospels are not considered historical reference. Why not? Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Letters of Paul, Testimony of Peter, Timothy, John, Jude, Stephen, Thomas, not to mention the gospels that are not part of canon law..And the Gnostics refer to him.

The only answer I have for you is, it depends on the history one is attempting to reference. Yes all the above mention christ. In fact he has his own gospel in the Nag Hammadi Library (Gnostic Gospels). The point was that no unbiased historian of the time mentioned him.

Isaiah, Elijah, Elisah, Ezekeil, Zechariah, Moses, etc, prophets of the Old Testament testifying of Jesus. Let's not forget King David.

Ok? Point?

And I guess the debate continues on Josephus.

Yes, it will. Unless some people search outside their box.

John the Baptist? I guess he was just a lunatic.

Your words, not mine.

Just a note: I do not belong to any denomination or church. I consider myself a believer in Christ. But, being a man, I am far from perfect.

Super!

My best,
-VP

 

[WILDJC]

My appologize Wild... perhaps I was a bit harsh. But you still took Bones out of context to build a sarcastic retort.

My best,
-VP

VP-Cool. But I think Bones can take care of himself. LOL



Peace

 

[let_there_be_vaping]

You're right about that - but Jesus taught that he came to establish a new relationship based on love and compassion rather than on strict adherence to the old doctrines. I question their claims to apostolic succession as even Bones pointed out, the Catholic Church was created by the Byzantine Empire and Catholic teachings and services rarely emphasize the Acts and Letters of the apostles beyond the teachings that don't support their doctrines.

Gashin,

What is the purpose of becoming a Christian?

And, how is that purpose accomplished?

 

[Bones]

VP-Cool. But I think Bones can take care of himself. LOL



Peace

OK - I will - You took my quote totally out of context for the sole purpose of being snarky - You and Gashin have both pointed to "overwhelming" historical evidence and yet can produce only that one thing that has long been discredited - Asked for more - You point to the Bible - You can not use the Bible to prove the Bible - Circular argument - Does not work - I'm not going to go into that any further due to the correct guidance of the moderator -

On topic though - I have to ask - Christianity VS Catholicism? - There don't seem to be any Catholics here - So - What is the point of this thread? - For non-Catholics to bash a sect that has no defendants? - That is rather sad - While I do agree that the Catholic Church can tend to focus a little too much on the interpretations of the Pope and Priests - It seems to be a far better model than folks just running around with ABSOLUTELY no scriptural guidance deciding for themselves what things mean - Particullarly when they demonstrate a lack of working knowledge of World History - You simply can't interpret the meaning of Letters written by early Church Leaders without some basic idea about the historical context in which they were written - You're shooting the dark - They were not using clear language - They often wrote in code because their communications were being closely monitored by the Romans for the purposes of violent persecution - It is impossible to determine the true meanings without knowledge of this basic fact and a deeper understanding of the coded language -

I was raised Catholic - Was an Alter Boy for 10 years - Have 3 cousins who are priests and I frequently had Sunday dinner with Bishops and Monsignors who were family friends - I know the Catholic Church very well - My wife was a Baptist who's father and grandfather were deacons - There is simply VERY LITTLE difference in the two - The only major difference is that the Protestants allow each person or individual Church leader to decide what they think things mean - That and the issue of transubstantiation - Too much freedom of interpretation allows ignorance to rule - That is even worse if you ask me - The very word Protestant has it's root in PROTEST - And indeed it was born of PROTEST - It is based on argument - Not agreement -

There are movements now that have begun to interpret the message of Christ NOT as one of Love and Peace - But of POWER and RULE - This is not good - Though they too support the belief through scripture - And if you read it that way the words do support it - Lack of guidance leads to chaos - It is important to make your own decisions about what you believe - BUT - When that decision is based on a total lack of knowledge or education offered by someone who actually HAS some - It is not worth much and is seldom correct -

BTW - I see my name used again yet the facts still wrong - The Catholic Church was not created by the Byzantine Empire - It was created by the ROMAN EMPIRE - The term Byzantine did not arise until the 16th century and was a term used by Historians to describe the change in power as the Roman Empire fell and became something other - This happened over a period of 600 years - You guys seem to have a habit of compressing time and leaping from one key even to the next as though nothing happened in between - Think of all the things that have taken place in this country over the last 200 years and then multiply that by 10 - This is the magnitude of time and vast array of historical reality that you don't seem to be accounting for - It was the Catholic Church in 600AD based in Constantinople for example that tried to take over the Persians and prompted Mohamed to write about "killing infidels" - They were at war at the time - being attacked by the Christians (crusades part 1 if you will) - It was a call to self defense of their land - It was not a religious decree - HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE - GET SUM!

 

[WILDJC]

OK - I will - You took my quote totally out of context for the sole purpose of being snarky - You and Gashin have both pointed to "overwhelming" historical evidence and yet can produce only that one thing that has long been discredited - Asked for more - You point to the Bible - You can not use the Bible to prove the Bible - Circular argument - Does not work - I'm not going to go into that any further due to the correct guidance of the moderator -

On topic though - I have to ask - Christianity VS Catholicism? - There don't seem to be any Catholics here - So - What is the point of this thread? - For non-Catholics to bash a sect that has no defendants? - That is rather sad - While I do agree that the Catholic Church can tend to focus a little too much on the interpretations of the Pope and Priests - It seems to be a far better model than folks just running around with ABSOLUTELY no scriptural guidance deciding for themselves what things mean - Particullarly when they demonstrate a lack of working knowledge of World History - You simply can't interpret the meaning of Letters written by early Church Leaders without some basic idea about the historical context in which they were written - You're shooting the dark - They were not using clear language - They often wrote in code because their communications were being closely monitored by the Romans for the purposes of violent persecution - It is impossible to determine the true meanings without knowledge of this basic fact and a deeper understanding of the coded language -

I was raised Catholic - Was an Alter Boy for 10 years - Have 3 cousins who are priests and I frequently had Sunday dinner with Bishops and Monsignors who were family friends - I know the Catholic Church very well - My wife was a Baptist who's father and grandfather were deacons - There is simply VERY LITTLE difference in the two - The only major difference is that the Protestants allow each person or individual Church leader to decide what they think things mean - That and the issue of transubstantiation - Too much freedom of interpretation allows ignorance to rule - That is even worse if you ask me - The very word Protestant has it's root in PROTEST - And indeed it was born of PROTEST - It is based on argument - Not agreement -

There are movements now that have begun to interpret the message of Christ NOT as one of Love and Peace - But of POWER and RULE - This is not good - Though they too support the belief through scripture - And if you read it that way the words do support it - Lack of guidance leads to chaos - It is important to make your own decisions about what you believe - BUT - When that decision is based on a total lack of knowledge or education offered by someone who actually HAS some - It is not worth much and is seldom correct -

BTW - I see my name used again yet the facts still wrong - The Catholic Church was not created by the Byzantine Empire - It was created by the ROMAN EMPIRE - The term Byzantine did not arise until the 16th century and was a term used by Historians to describe the change in power as the Roman Empire fell and became something other - This happened over a period of 600 years - You guys seem to have a habit of compressing time and leaping from one key even to the next as though nothing happened in between - Think of all the things that have taken place in this country over the last 200 years and then multiply that by 10 - This is the magnitude of time and vast array of historical reality that you don't seem to be accounting for - It was the Catholic Church in 600AD based in Constantinople for example that tried to take over the Persians and prompted Mohamed to write about "killing infidels" - They were at war at the time - being attacked by the Christians (crusades part 1 if you will) - It was a call to self defense of their land - It was not a religious decree - HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE - GET SUM!

Bones - You make a lot of accusations and imply that we need HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE. Your tone is also hostile. Please take the time to absorb some of these threads and try not to lump everyone's comments into one giant bowl of stew. If you wish to retort to MY comments, then be specific please. If you wish to rant on and spout your dysphemisms, then please do so on the religion thread.

 

[Bones]

Bones - You make a lot of accusations and imply that we need HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE. Your tone is also hostile. Please take the time to absorb some of these threads and try not to lump everyone's comments into one giant bowl of stew. If you wish to retort to MY comments, then be specific please. If you wish to rant on and spout your dysphemisms, then please do so on the religion thread.

Sorry if you view me as hostile - That was not my intention at all - I was responding to your comments and I fail to see how I could be any more specific - I have read the thread and I see many common errors with Historical Perspective - Before I came in and spelled it out - There seemed to be a lack of understanding of how the Catholic Church was formed and an overall lack of knowledge about how the Bible was compiled - I have made no accusations - Only observations -

 

[azureblade7]

You can refer to the works of Josephus Tacitus and Pliny the Younger for non biblical corroboration of the man Jesus's existance and that of the true church before catholicism's advent. Tacitus references directly Jesus's crucifixion under Pilate. Don't forget that education and paper weren't ubiquitous as they were today. These people didn't use the info for personal gain they were recording history. Funny enough these records predate the Nicean council. I have read from a variety of non religious sources on the historical integrity of Tacitus and Pliny. They weren't believers, they were simply Roman citizens chronicling the current events in their day. Pliny actually documents his observations on the earliest christian church services, finds their commitment to the single God confounding and arrogant, and didn't understand why they still proclaimed their faith knowing it would get them killed, and in the end after 3 times trying to get them to renounce their faith, killed them as the edict was from Rome. The info is out there you just have to search.