Wondering

[war_eagle]

Exactly which was the last book written?

Revelation.

And it is utterly impossible for 2/3 of any book to be "in wide circulation" before the printing press.

Why? We know that the Jews had scribes who made thousands of copies of Hebrew texts. Why is it so unreasonable to believe that Christians could have made copies and passed them around?

There is absolutely no credible evidence to back up your assertion. The structure of the ancient church is based on Judahism, considering that all the apostles and the majority of their followers were Jews. The early church was in existence long before the bible.

You seem to be a little confused about what my assertion was. I never said that the early church wasn't in existence before the Bible. I said that 2/3 of the books that make up the Bible were already in circulation before the last book of the Bible was written.

How does the Mass contradict scripture, other than your misunderstanding of the Mass?

Before I answer, would you please explain what part of the mass you believe I've misunderstood? I haven't even said anything about the mass yet, so I believe that this is merely a pre-emptive strike, designed to discredit any claim I may make about the mass, rather than actually listening to what I say and judging it on it's merits.

I take it from your name that your education comes from the school associated with that phrase. I know that unsubstantiated claims and plain falshoods are often acceptable to a person with such an education

Really? That's news to me. I don't believe I would have earned my degrees if I had engaged in unsubstantiated claims and falsehoods. In fact, part of that process includes submitting work for peer review.

but it takes a certain type of ungentlemanyl arrogance to go about making such wild and misguided assertions.

Like what? What "wild and misguided assertions" did I make?

Read a book that isn't propoganda, or better yet attend a Mass yourself, before making such foolish statements.

I understand that you may not be aware of this, but I was involved with Catholicism and attended mass faithfully for many years.

It seems to me that you're more interested in demonizing us, rather than having a conversation.

These assertions assume that the Bible as we know it today is the absolute only guide to the Christian faith, which is illogical considering that Christianity existed before and without the Bible.

Actually, Christianity relied on the scriptures that later were compiled into the Bible.

[Guest Guest]

The Queen is yet to Knight me, so please don't call me Sir. I didn't say anything in the Bible was false. I merely stated the obvious undeniable fact that Christianity, and its practices, existed before the Bible that we know today.

And although I'm not Catholic and totally disagree with several of their beliefs and practices, I will not belittle or degrade myself by relying on such propoganda smut aimed at spreading lies and bigotry as the the website you posted unabashedly does.

I am calling you "sir" because you are undoubtedly a decent bit older than me, and it seemed like the respectable thing to do.

..."Propoganda smut at spreading lies and bigotry?" That website didn't make things up out of thin air. They took things from the Catechism itself and refuted it with Scripture and Scriptural principles.

Now, if you consider that "propoganda smut aimed at spreading lies and bigotry", that's mighty interesting.
God bless,
Crushmaster.

[war_eagle]

I am calling you "sir" because you are undoubtedly a decent bit older than me, and it seemed like the respectable thing to do.

..."Propoganda smut at spreading lies and bigotry?" That website didn't make things up out of thin air. They took things from the Catechism itself and refuted it with Scripture and Scriptural principles.

Now, if you consider that "propoganda smut aimed at spreading lies and bigotry", that's mighty interesting.
God bless,
Crushmaster.

On another message board, I've cited for the Catholics their own CCC, the Council of Trent, and other Catholic resources. Every time, I've been told that it's just something some "anti-Catholic" website made up.

[Guest Guest]

On another message board' date=' I've cited for the Catholics their own CCC, the Council of Trent, and other Catholic resources. Every time, I've been told that it's just something some "anti-Catholic" website made up.[/quote']
Hmm, that's very interesting, sir. Not surprising, though.

Anyone who reads the Bible and looks at the Catholic Catechism (or the Code of Canon Law, as well) will see they simply do not add up.
God bless,
Crushmaster.

[ptwild]

Herein lies another problem with your assumptions. You assume that just because you can find something in an ancient catechism that it means that every single catholic on the planet believes that way.

[war_eagle]

I see. So then, you're saying that the CCC doesn't accurately reflect the teachings and doctrine of the Catholic church?

[ptwild]

Pay attention and read carefully: Just because it is doctrine/teaching does not mean that every Catholic believes it.

[war_eagle]

Is it Catholic doctrine or is it not Catholic doctrine?

[Guest Guest]

Herein lies another problem with your assumptions. You assume that just because you can find something in an ancient catechism that it means that every single catholic on the planet believes that way.

...The Catholic Catechism is considered authoritative. There is no such thing as a Protestant Catechism (at least not one consider authoritative), therefore it is not surprising there are many different Protestants.

But, with Catholics, I don't even see how you can be a Catholic and not agree with the Catechism!
If you are a Catholic, it is only logical you should believe like one.
God bless,
Crushmaster.

[1Timothy115]

It's the Roman Church there is nothing catholic about it. The Roman Church (papist or Romish) has pronounced itself to be "catholic." However, by definition it can never be (bold added by me).

Noah Webster?s 1828 American Dictionary
catholic
CATHOLIC, a.
1. Universal or general; as the Catholic church. Originally this epithet was given to the Christian church in general, but is now appropriated to the Romish church, and in strictness there is no Catholic church, or universal Christian communion. The epithet is sometimes set in opposition to heretic, sectary or schismatic.
2. Liberal; not narrow minded, partial or bigoted; as a catholic man.
3. Liberal; as catholic principles.
Catholic epistles, the epistles of the apostles which are addressed to all the faithful, and not to a particular church.
CATHOLIC, n. A papist.

[Julie L]

wow.... a lot has been said. I'm not even sure where to start? I can't even get to all these today, here is what concerns me first (or is the easiest)

It's the Roman Church there is nothing catholic about it. The Roman Church (papist or Romish) has pronounced itself to be "catholic."

No one really knows how/who was the first to call the RCC "catholic", but first/second century christian writings had already proven that the name was in use. Only later, after other religions started up and calling themselves the "catholic church" but who taught VERY different things, did the RCC choose to add the word "Roman" in front of it's name so everyone would know the difference.
It was called the "universal" church because it was not just for the Jews.... but the Gentiles too. And it wasn't just for the wealthy.... but the poor too. In God's church, everyone worshipped God side by side, no matter your station in society.

[Julie L]

..The Catholic Catechism is considered authoritative. There is no such thing as a Protestant Catechism (at least not one consider authoritative), therefore it is not surprising there are many different Protestants.

But, with Catholics, I don't even see how you can be a Catholic and not agree with the Catechism!
If you are a Catholic, it is only logical you should believe like one.
God bless,
Crushmaster.

I agree, How can you use a document written BY Catholics, against Catholics?

On another message board, I've cited for the Catholics their own CCC, the Council of Trent, and other Catholic resources. Every time, I've been told that it's just something some "anti-Catholic" website made up.

Can you give me one example so I can better understand what you are talking about?

[Julie L]

If they taught anything contrary to scripture, then they were wrong. Period.



But is it Biblical? Clearly not.

That is exactly right. Confessing sins is as old as Christianity. The Bible tells us so:

1John 1:9 - "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

This tells us 2 things, one: that we should confess our sins and two: if we do so, God will forgive us these sins and it will cleanse us.

Since the OT is always fulfilled with the NT, we can see in the OT a tradition already well in place.
In Leviticus 5:6 - "And he shall bring his trespass (sin) offering unto the Lord for his sin which he hath sinned, a female from the flock, a lamb or a kid of the goats, for a sin offering; and the PRIEST shall make an atonement for him concerning his sin.

This tells us that God had already started training his followers that they must DO something when they sin, and that the Priest was an integral part in that.

James 5: 16 - Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed.

This tells us that we should confess to one other (not just God). And that when we do so, we will be healed.

The question is: do we confess our sins to just anyone?? Well, if the believers in the OT, confessed to the Priest, it is logical to still confess to the Priest. Why change that tradition? Besides, have you ever told someone something and later regretted it because they used it against you? or told everyone what you asked want them not to tell? The Priest has taken a vow NEVER to tell another what they hear in our confessions. So they are "safe" to tell. I can be confident that all I say in my confession, will not be told to another soul or be used against me. The bible does suggest we confess our sins to others, so Catholics can not be said to go against the bible here. And the Bible does suggest that confessing to a Priest is tradition, so again, Catholics can not be said to go against the bible here either.

But does the bible say that humans have the ability to loosen sins from another (like Priest do)? yes.

John 20:22-23 - And when he (Jesus) had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whosesoever sins ye remit (release), they are remitted unto them: and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained.

So here we see God giving the apostles the authority to release sins or retain them. Why would Jesus do this UNLESS people are confessing their sins to them?

The Apostles did not live forever, and God new this, so the power to release sin was not just meant for the Apostles, but they were to pass the authority down to their successors. So that every generation and in every land there would be someone you can confess to for the remission of your sins.

[Julie L]

So, if baptism removes "original sin" (and, by logical extension, a person's sin nature), then why do people continue to sin after they've been baptised?

No, I did not say that Baptism removes a persons free will to sin. That is not a RCC teaching. We believe Baptism removes original sin (Adam's sin) which we all contracted through Adam. Evidence of this is that you were not born in the Garden of Eden. You were not given the choice to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge or life. This is because Adam and his descendants have all been banished from Eden because of Adam's sin.

[Julie L]

Then why does the Bible tell us that we receive the Holy Spirit when we're born again, not when we're baptised?

To "be born again" means to be baptized.
Born again = Baptism

They are one and the same.