Catholics Don't Exemplify Christianity...

[TrinityPower]

And to say Catholics do not pray to others besides Jesus....
Definition of Intercessory prayer:
1. Entreaty in favor of another, especially a prayer or petition to God in behalf of another.
2. Mediation in a dispute.
In Communion With The Saints

(Priest) May he make us an everlasting gift to you and enable us to share in the inheritance of your saints, with Mary, the virgin Mother of God; with the apostles, the martyrs, (Saint N. — the saint of the day or patron saint) and all your saints, on whose constant intercession we rely for help.

And how exactly does this work? Everyone is dead and waiting to rise but those who have been "sainted" are alive in spirit to intercede for those alive and dead and be messengers to God so we should pray to them to intercede for us because apparently we are unworthy but in the above prayer just became worthy through partaking in communion?

Remember our brothers and sisters who have gone to their rest
in the hope of rising again; bring them and all the departed into the light of your presence.
In communion with the saints Have mercy on us all; make us worthy to share eternal life with Mary, the virgin mother of God, with the apostles, and with all the saints
who have done your will throughout the ages. May we praise you in union with them,
and give you glory through your Son, Jesus Christ.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Christ was a Jew, and basically held himself forth as a rabbi.

Paul took that, and turned him into a god, and, at the same time, invented christianity, who ended up calling themselves Catholics

Catholics then co opted the Torah from the Jews, and created the Bible.

Protestants, recognizing that the church had become so corrupted that, at one point, elected an 11 year old as Pope, did away with top down authority in the church.

King Henry VIII recognizing a good thing when he saw it, fired the Pope.

The Pope fired Henry VIII.

Resulting in the Irish starting a war among themselves which has lasted for over 500 years.

 

[TrinityPower]

Christ was a Jew, and basically held himself forth as a rabbi.

Paul took that, and turned him into a god, and, at the same time, invented christianity, who ended up calling themselves Catholics

Catholics then co opted the Torah from the Jews, and created the Bible.

Protestants, recognizing that the church had become so corrupted that, at one point, elected an 11 year old as Pope, did away with top down authority in the church.

King Henry VIII recognizing a good thing when he saw it, fired the Pope.

The Pope fired Henry VIII.

Resulting in the Irish starting a war among themselves which has lasted for over 500 years.

I do love the gospel sounds of Elvis!

 

[Pogo]

I approached the priest about this and asked him who exactly he thought he was to proclaim such given 90% of the people in there or more have no personal relationship with Jesus they only know about him by what he (the priest) informs them and yet someone who actually does know Jesus personally is informed they are not accepted into the kingdom of God upon your set of criteria?

I'm not sure that sentence is even navigable but that's not quite what we were taught anyway. We were told if a non-Catholic sincerely believed in their own path, they're fine. Whether you can receive the Eucharist or not -- who cares. That's irrelevant.

 

[Syriusly]

You do realize that they feel the same way about your doctrine?

How will God sort out all of the flavors of believers in his son when it comes to Judgement Day?

I wonder why he didn't provide an instruction manual that was not so open for interpretation that it resulted in 3 major branches of his worshippers, and within those branches hundreds of sub-branches that each consider every other branch to be 'wrong'.

Certain denominations have unbiblical doctrine, and this needs to be pointed out.
The Bible is the most reliable and trusted source for your worship.
Prayer and the Bible are KEYS to your relationship with God. Everything flows from that.

The instruction manual is the Bible.

Great instruction manual.
Catholics and Protestants and Eastern Orthodox have major disagreements- all reading the same bible.

Then we have all of the protestant flavors- from the almost Catholic Episcopalians to the Methodists and Presbyterians and Baptists.

Then of course Church of Christ, Seventh Day Adventists, Christian Scientists.........

All sure that they understand what God meant in the Bible- and all sure that everyone else is wrong.

Imagine if our driving laws were as misunderstood?

Many of those religions don't even believe the Bible as the Word of God.
It's an interesting topic to discuss, but anyone not convinced will be when they take their last breath.....

I believe that they all believe the Bible is the word of God, but I don't claim to be an expert- they all certainly base their faith on the Bible.

No, me either! Only what God reveals to me - anything I know is because of Him!
I'm praying for strength today!!!

And I hope you realize- when I challenge your posts- I am not actually challenging your faith- I have no problem with your relationship with your faith.

My point is simply that I presume that all Christians start from the same position of personal faith as you do- regardless of what they call their church.

 

[Syriusly]

Please don't use Catholicism as an example of Christianity..
Their doctrine is flawed.

You pray to GOD and JESUS not Mary.
Your sins are forgiven by GOD, not a Priest.

It's CRAP!

Nobody ever prayed to Mary as a goddess.
Not since she was co-opted by the Church, anyway.

Like it or not, Catholicism is the origin of Christianity. Go with another flavor for your own practice if you like, but you can't deny historical fact.

The origin of Christianity is the Apostles after Christ's death. The Way.
People that consider a Christian life should look elsewhere than the Catholic church for proper Biblical teaching and doctrine.

As I said above, whatever you consider "proper", that's your choice. But you can't deny history. The Catholic Church was THE (Christian) church until Protestants made it necessary to distinguish which Christian church. Catholicism invented Christianism. So your original statement that Catholicism isn't an example of Christianity is still invalid. It would be like trying to insist that Latin does not exemplify Romance languages just because you don't like how it handled the genitive case..

I think that the Eastern Orthodox would disagree with you.

As would the Copts.

 

[BluePhantom]

Wow....so much stuff in this thread I barely know where to begin. Let's start at the beginning.

Catholicism was not the original form of Christianity. It was a early form, but far from the only one and probably not even the first. The Catholics did not "invent" Christianity. The Apostles didn't consider themselves "Christians" in that they didn't think they were starting a new religion. They thought that Jesus had simply taken Judaism into a new phase...the final phase incidentally.

There were numerous forms of early Christianity. Perhaps just as many forms as there are today. What would eventually become known as Catholicism was merely one in a river of alternate views. You had the Gnostics (and there were so many variants on Gnosticism that it was similar to how diverse Protestantism is today), Marcionites, Ebionites, Manicheists, etc, etc. There were tons of them and all of them had their own collection of sacred books. When Constantine embraced Christianity it just so happened (for reasons that are a thread unto itself) that the view he endorsed happened to be the Catholic view and after Theodosius declared Christianity as the official religion of Rome, the other sects were hammered into submission and declared heretical.

Now keep in mind that the Catholics were not called "Catholics" at that point in time. The word was derived from the Greek word "kataholos" which means "according to the whole". So basically...you might think of the "Catholic Church" as meaning "the universal Church" or perhaps even "the correct Church", although that would be a looser translation, because all sects argued that their view was the view endorsed by "the whole" and was therefore "correct". The point is that while the term was floating around out there prior to Constantine, it had a different use. Prior to Constantine it was used by many different sects to argue that their view was the "correct view". After Constantine it was used to identify the sect that had won the war for dominance. Their view was the "correct view" because it was what Constantine embraced, hence they were "Catholic"....they were declared as being "correct".

Yes the Catholics created the Bible as we think of it, but it's not true that all Bibles are the same. Catholic Bibles and Protestant Bibles are different. The New Testaments are the same, but the Catholic Bible includes 46 books of the Old Testament where the Protestant Bible only has 39. Eastern Orthodox actually has 51. But just because the Bible we have today came from the Catholics is really no big deal nor is it any amazing accomplishment. That just happened to be the collection of books that the sect that won the war used and they brought their books with them. Had the Gnostics been embraced by Constantine, the Bible (and Christianity as a whole) would be dramatically different today and to us, it would seem normal because that would have been what we were raised with and what was passed down through the centuries. Had the Gnostics won out, the very people pointing to the Gospel of Luke today would instead be pointing to the Gospel of Thomas or the Gospel of Philip and declaring with equal fervor and enthusiasm about how that is the word of God.

Now all that being said, I am not sure where all this Catholic animosity comes from. Yeah I am not a Catholic and I find some of their beliefs a bit odd, but damn, man...chill out. They are in the faith. They are part of the club.

 

[BluePhantom]

Moving on to point #2 that Moonglow brought up that Jesus never claimed to be divine and Jesus simply thought of Himself as a Rabbi. This is the second time this week I have heard this claim. Where do atheists get this stuff? I will write in part what I said on the other thread. If you are interested in the rest hit the link:

61 But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer. Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?” 62 “I am,” said Jesus. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.” 63 The high priest tore his clothes. “Why do we need any more witnesses?” he asked. 64 “You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?” They all condemned him as worthy of death." (Mark 14:61-64, NIV)

"13 When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” 14 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” 15 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” 16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. ...20 Then he ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah." (Matt 16:13-20, NIV)

Christianity..... why non believers don t get it ..... Page 7 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


As far as His depiction as being a Rabbi...it depends on what Gospel you read. In Mark He goes out of His way to hide His identity as the Messiah. He teaches in parables, performs miracles in secret, and tells those He has healed not to tell who healed them. In Matthew and Luke when He is challenged to prove His divine power He refuses and tells people to develop faith. But in John, there are no parables. He goes out of His way to prove through miracles that he is the Messiah. In John, if someone says "prove it", Jesus says "ok mother fucker...watch this!" Hell He didn't raise Lazarus until enough people showed up to witness it so He could prove He was who He said He was. So His depiction as a Rabbi is true only if you look at Mark. He is shown as being far different in the other three gospels.

 

[defcon4]

In John, if someone says "prove it", Jesus says "ok mother fucker...watch this!"

Wasn't it He said: "ok mutherfucker…hold my beer and watch this!" ?
I think the phrase is still in use today but people don't do the miracles anymore, they do stupid shit when saying it. Throughout the ages the action what should follow the proclamation was somewhat lost.

 

[BluePhantom]

Point #3 on Nicodemus and being "born again". iRosie asked for the Greek word. It's "anothen" which has a double meaning. It can mean both "again" or "from above". The story plays on this intentionally to create a scene of humorous confusion. Jesus tells Nicodemus that one must be 'born anothen'. Nicodemus interprets it to mean "again" and asks how one can return to their mother's womb and be born a second time. Jesus (we assume slapping His forehead at Nicodemus' foolishness) corrects him that He meant "from above" and not "again".

This is an important verse for a couple reasons. One, it provides evidence that John was originally written in Greek because the Aramaic words for "again" and "from above" are totally unrelated words just as they are in English. Since the story plays upon that double meaning of a single word in Greek, it had to have been originally written in Greek or it would make no sense at all. There would be no confusion on the word usage that is critical to the story.

Second, I always found it amusing that people call themselves "born again Christians" because they are identifying themselves as accepting the meaning Nicodemus misunderstood. They are essentially calling themselves "confused Christians" because they are identifying themselves according to an amusing error on behalf of Nicodemus.

 

[Disir]

Actually the early church was Catholic. That will require picking up a book outside of the bible.

And which book is that? Or is it one hidden in the Vatican vault?

Actual history books.

If you are so much in the know why be so vague? History books were written long after scrolls from antiquity

I'm not vague about it. I post frequently on early Christianity. It's best to look outside of the bible and look at the actual history. Everything that you have in that book was brought to you by Catholics. It was chosen for you by leaders of the early Catholic church.

If you are so versed you would be able to reference said materials instead of speaking in generalities. If you are referring to compiling the cannon that just means that what was decided to be included in the bible. It doesn't mean they wrote it.

Ok. Let's roll. The bible and the NT is best viewed as an argument. One side of an argument.

Hit philosophy first. You want to read up on stoicism. It's going to explain a lot later on down the road.
Stoicism - By Branch Doctrine - The Basics of Philosophy

And neoplatonism
Neo-Platonism Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

This is Plotinus
Plotinus Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Note the difference between the above and this Catholic entry
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA Neo-Platonism

The last school was not just "shut down"; it was brutal. Plotinus predates Christianity and he was a native of Egypt who then went to Alexandria. The total Greek city but we can discount him.

And Aristotle.

And Galen
Galen Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

If you are lost on the whole Greek/Egypt/Alexandria thing then pick up a book or two on the Hellenistic Period or even the Ptolemaic dynasty. Or just remember Greek before Roman.
World History Timeline Hellenistic Period

First your old testament is a translation of the Septuagint. Koine Greek. The order of books in your old testament is different and some were discarded. Seventy Jewish scholars allegedly translated the Torah into Koine Greek sponsored by Ptolemy II in Alexandria. Be careful because the Septuagint is the name for the first translation. Total Greek city.

The alleged big JC dies in roughly 35 CE. The first copy of anything pertaining to him surfaces in 55 CE from Paul. People like to read the Pauline letters as a testament of some sorts. It is not. You need to read them as an argument usually with his name attached for authenticity. Snippets are inserted later.

Then you have what is called the Jewish Revolt between 66-70CE. One of the best books available to get an idea of what was happening as far as social unrest is Bandits, Prophet's and Messiahs by Richard A. Horsley. This is important because your first gospel appears either during or directly afterwards.......Mark in 70 CE, Matthew written in 85 CE, Luke in about 95 CE, John is written about 110 CE. It's why people refer to it as wartime literature.

Even so there was no concise little writings and no organization so just anybody could profess to be Christian and they could do it anyway they wanted. Everybody nods heads and says, Yes, it was an oral history.

Enter Montanus. Pentecostals love Montanus.
Montanism religion Britannica.com
Early Christian History Heresies Montanism
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA Montanists

There is something mentioned in the Britannica site not mentioned in the following site (Peter Kirby) or in the Catholic site. Montanus decided that the second coming was imminent and happening in Phrygia. Like tomorrow in a village called Pepuza. That ticked off several Bishops.

I tried to hunt down a map but this is a verbal description of a location.
Pepuza - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Ok, I'm going to take a break. If you want to me to go on then say so.

 

[BluePhantom]

Moving on to point #4....and thankfully my last point. Two thngs...someone said that all Catholic beliefs have Biblical support and someone else mentioned Lilith as Adam's first wife. Let's handle Lilith first.

Lilith is a tradition, not scripture. She is not mentioned in Genesis nor in Torah. In fact, she is only spoken of once in the Bible (Isaiah 34:14) and even there the translation is iffy. Only a few Bibles actually translate it as "Lilith". Most refer to the "screech owl" or the "night creatures" which were symbols of Lilith but it doesn't actually say "Lilith". Anyhow, the point is that Lilith was created long after Genesis was written and was a story circulated in oral tradition after the fact. The story of Lilith was probably created by men as a warning to their wives...as in 'if you do not submit to me and do as you are told, you will suffer the same fate as Lilith'. The Bible itself makes no mention of her except where I just noted.

Catholicism has LOTS of beliefs that come from tradition and not scripture. As a singular example, the perpetual virginity of Mary and the status of Joseph being an old man when he married Mary comes from tradition based upon the apocryphal Infancy Gospel of James. It is nowhere in the Bible. It is a tradition that came from an apocryphal source. That source was probably written in response to tradition that had developed around Mary in an effort to explain the brothers of Jesus and a desire to establish Mary's purity. It is tradition, not scripture.

Ok...I am done.

 

[BluePhantom]

And which book is that? Or is it one hidden in the Vatican vault?

Actual history books.

If you are so much in the know why be so vague? History books were written long after scrolls from antiquity

I'm not vague about it. I post frequently on early Christianity. It's best to look outside of the bible and look at the actual history. Everything that you have in that book was brought to you by Catholics. It was chosen for you by leaders of the early Catholic church.

If you are so versed you would be able to reference said materials instead of speaking in generalities. If you are referring to compiling the cannon that just means that what was decided to be included in the bible. It doesn't mean they wrote it.

Ok. Let's roll. The bible and the NT is best viewed as an argument. One side of an argument.

Hit philosophy first. You want to read up on stoicism. It's going to explain a lot later on down the road.
Stoicism - By Branch Doctrine - The Basics of Philosophy

And neoplatonism
Neo-Platonism Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

This is Plotinus
Plotinus Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Note the difference between the above and this Catholic entry
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA Neo-Platonism

The last school was not just "shut down"; it was brutal. Plotinus predates Christianity and he was a native of Egypt who then went to Alexandria. The total Greek city but we can discount him.

And Aristotle.

And Galen
Galen Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

If you are lost on the whole Greek/Egypt/Alexandria thing then pick up a book or two on the Hellenistic Period or even the Ptolemaic dynasty. Or just remember Greek before Roman.
World History Timeline Hellenistic Period

First your old testament is a translation of the Septuagint. Koine Greek. The order of books in your old testament is different and some were discarded. Seventy Jewish scholars allegedly translated the Torah into Koine Greek sponsored by Ptolemy II in Alexandria. Be careful because the Septuagint is the name for the first translation. Total Greek city.

The alleged big JC dies in roughly 35 CE. The first copy of anything pertaining to him surfaces in 55 CE from Paul. People like to read the Pauline letters as a testament of some sorts. It is not. You need to read them as an argument usually with his name attached for authenticity. Snippets are inserted later.

Then you have what is called the Jewish Revolt between 66-70CE. One of the best books available to get an idea of what was happening as far as social unrest is Bandits, Prophet's and Messiahs by Richard A. Horsley. This is important because your first gospel appears either during or directly afterwards.......Mark in 70 CE, Matthew written in 85 CE, Luke in about 95 CE, John is written about 110 CE. It's why people refer to it as wartime literature.

Even so there was no concise little writings and no organization so just anybody could profess to be Christian and they could do it anyway they wanted. Everybody nods heads and says, Yes, it was an oral history.

Enter Montanus. Pentecostals love Montanus.
Montanism religion Britannica.com
Early Christian History Heresies Montanism
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA Montanists

There is something mentioned in the Britannica site not mentioned in the following site (Peter Kirby) or in the Catholic site. Montanus decided that the second coming was imminent and happening in Phrygia. Like tomorrow in a village called Pepuza. That ticked off several Bishops.

I tried to hunt down a map but this is a verbal description of a location.
Pepuza - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Ok, I'm going to take a break. If you want to me to go on then say so.

Wow Dsir....I have to say, that's a damned impressive list of big words. I am impressed, being educated on such matters myself, that another poster has an understanding of stoicism and Platonism / neo-platonism etc. You are talking right up my alley. I am curious though. How does having an understanding of these things establish your claim that the early Church was Catholic?

As I posted above, the proto-Catholics won out over the other sects and became the dominant form of Christianity, but understanding Platonism does nothing to establish your claim. In fact it kind of goes against it, because the things you are referring to are Greco-Roman and Christianity did not become "Romanized" until later. The original form would have been the one advanced by Peter and the other Disciples. Surely you are not suggesting that Peter, a peasant from Galilee who according to Acts was "agrammatoi" or "illiterate/unlearned", would be familiar with Platonic thought.

Are you sure you are not just throwing out a lot of terms to make yourself appear intellectually superior and distract from your original statement?

 

[Disir]

Actual history books.

If you are so much in the know why be so vague? History books were written long after scrolls from antiquity

I'm not vague about it. I post frequently on early Christianity. It's best to look outside of the bible and look at the actual history. Everything that you have in that book was brought to you by Catholics. It was chosen for you by leaders of the early Catholic church.

If you are so versed you would be able to reference said materials instead of speaking in generalities. If you are referring to compiling the cannon that just means that what was decided to be included in the bible. It doesn't mean they wrote it.

Ok. Let's roll. The bible and the NT is best viewed as an argument. One side of an argument.

Hit philosophy first. You want to read up on stoicism. It's going to explain a lot later on down the road.
Stoicism - By Branch Doctrine - The Basics of Philosophy

And neoplatonism
Neo-Platonism Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

This is Plotinus
Plotinus Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Note the difference between the above and this Catholic entry
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA Neo-Platonism

The last school was not just "shut down"; it was brutal. Plotinus predates Christianity and he was a native of Egypt who then went to Alexandria. The total Greek city but we can discount him.

And Aristotle.

And Galen
Galen Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

If you are lost on the whole Greek/Egypt/Alexandria thing then pick up a book or two on the Hellenistic Period or even the Ptolemaic dynasty. Or just remember Greek before Roman.
World History Timeline Hellenistic Period

First your old testament is a translation of the Septuagint. Koine Greek. The order of books in your old testament is different and some were discarded. Seventy Jewish scholars allegedly translated the Torah into Koine Greek sponsored by Ptolemy II in Alexandria. Be careful because the Septuagint is the name for the first translation. Total Greek city.

The alleged big JC dies in roughly 35 CE. The first copy of anything pertaining to him surfaces in 55 CE from Paul. People like to read the Pauline letters as a testament of some sorts. It is not. You need to read them as an argument usually with his name attached for authenticity. Snippets are inserted later.

Then you have what is called the Jewish Revolt between 66-70CE. One of the best books available to get an idea of what was happening as far as social unrest is Bandits, Prophet's and Messiahs by Richard A. Horsley. This is important because your first gospel appears either during or directly afterwards.......Mark in 70 CE, Matthew written in 85 CE, Luke in about 95 CE, John is written about 110 CE. It's why people refer to it as wartime literature.

Even so there was no concise little writings and no organization so just anybody could profess to be Christian and they could do it anyway they wanted. Everybody nods heads and says, Yes, it was an oral history.

Enter Montanus. Pentecostals love Montanus.
Montanism religion Britannica.com
Early Christian History Heresies Montanism
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA Montanists

There is something mentioned in the Britannica site not mentioned in the following site (Peter Kirby) or in the Catholic site. Montanus decided that the second coming was imminent and happening in Phrygia. Like tomorrow in a village called Pepuza. That ticked off several Bishops.

I tried to hunt down a map but this is a verbal description of a location.
Pepuza - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Ok, I'm going to take a break. If you want to me to go on then say so.

Wow Dsir....I have to say, that's a damned impressive list of big words. I am impressed, being educated on such matters myself, that another poster has an understanding of stoicism and Platonism / neo-platonism etc. You are talking right up my alley. I am curious though. How does having an understanding of these things establish your claim that the early Church was Catholic?

As I posted above, the proto-Catholics won out over the other sects and became the dominant form of Christianity, but understanding Platonism does nothing to establish your claim. In fact it kind of goes against it, because the things you are referring to are Greco-Roman and Christianity did not become "Romanized" until later. The original form would have been the one advanced by Peter and the other Disciples. Surely you are not suggesting that Peter, a peasant from Galilee who according to Acts was "agrammatoi" or "illiterate/unlearned", would be familiar with Platonic thought.

Are you sure you are not just throwing out a lot of terms to make yourself appear intellectually superior and distract from your original statement?

Nope. Hide and watch.

 

[Moonglow]

Moving on to point #2 that Moonglow brought up that Jesus never claimed to be divine and Jesus simply thought of Himself as a Rabbi. This is the second time this week I have heard this claim. Where do atheists get this stuff? I will write in part what I said on the other thread. If you are interested in the rest hit the link:

61 But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer. Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?” 62 “I am,” said Jesus. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.” 63 The high priest tore his clothes. “Why do we need any more witnesses?” he asked. 64 “You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?” They all condemned him as worthy of death." (Mark 14:61-64, NIV)

"13 When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” 14 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” 15 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” 16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. ...20 Then he ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah." (Matt 16:13-20, NIV)

Christianity..... why non believers don t get it ..... Page 7 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


As far as His depiction as being a Rabbi...it depends on what Gospel you read. In Mark He goes out of His way to hide His identity as the Messiah. He teaches in parables, performs miracles in secret, and tells those He has healed not to tell who healed them. In Matthew and Luke when He is challenged to prove His divine power He refuses and tells people to develop faith. But in John, there are no parables. He goes out of His way to prove through miracles that he is the Messiah. In John, if someone says "prove it", Jesus says "ok mother fucker...watch this!" Hell He didn't raise Lazarus until enough people showed up to witness it so He could prove He was who He said He was. So His depiction as a Rabbi is true only if you look at Mark. He is shown as being far different in the other three gospels.

I said that Jesus never claimed to be his Father in Heaven, or God of Abraham,, but please twist my words to fit your agenda...

 

[BluePhantom]

If you are so much in the know why be so vague? History books were written long after scrolls from antiquity

I'm not vague about it. I post frequently on early Christianity. It's best to look outside of the bible and look at the actual history. Everything that you have in that book was brought to you by Catholics. It was chosen for you by leaders of the early Catholic church.

If you are so versed you would be able to reference said materials instead of speaking in generalities. If you are referring to compiling the cannon that just means that what was decided to be included in the bible. It doesn't mean they wrote it.

Ok. Let's roll. The bible and the NT is best viewed as an argument. One side of an argument.

Hit philosophy first. You want to read up on stoicism. It's going to explain a lot later on down the road.
Stoicism - By Branch Doctrine - The Basics of Philosophy

And neoplatonism
Neo-Platonism Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

This is Plotinus
Plotinus Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Note the difference between the above and this Catholic entry
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA Neo-Platonism

The last school was not just "shut down"; it was brutal. Plotinus predates Christianity and he was a native of Egypt who then went to Alexandria. The total Greek city but we can discount him.

And Aristotle.

And Galen
Galen Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

If you are lost on the whole Greek/Egypt/Alexandria thing then pick up a book or two on the Hellenistic Period or even the Ptolemaic dynasty. Or just remember Greek before Roman.
World History Timeline Hellenistic Period

First your old testament is a translation of the Septuagint. Koine Greek. The order of books in your old testament is different and some were discarded. Seventy Jewish scholars allegedly translated the Torah into Koine Greek sponsored by Ptolemy II in Alexandria. Be careful because the Septuagint is the name for the first translation. Total Greek city.

The alleged big JC dies in roughly 35 CE. The first copy of anything pertaining to him surfaces in 55 CE from Paul. People like to read the Pauline letters as a testament of some sorts. It is not. You need to read them as an argument usually with his name attached for authenticity. Snippets are inserted later.

Then you have what is called the Jewish Revolt between 66-70CE. One of the best books available to get an idea of what was happening as far as social unrest is Bandits, Prophet's and Messiahs by Richard A. Horsley. This is important because your first gospel appears either during or directly afterwards.......Mark in 70 CE, Matthew written in 85 CE, Luke in about 95 CE, John is written about 110 CE. It's why people refer to it as wartime literature.

Even so there was no concise little writings and no organization so just anybody could profess to be Christian and they could do it anyway they wanted. Everybody nods heads and says, Yes, it was an oral history.

Enter Montanus. Pentecostals love Montanus.
Montanism religion Britannica.com
Early Christian History Heresies Montanism
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA Montanists

There is something mentioned in the Britannica site not mentioned in the following site (Peter Kirby) or in the Catholic site. Montanus decided that the second coming was imminent and happening in Phrygia. Like tomorrow in a village called Pepuza. That ticked off several Bishops.

I tried to hunt down a map but this is a verbal description of a location.
Pepuza - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Ok, I'm going to take a break. If you want to me to go on then say so.

Wow Dsir....I have to say, that's a damned impressive list of big words. I am impressed, being educated on such matters myself, that another poster has an understanding of stoicism and Platonism / neo-platonism etc. You are talking right up my alley. I am curious though. How does having an understanding of these things establish your claim that the early Church was Catholic?

As I posted above, the proto-Catholics won out over the other sects and became the dominant form of Christianity, but understanding Platonism does nothing to establish your claim. In fact it kind of goes against it, because the things you are referring to are Greco-Roman and Christianity did not become "Romanized" until later. The original form would have been the one advanced by Peter and the other Disciples. Surely you are not suggesting that Peter, a peasant from Galilee who according to Acts was "agrammatoi" or "illiterate/unlearned", would be familiar with Platonic thought.

Are you sure you are not just throwing out a lot of terms to make yourself appear intellectually superior and distract from your original statement?

Nope. Hide and watch.

Hide? Is there something I should be afraid of? You certainly appear to have a great deal of respect for your own intellect. That still doesn't explain how your personal understanding of stoicism established that Catholicism was the original form of Christianity as you professed.

 

[BluePhantom]

Moving on to point #2 that Moonglow brought up that Jesus never claimed to be divine and Jesus simply thought of Himself as a Rabbi. This is the second time this week I have heard this claim. Where do atheists get this stuff? I will write in part what I said on the other thread. If you are interested in the rest hit the link:

61 But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer. Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?” 62 “I am,” said Jesus. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.” 63 The high priest tore his clothes. “Why do we need any more witnesses?” he asked. 64 “You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?” They all condemned him as worthy of death." (Mark 14:61-64, NIV)

"13 When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” 14 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” 15 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” 16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. ...20 Then he ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah." (Matt 16:13-20, NIV)

Christianity..... why non believers don t get it ..... Page 7 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


As far as His depiction as being a Rabbi...it depends on what Gospel you read. In Mark He goes out of His way to hide His identity as the Messiah. He teaches in parables, performs miracles in secret, and tells those He has healed not to tell who healed them. In Matthew and Luke when He is challenged to prove His divine power He refuses and tells people to develop faith. But in John, there are no parables. He goes out of His way to prove through miracles that he is the Messiah. In John, if someone says "prove it", Jesus says "ok mother fucker...watch this!" Hell He didn't raise Lazarus until enough people showed up to witness it so He could prove He was who He said He was. So His depiction as a Rabbi is true only if you look at Mark. He is shown as being far different in the other three gospels.

I said that Jesus never claimed to be his Father in Heaven, or God of Abraham,, but please twist my words to fit your agenda...

Are you sure about that?

"25 Jesus answered, “I did tell you, but you do not believe. The works I do in my Father’s name testify about me, 26 but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. 27 My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. 30 I and the Father are one.” (John 10:25-30, NIV)

Seriously, before you guys go saying stuff about what the Bible says, you really might want to read it first. Jesus H. Christ on His cross. Honestly, I don't mind alternate interpretations of scripture, but what has a tendency to bug me is when someone claims to know so much about what the Bible says or doesn't say and is totally wrong. As in...'the Bible says Lilith was Adam's first wife'. No it doesn't. It says nothing of the sort. It doesn't say a word about her. 'Oh Jesus never claimed to be the Son of God or God Himself'. The hell He didn't. He did in every single gospel.

You know...if you are going to comment about the Bible, know something about it first.

 

[Moonglow]

Moving on to point #2 that Moonglow brought up that Jesus never claimed to be divine and Jesus simply thought of Himself as a Rabbi. This is the second time this week I have heard this claim. Where do atheists get this stuff? I will write in part what I said on the other thread. If you are interested in the rest hit the link:

61 But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer. Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?” 62 “I am,” said Jesus. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.” 63 The high priest tore his clothes. “Why do we need any more witnesses?” he asked. 64 “You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?” They all condemned him as worthy of death." (Mark 14:61-64, NIV)

"13 When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” 14 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” 15 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” 16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. ...20 Then he ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah." (Matt 16:13-20, NIV)

Christianity..... why non believers don t get it ..... Page 7 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


As far as His depiction as being a Rabbi...it depends on what Gospel you read. In Mark He goes out of His way to hide His identity as the Messiah. He teaches in parables, performs miracles in secret, and tells those He has healed not to tell who healed them. In Matthew and Luke when He is challenged to prove His divine power He refuses and tells people to develop faith. But in John, there are no parables. He goes out of His way to prove through miracles that he is the Messiah. In John, if someone says "prove it", Jesus says "ok mother fucker...watch this!" Hell He didn't raise Lazarus until enough people showed up to witness it so He could prove He was who He said He was. So His depiction as a Rabbi is true only if you look at Mark. He is shown as being far different in the other three gospels.

I said that Jesus never claimed to be his Father in Heaven, or God of Abraham,, but please twist my words to fit your agenda...

Are you sure about that?

"25 Jesus answered, “I did tell you, but you do not believe. The works I do in my Father’s name testify about me, 26 but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. 27 My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. 30 I and the Father are one.” (John 10:25-30, NIV)

Seriously, before you guys go saying stuff about what the Bible says, you really might want to read it first. Jesus H. Christ on His cross.

He never states that he is God, not even this verse, it only confirms that he and his Father are in consensus...
I have read the Bible many times and studied all religions of the Earth by humans since history can recall them....I do not need your attempts at berating to suffice for my knowledge or the lack of you willingness to share without cynicism...

 

[Vandalshandle]

I think that the Aztecs had it right. Their god required hundreds of thousands of hearts to be ripped out of living people, in order for the sun to rise every morning. And, it is an undeniable fact that the sun DID rise every morning.

 

[BluePhantom]

Moving on to point #2 that Moonglow brought up that Jesus never claimed to be divine and Jesus simply thought of Himself as a Rabbi. This is the second time this week I have heard this claim. Where do atheists get this stuff? I will write in part what I said on the other thread. If you are interested in the rest hit the link:

61 But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer. Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?” 62 “I am,” said Jesus. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.” 63 The high priest tore his clothes. “Why do we need any more witnesses?” he asked. 64 “You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?” They all condemned him as worthy of death." (Mark 14:61-64, NIV)

"13 When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” 14 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” 15 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” 16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. ...20 Then he ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah." (Matt 16:13-20, NIV)

Christianity..... why non believers don t get it ..... Page 7 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


As far as His depiction as being a Rabbi...it depends on what Gospel you read. In Mark He goes out of His way to hide His identity as the Messiah. He teaches in parables, performs miracles in secret, and tells those He has healed not to tell who healed them. In Matthew and Luke when He is challenged to prove His divine power He refuses and tells people to develop faith. But in John, there are no parables. He goes out of His way to prove through miracles that he is the Messiah. In John, if someone says "prove it", Jesus says "ok mother fucker...watch this!" Hell He didn't raise Lazarus until enough people showed up to witness it so He could prove He was who He said He was. So His depiction as a Rabbi is true only if you look at Mark. He is shown as being far different in the other three gospels.

I said that Jesus never claimed to be his Father in Heaven, or God of Abraham,, but please twist my words to fit your agenda...

Are you sure about that?

"25 Jesus answered, “I did tell you, but you do not believe. The works I do in my Father’s name testify about me, 26 but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. 27 My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. 30 I and the Father are one.” (John 10:25-30, NIV)

Seriously, before you guys go saying stuff about what the Bible says, you really might want to read it first. Jesus H. Christ on His cross.

He never states that he is God, not even this verse, it only confirms that he and his Father are in consensus...
I have read the Bible many times and studied all religions of the Earth by humans since history can recall them....I do not need your attempts at berating to suffice for my knowledge or the lack of you willingness to share without cynicism...

"I and the father are one" is not stating that He and God are one? That's something Guno would come up with. That's beyond incredible.