Obama Suggests Jesus Christ Not the Only Way to Heaven

[Heraclitus]

Or that the Jews belive that Jesus is the messia.

[Elok]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Catholics don't recognize Jesus as the Son of God.
Given that, why they think so much of Mary is a puzzler.
I haven't studied the religion, though.

Just quoting it in case Sloww tries to edit it out. This would be sig material, only I'm not Catholic, so I'm just keeping a record for posterity.

[Ben Kenobi]

Yeah, the Catholics are the ones who wrote the Athanasian Creed in the first place.

http://www.ccel.org/creeds/athanasian.creed.html

[Ben Kenobi]

Just quoting it in case Sloww tries to edit it out. This would be sig material, only I'm not Catholic, so I'm just keeping a record for posterity.

I believed much the same myself. It's an honest question for someone who's never read up on the church.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Heraclitus
Or that the Jews belive that Jesus is the messia.

http://jewsforjesus.org/

[Ben Kenobi]

Eventhough I'm the first to admit that the RCC is the 'motherchurch' I am a bit suprised by the fact that you claim that you 'putted the Bible together'.

Historically that's exactly what happened.

I doubt that the current RCC is in line with the RCC of the first centuries.

That's an opinion. It doesn't change the fact that the church put the books together and decided what constituted the canon.

I must say that I'm glad that you switched from 'we wrote it' to 'we put it together'.

I was being somewhat facetitious in that remark, when I said we wrote it, considering the fact that the Old Testament was certainly not written by us at all.

The fact that you say stuff like: "why else would protestants have to take books out?" shows your total lack of knowledge about theology and church history

Oh?

I suggest you follow with that line of thinking that I said that out of ignorance.

The RCC and protestant New Testament is equal.

Which is why Luther struck certain books out, including parts of other books that he didn't like?

The 'extra' books you guys have are in the Old Testament. And as you should know. the Old Testament has not been 'putted together' by the catholics, but by the Jews. It was 'finished' about 2 centuries before Christ.

I never specified the NT or the OT for that reason. Yes, the NT is identical between the two. Luther chose only to take out books from the OT which had always been included prior.

I'm not sure why that contradicts my assertion that the Catholic church built the bible in the way that we know it today, and that Luther removed books that he didn't like from that same bible.

The 'extra' books you guys got aren't in the Hebrew Bible, they're from the Septuagint, the greek translation of the Hebrew Bible.

Which Hebrew bible are you speaking of?

I hope you were aware of that, though I fear you weren't, otherwise you wouldn't have made those funny claims :P

Oh, no. Often I make claims that seem incredible without having any knowledge of the subject at hand. It's sort of my thing. Just ask anyone here. I also ask really stupid questions that make no sense whatsoever.

It's extra biblical.

How are the saints extrabiblical?

The bible mentions saints all throughout specifically referring to those who have been matyred in the faith.

Not to mention that Jesus says that one shall not pray towards anybody but God.

And is that what Catholic doctrine says Catholics are to do, to pray to the Saints?

Proxy-praying..... Jesus came to earth so that we could talk to God directly.

And Christ tells us to pray for one another, to help bear each other's burdens. Why is it different if we ask the saints to pray for us?

Oh, the 'saints' aren't able to hear you.

What about the parable of Lazarus?

It's still practice in the current RCC. People who donate much money get prayed for for a long time after they passed away.

Where did you see this happen?

[Robert]

Originally posted by Heraclitus


Yes it does.


Otherwise the bible would have been different. The fact that the church representatives voted on what got into the bible assures it.

I my........ that rumour is that false that it's painfull to see it again!
The new testamentic canon has been formed naturally in the centenia after Christ. All that the representatives did was formalising something that was already common use anyway.

[Heraclitus]

Yes, but many things were in popular use at the time. If that was not the case some of the early disputes in Christianity would not have been as prounced.



Maybe polytubbies should do a mock thirty year war some time to settle the question.

[Robert]

Historically that's exactly what happened.

It's a stupid claim. Both protestants, Catholics and Orthodox churches share the same roots. In those early days before the great schism and the reformation, we all belonged to the same church.

I think it's funny that you now claim that the RCC did put the Bible together, and not the protestant or the eastern orthodox churches.

Technically you are right, the catholic church was the early church. But you are as much the catholic church as I am. We're both christians living 2000 years later.

That's an opinion. It doesn't change the fact that the church put the books together and decided what constituted the canon.

Well, no, the church didn't put the books together.
The christians did that. The church only formalised the thing that was common use. Except perhaps Revelations and the letter to the Hebrews.

Not to mention the old testament, the church never had a hand in that, and just followed the jews.

I was being somewhat facetitious in that remark, when I said we wrote it, considering the fact that the Old Testament was certainly not written by us at all.

Neither was the New Testament.

Which is why Luther struck certain books out, including parts of other books that he didn't like?

He didn't.
He had doubts about the letter of James, about Revelations, and about Hebrews and Jude, but never cutted them from the Bible. He even changed opinion later. The Lutherian Bible contains all those books.

He also had doubts about Esther, like many Jews have had, btw., but also kept that book.

Obviously did he not accept the apocryphia, but they were never in the Hebrew Bible to begin with.
They were added to the catholic church, but even today there's not even consensus about them in the catholic church.

I never specified the NT or the OT for that reason. Yes, the NT is identical between the two. Luther chose only to take out books from the OT which had always been included prior.

You confuse the septuagint with the hebrew Bible.
That's an obvious thing, because the vulgate was translated from the Septuagint, but that's an error in itself already. One should obviously translate from the source, not from a translation of the source.

Anyway, the Septuigint is not the Hebrew Bible. period.
If you don't know the difference between both.... well...

I'm not sure why that contradicts my assertion that the Catholic church built the bible in the way that we know it today, and that Luther removed books that he didn't like from that same bible.

1. The Catholic Church didn't built the Bible.
2. Luther didn't remove any books.

conclusion: contradiction

Which Hebrew bible are you speaking of?

The one written in Hebrew and Amaric.
The Tenach.
The one used in the synagogues today.
That one. The only one.

Just for the record: not the septuagint, which contains some other books, that aren't in the Hebrew Bible.

How are the saints extrabiblical?

The bible mentions saints all throughout specifically referring to those who have been matyred in the faith.

The way you guys 'use' the saints.
We're all saints, that's true.

And is that what Catholic doctrine says Catholics are to do, to pray to the Saints?

Well, maybe it's not official doctrine, but it's clearly common use. Maybe the members of the church just don't know the official doctrine.

And Christ tells us to pray for one another, to help bear each other's burdens. Why is it different if we ask the saints to pray for us?

Letting death people pray for use is not the same as praying in a communion of faith. Brothers and sisters who together share their worries and their blessings.

Not to mention that it's like: "Oh, that saint may give much more importance to my prayer, God may listen to him."

Oh, the 'saints' aren't able to hear you.

What about the parable of Lazarus?

It's a parable.

It's still practice in the current RCC. People who donate much money get prayed for for a long time after they passed away.

Where did you see this happen?

Many places. To start with: overhere in Holland.
Coleagues talked about that, how the church still prayed for their grandfather because he had donated money to the church, and stuff like that.

It's common use.

[Ben Kenobi]

It's a stupid claim. Both protestants, Catholics and Orthodox churches share the same roots. In those early days before the great schism and the reformation, we all belonged to the same church.

There were no 'Protestants' or 'Orthodox'. Those terms have no meaning prior to their individual schisms.

I think it's funny that you now claim that the RCC did put the Bible together, and not the protestant or the eastern orthodox churches.

First, the Eastern Orthodox say there is only one church, and that Rome is the one who broke away. So they won't use the term 'churches'. Secondly, there are no protestants prior to Luther.

Technically you are right, the catholic church was the early church. But you are as much the catholic church as I am. We're both christians living 2000 years later.

Again, that distinction between visible and invisible church is not a distinction they would have made back then either.

Yes we are both Christians. Unfortunately, your church decided to break away, and until they come back again we won't be one visible church again.

Well, no, the church didn't put the books together.

No, the Church put the book together. They commissioned the work so that there would be one standard for the whole church.

I know you object to the heirarchy of priests and bishops, but that is what the ecumenical councils were composed. If you accept Nicaea and Chalcedon, then you should also accept the authority by which they were conducted.

The christians did that.

No, the Church commissioned it.

The church only formalised the thing that was common use.

They selected the individual books which were in common use, but the actual New Testament was put together by the church. They made these decisions after the ecumenical council of Ephesus. Prior to this you had individual standards across all of Christendom.

They also commissioned a translation into the Latin called the Vulgate at the same time which was done by Jerome. It wasn't done by the 'Christians' but it was a decision made by the Church to standardise the bible and the New Testament at that time.

Not to mention the old testament, the church never had a hand in that, and just followed the jews.

No, again. The Septuagint was in Greek. The Vulgate was a Latin translation of the Greek, which became common afterwards. It was commissioned by the church, and they translated all the books in the Septuagint into Latin with access to both the Greek Septuagint and the Tanakh. They had the books of the Old Testament in Hebrew, and from there they translated from both into the Latin.

Jerome didn't just rely on the Greek, he used the best Greek and Hebrew.

Neither was the New Testament.

Not the Greek no, but the translation into Latin, yes. That's what the Vulgate was all about.

Obviously did he not accept the apocryphia,

Those books were in the Septuagint, and in the Vulgate. Why did Luther choose to strike the books that were contained in both the Septuagint and the Vulgate?

I know exactly why he did so. It's called writing the bible and excising portions that you have personal disagreement.

they were never in the Hebrew Bible to begin with.

When was this Hebrew bible compiled? Who put it together and when? You keep referring to it.

They were added to the catholic church

When were they added? Who added them?

These books were in the Septuagint. Go read it for yourself. Why did Luther take it upon himself to excise books that were in the Septuagint and the Vulgate, as well as to chop off portions of existing books?

You confuse the septuagint with the hebrew Bible.

Where is this Hebrew Bible? I've been making a distinction throughout. The Septuagint was in Greek.

That's an obvious thing, because the vulgate was translated from the Septuagint,

Did the Vulgate and the Septuagint contain the books that were excised by Luther?

One should obviously translate from the source, not from a translation of the source.

Were all the books of the Old Testament written in Hebrew?

Again, where is this hebrew bible? When was it written? Who wrote it? Who put it together?

1. The Catholic Church didn't built the Bible.

Yes, the Catholic Church built the bible.

You've admitted that the Catholic church dates back to the death of Christ. Now, I don't know any protestant popes, so my question to you is how can you justifying saying that the Catholic church did not put the bible together in the form that we have it today? It wasn't Luther who put it together, did he?

2. Luther didn't remove any books.

Yes, Luther removed books that were there. You've admitted it already when you said that he got rid of the apocrypha.

Can you tell me what books those are?

The one written in Hebrew and Amaric.
The Tenach.

Ok.

The tanakh was in Hebrew. When was it written? Who put it together.

The one used in the synagogues today.

Jews use several different books in the synagogue.

Just for the record: not the septuagint, which contains some other books, that aren't in the Hebrew Bible.

Which books? You seem to know an awful lot about them if you can say they weren't in the tanakh.

Well, maybe it's not official doctrine, but it's clearly common use. Maybe the members of the church just don't know the official doctrine.

We are all considered saints. It's a misunderstanding of Catholic doctrine. Me praying for you is no different then if Mary or Joseph up in heaven does so.

Letting death people pray for us

Christ isn't a God of the dead, he's a God of the living! Where's your faith?

You say these are dead people, and yet Christ at his Transfiguration saw Moses and Elijah. No, the saints are not dead, and neither are we when we die and go to heaven.

You believe we lie in those boxes and wait for someone to come and wake us up?

It's a parable.

Christ seems to show us how the saints in heaven can hear us.

Many places. To start with: overhere in Holland.
Coleagues talked about that, how the church still prayed for their grandfather because he had donated money to the church, and stuff like that.

It's common use.

Ok. Are you aware the church does that for everybody? We do that everytime we celebrate the mass when we pray for all the angels and saints.

[Heraclitus]

Perhaps this can be a better thread to post this? Can someone explain how this makes Chatolics look bad?

But to be perfectly fair, youtube comments usually represent the worst in people.

[MattBowron]

Pardon me for interrupting, and I'm sorry if I'm sounding like an annoying interrupting newb, but I'm actually thinking about working on a novel that fictionally discusses the implications of both spiritual/religious and scientifc thought along with philosophy

i'm sorry if this is a threadjack, but i have friends who are of different religious and spiritual backgrounds: athiest, agnostic, shamanist, jewish, satanist, christian, catholic, protestant, unitarian, shiite muslim, sunni muslim, bahaii, abrahamic/law of attraction, spiritual-sexology and transhumanist, and as weird as this may seem i see some elements of truth in all faiths, and science due to being in essence a post-modernist thinker

if anyone has any comments they'd like to add or questions they'd like to inquire, please feel free to PM me

cheers, peace, godbless

matt

[asleepathewheel]

What, don't know a Zoroastrian?

[MattBowron]

sorry forgot to mention Buddhist, but no I haven't met someone who's told me they were Zorastarian, i have also friends who are environmentalists, anarchists, socialists, capitalists, feminists, and a few criminals

[Seeker]

I really don't see any conflict between the romans and ephesians quotes gramps.

God could certainly 'will' to save virtuous pagans and damn evil christians, without limitation.

The ephesians quote says that he can save virtuous pagans, the romans could clarifies that he does/will(depending on your view of salvation timeline).