Is Catholicism Christian? Are Catholics Saved?

[Bladerunner]

Let's see if I can help with this!


Luke 16:19 "There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and ...[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD="class: s, bgcolor: #FFFFFF"]... Jesus said, "There was a certain rich man who was splendidly clothed in
purple and fine linen and who lived each day in luxury. ...


After the two men DIED ... did both still have CONSCIOUSNESS, according to that scripture ,,, or were they just "dead men?"[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

I do believe this was long before the Catholic Church began. TRY AGAIN, PLEASE.

 

[shrume]

In 2 Tim 1:16-18 Paul prays for Onesiphorus who is dead.

That is an assumption, a guess.

2 Tim 1:
16) The Lord give mercy unto the house of Onesiphorus; for he oft refreshed me, and was not ashamed of my chain:
17) But, when he was in Rome, he sought me out very diligently, and found me.
18) The Lord grant unto him that he may find mercy of the Lord in that day: and in how many things he ministered unto me at Ephesus, thou knowest very well.

Also note that even if Onesiphorus had died, Paul did not pray TO him, or ask him to do anything for Paul, as the Catholics practice with Mary and their saints.

And what the early Church believed should be very important.

It definitely is. But again, you do not distinguish between the early church and the early Catholic church. They are different entities. We learn about the early church from the Bible. Catholics learn about their early church from "history" that happened in the early centuries.

How else can we validate that Jesus kept His promise to build and protect His Church?

This is another assumption that Catholics make: that the Catholic Church is the one started by Jesus Christ.

Jesus' truth never changes and so truth today must have been truth yesterday and vice versa. If what you believe today can't be shown to be the truth yesterday then how can you say that you have the truth? You can't serve as your own witness.

Again, I believe we are to validate our beliefs from the Bible.

 

[Inquistor]

Pardon me THE ONE who went to heaven?

Well, okay, the scripture does not say "heaven," it says Abraham's bosom or side. Was Abraham CONSCIOUS at that time, or just a dead corpse? Where was Abraham at that time ... in hell?


Luke 16:22 "The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried.

New International Version
"The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried.

New Living Translation
"Finally, the poor man died and was carried by the angels to be with Abraham. The rich man also died and was buried,

English Standard Version
The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried,

Berean Study Bible
One day the beggar died and was carried by the angels to Abraham's side. And the rich man also died and was buried.

Berean Literal Bible
And it came to pass that the poor man died, and he was carried away by the angels into the bosom of Abraham. And the rich man also died and was buried.

New American Standard Bible
"Now the poor man died and was carried away by the angels to Abraham's bosom; and the rich man also died and was buried.

King James Bible
And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;

Holman Christian Standard Bible
One day the poor man died and was carried away by the angels to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried.

International Standard Version
"One day, the beggar died and was carried away by the angels to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried.

NET Bible
"Now the poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried.

New Heart English Bible
It happened that the beggar died, and that he was carried away by the angels to Abraham's bosom. The rich man also died, and was buried.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
“But that poor man died and Angels brought him to The Bosom of Abraham. And the rich man also died and he was buried.”

GOD'S WORD® Translation
"One day the beggar died, and the angels carried him to be with Abraham. The rich man also died and was buried.

New American Standard 1977
“Now it came about that the poor man died and he was carried away by the angels to Abraham’s bosom; and the rich man also died and was buried.

Jubilee Bible 2000
And it came to pass that the beggar died and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom; the rich man also died and was buried;

King James 2000 Bible
And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;

American King James Version
And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;

American Standard Version
And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and that he was carried away by the angels into Abraham's bosom: and the rich man also died, and was buried.

Douay-Rheims Bible
And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom. And the rich man also died: and he was buried in hell.

Darby Bible Translation
And it came to pass that the poor man died, and that he was carried away by the angels into the bosom of Abraham. And the rich man also died and was buried.

English Revised Version
And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and that he was carried away by the angels into Abraham's bosom: and the rich man also died, and was buried.

Webster's Bible Translation
And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by angels into Abraham's bosom. The rich man also died, and was buried:

Weymouth New Testament
"But in course of time the beggar died; and he was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom. The rich man also died, and had a funeral.

World English Bible
It happened that the beggar died, and that he was carried away by the angels to Abraham's bosom. The rich man also died, and was buried.

Young's Literal Translation
'And it came to pass, that the poor man died, and that he was carried away by the messengers to the bosom of Abraham -- and the rich man also died, and was buried;

 

[Inquistor]

I have those books. They were not so much "removed" as they were always grouped together.
They are of a later date than the Hebrew Tanakh. And as with with Talmud they are Babylonian in origin. Use caution.

I have The Book of Enoch and various other early Jewish and Christian writings as well but that doesn't make them The Word of God.

Why Were 14 Books Removed from the Bible in 1881? | Rocking God's House

 

[Ernie07]

Another error the Roman Catholic Church holds to is that Peter is the rock that Jesus said He would build His church on, but the Greek texts make clear that Peter (masculine, Petros) is not the Rock (feminine, Petra) that the Church is built upon. God is the ONLY Rock of salvation, and this Biblical Truth is made clear in a multitude of Scriptures. Perhaps I will post some shortly

Hello Magenta,

Jesus actually spoke in Aramaic so what He would have said in MT 16:18 is "And I say to you that you are Kepha, and upon this kepha I will build My church..." When this was translated to Greek it was only natural to give Peter the name Petros since it was masculine.

I agree that Jesus is the Rock of salvation, but He gave the keys of the kingdom of heaven to Peter. Yet again, we disagree on the meaning and interpretation of a scriptural verse so who's is correct? I can give multiple references in early church council documents that validate the authority of the pope. What evidence do you have that refutes that by an early church council?

If none, then on what grounds can you validate that your belief is the truth rather than just a personal opinion? How can you possibly validate that Jesus kept His promise in MT 16:18 if you have no evidence of what you believe was ever believed by the Church for its first 1000 years or more?

-Ernie-

 

[Inquistor]

You are not distinguishing between the early church and the early Catholic Church.

They are not the same.

Great! Let's see some scriptural EVIDENCE that there was MORE THAN ONE Christian denomination on earth before the early 1500's!

 

[Ernie07]

Psalm 19:14

Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart. Be
acceptable in Your sight, O LORD, my rock and my Redeemer.
​

Psalm 62:2
He only is my rock and my salvation, My stronghold; I shall not be greatly shaken.
​

Psalm 89:26
"He will cry to Me, 'You are my Father, My God, and the rock of my salvation.'
​

Isaiah 17:10
For you have forgotten the God of your salvation And have not remembered the rock of your refuge. Therefore you plant delightful plants And set them with vine slips of a strange god.
​

Isaiah 8:14
"Then He shall become a sanctuary; But to both the houses of Israel, a stone to strike and a rock to stumble over, And a snare and a trap for the inhabitants of Jerusalem.
​

Isaiah 28:16
Therefore thus says the Lord GOD, "Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a tested stone, A costly cornerstone for the foundation, firmly placed. He who believes in it will not be disturbed.

Psalm 118:22
The stone which the builders rejected Has become the chief corner stone.

Matthew 21:42
Jesus said to them, "Did you never read in the Scriptures, 'THE STONE WHICH THE BUILDERS REJECTED, THIS BECAME THE CHIEF CORNER stone; THIS CAME ABOUT FROM THE LORD, AND IT IS MARVELOUS IN OUR EYES'?

Mark 12:10
"Have you not even read this Scripture: 'THE STONE WHICH THE BUILDERS REJECTED, THIS BECAME THE CHIEF CORNER stone;

Luke 20:17
But Jesus looked at them and said, "What then is this that is written: 'THE STONE WHICH THE BUILDERS REJECTED, THIS BECAME THE CHIEF CORNER stone'?

Acts 4:11
"He is the STONE WHICH WAS REJECTED by you, THE BUILDERS, but WHICH BECAME THE CHIEF CORNER stone.

1 Peter 2:6-7
For this is contained in Scripture: "BEHOLD, I LAY IN ZION A CHOICE STONE, A PRECIOUS CORNER stone, AND HE WHO BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED." This precious value, then, is for you who believe; but for those who disbelieve, "THE STONE WHICH THE BUILDERS REJECTED, THIS BECAME THE VERY CORNER stone,"

Matthew 21:44
"And he who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces;
but on whomever it falls, it will scatter him like dust."

Luke 20:18
"Everyone who falls on that stone will be broken to pieces;
but on whomever it falls, it will scatter him like dust."

Romans 9:32-33
Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone, just as it is written, "BEHOLD, I LAY IN ZION A STONE OF STUMBLING AND A ROCK OF OFFENSE, AND HE WHO BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED."

1 Peter 2:4-8
And coming to Him as to a living stone which has been rejected by men, but is choice and precious in the sight of God, you also, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. For this is contained in Scripture: "BEHOLD, I LAY IN ZION A CHOICE STONE, A PRECIOUS CORNER stone, AND HE WHO BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED."

No arguments from me at all...Jesus is our Rock and Redeemer! That has nothing to do with Jesus giving Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven and telling him that he is Kepha and upon this kepha He shall build His Church. Jesus spoke Aramaic and it's what Jesus said so I'm sorry but I'm not sure what you're arguing.

-Ernie-

 

[FlSnookman7]

I believe the rock Jesus was referring to was peter's faith, not peter himself.

 

[Inquistor]

Another error the Roman Catholic Church holds to is that Peter is the rock that Jesus said He would build His church on, but the Greek texts make clear that Peter (masculine, Petros) is not the Rock (feminine, Petra) that the Church is built upon. God is the ONLY Rock of salvation, and this Biblical Truth is made clear in a multitude of Scriptures. Perhaps I will post some shortly

Matthew 16 NLT

13When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?”[SUP]c[/SUP]14“Well,” they replied, “some say John the Baptist, some say Elijah, and others say Jeremiah or one of the other prophets.”15Then he asked them, “But who do you say I am?”16Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah,[SUP]d[/SUP] the Son of the living God.”17Jesus replied, “You are blessed, Simon son of John,[SUP]e[/SUP] because my Father in heaven has revealed this to you. You did not learn this from any human being. 18Now I say to you that you are Peter (which means ‘rock’),[SUP]f[/SUP]and upon this rock I will build my church, and all the powers of hell[SUP]g[/SUP] will not conquer it. 19And I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. Whatever you forbid[SUP]h[/SUP] on earth will be forbidden in heaven, and whatever you permit[SUP]i[/SUP] on earth will be permitted in heaven.”20Then he sternly warned the disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah.

 

[Nehemiah6]

I believe the rock Jesus was referring to was peter's faith, not peter himself.

How about the Rock at which Peter's faith was directed? The LORD is our Rock.

 

[Jackson123]

Hello Magenta,

Jesus actually spoke in Aramaic so what He would have said in MT 16:18 is "And I say to you that you are Kepha, and upon this kepha I will build My church..." When this was translated to Greek it was only natural to give Peter the name Petros since it was masculine.

I agree that Jesus is the Rock of salvation, but He gave the keys of the kingdom of heaven to Peter. Yet again, we disagree on the meaning and interpretation of a scriptural verse so who's is correct? I can give multiple references in early church council documents that validate the authority of the pope. What evidence do you have that refutes that by an early church council?

If none, then on what grounds can you validate that your belief is the truth rather than just a personal opinion? How can you possibly validate that Jesus kept His promise in MT 16:18 if you have no evidence of what you believe was ever believed by the Church for its first 1000 years or more?

-Ernie-

Hello Ernie

as a building the foundation of church is rock or Concrete. AS a teaching the foundation af the Church is the teaching of Jesus.

Jesus was ask who am I, peter Said you are the Messiah, upon this faith(faith that believe Jesus is the messiah Jesus build the Church)

Key is something to open

what we need to open heaven.

it is faith that believe Jesus is the Messiah

so every body that believe Jesus AS Messiah, holding the key to heaven, include Peter and million who accept Jesus.

 

[Nehemiah6]

No arguments from me at all...Jesus is our Rock and Redeemer! That has nothing to do with Jesus giving Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven and telling him that he is Kepha and upon this kepha He shall build His Church. Jesus spoke Aramaic and it's what Jesus said so I'm sorry but I'm not sure what you're arguing.

-Ernie-

What Magenta is saying it that it is a S - T - R - E - T - C - H from Peter to Pope Francis, the champion of the fake Global Warming agenda (or any other Pontifex Maximus).

If indeed Peter was the first pope, don't you think that it is rather odd that the epistle to the Romans does not even have a whisper about Peter? Or was the Holy Spirit putting a guard against the false doctrine of the papacy?

 

[Ernie07]

Ernie,

It seems to me that a forum like this is a good place for this kind of discussion. I don't believe in airing our dirty laundry in public so to speak. I think these things should be discussed between Christians as a family in Jesus not before the world. Which is what it seems like we are doing here. I don't want to argue with my brothers before the world at large. It likely only serves to confuse the unsaved if they hear us arguing. I also don't think it's helpful for non-Catholics to insist that Catholics are not real Christians.

I don't want to turn into Oliver Cromwell but I feel strongly that this thing with the statues, saints and especially "Mary" worship is one of the most important issues within the church. I didn't find it difficult to let go of her.

I've had this conversation with Catholics before and honestly it baffles me, why the denial? Why make the claim that veneration is any different to worship? It may be a slightly milder form of worship but it is still worship.
This is my position: Veneration is worship. Worship is veneration.

So there is probably no need to go on about idol worship being wrong if the opposing viewpoint is that one doesn't believe Mary-worship is idol worship or worship at all. We can't get anywhere then. Which is why I gave up being Catholic.

My belief is that we should define things biblically not by a Papal or Vatican standard.

Kneeling before a statue is worship.
Saying "Hail Mary" That is worship
"Pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death" Is asking the goddess to intercede.
I can't see how there is any room for denial.

They called her "Ever Virgin" "The May Queen" "The Queen of Heaven" These are all titles of pagan goddesses.

Please don't take my words as an attack on Mary.
I do not believe that Catholics worship Mary because I do not believe it is really Mary. The real Mary did not draw worship or adoration to herself and I don't believe she is doing so now from heaven.

What the Vatican exalts is NOT Mary, the woman who gave birth to Messiah.
It is a decieving spirit masquerading as an angel of light. A Babylonian mother goddess. Asherah, the mother goddess of the Caananites.

I remember they adorned statues of this (alleged) Mary with flowers and gold and carried her on their shoulders in procession to an altar. They kissed the statue. Kissed it! Knelt before it and cried at it's feet and claimed it had tears of it's own. How can one deny this is idol worship? It's the same ancient sin our ancestors indulged. It's harmful on a spiritual level and IMO there is no place for it in the Christian Church. We have got to move on. We are currently living under a state of grace but eventually I think King Jesus will insist.

Hi Lucy,

I love your passion and everyone that I have had the blessing of interacting with on this thread loves the Lord and is fighting for the faith. To me, our disagreements are deeply held, but are respectful. I believe iron sharpens iron so that our mutual challenging of each other in a respectful manner will only make us stronger and I appreciate your candid thoughts.

I must admit though that I do disagree with your opinion on veneration equals worship. They just simply are not the same thing. To venerate is to have respect or awe due to the dignity, wisdom, dedication, or talent of a person. Worship is the reverence or adoration of a deity. Yes, they can be synonyms but not in the way that I'm or the Catholic Church uses the terms.

I've tried saying this a few times now and I'll try again. Mary as the Mother of God was a formal belief of the single universal Church as validated by the council of Ephesus in 431 A.D. while Mary as ever virgin was a formal belief as validated by the council of Constantinople in 553 A.D. Since this Church was the only group that even claimed to be the universal apostolic Church then either these beliefs are the truth per Jesus' promised protection or they are false, but then Jesus failed. Jesus is God and we know He can't fail so either you believe as the early Church believed or you believe in falsehood. It's as simple as that.

Catholics show great respect and honor to Mary and the saints while we worship our Lord, God, and Savior Jesus Christ.

God Bless and thank you for the continued discussion!

-Ernie-

 

[Magenta]

No arguments from me at all...Jesus is our Rock and Redeemer! That has nothing to do with Jesus giving Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven and telling him that he is Kepha and upon this kepha He shall build His Church. Jesus spoke Aramaic and it's what Jesus said so I'm sorry but I'm not sure what you're arguing.

-Ernie-

What on earth are you arguing??? The New Testament was not written in Aramaic. I am sorry to hear that you are incapable of grasping the difference between masculine and feminine. It may cause you untold problems in your life

 

[Ernie07]

Ernie,

If I may interject, the early believers had the scriptures from Genesis to Malachi. If you look at Acts 17,


In Thessalonica

17 When Paul and his companions had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a Jewish synagogue. 2 As was his custom, Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures,3 explaining and proving that the Messiah had to suffer and rise from the dead. “This Jesus I am proclaiming to you is the Messiah,” he said.4 Some of the Jews were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, as did a large number of God-fearing Greeks and quite a few prominent women.

Further on, same chapter-

11 Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. 12 As a result, many of them believed, as did also a number of prominent Greek women and many Greek men.

*
Relative to this subject, Jeremiah Chapter 7 talks about Israel participating in rituals to honour The Queen of Heaven
and how it provokes The Lord to anger. Jeremiah 7: 17-19

Hello Lucy,

I agree that early believers had scriptures...46 books of the OT and not just 39. As for the verse in Jeremiah context is very important as Jeremiah is condemning the worship of strange gods and a fake "queen of heaven". Clearly a form of idolatry and the condemnation of offering sacrifice is done rightly. That has nothing to do with the true Queen of heaven...but I'm sure we'll disagree.

Thanks.

-Ernie-

 

[Nehemiah6]

That has nothing to do with the true Queen of heaven...but I'm sure we'll disagree.

There is no true Queen of Heaven, so that is another papish invention. You will not find a single Scripture to support that false teaching.

 

[Ernie07]

You are not distinguishing between the early church and the early Catholic Church.

They are not the same.

Hi Shrume,

I'm actually not and I thank you for bringing this up because it's absolutely key. The early Church used the term catholic (small c) to describe itself as the single universal church. The use of the term Catholic (capital C) was not used in formal church council documents until Trent in the 16th century. In the early Church they used the term "catholic church" because it represented the entire Christian faith. There wasn't another group that it needed to distinguish itself against. If you were a Christian you belonged to this Church and believed what the Church taught...or you were excommunicated as many were.

My point is that today's Catholic Church is the early catholic Church and this can be proven by church council documents in light of Jesus' promise in MT 16:18. Every belief of that early Church is the belief of the Catholic Church and that is because Jesus protected His Church from teaching error. If your beliefs do not align with that single universal Church then you are believing in falsehoods and even more importantly are unable to prove that Jesus kept His promise.

Thanks for the continued dialogue.

-Ernie-

 

[Ernie07]

Hi Ernie, thanks for your respon, this prayer is from Indonesian catholic web, the word master, is form Google translation of Kuasailah or dominate or rule or control

to me only To Jesus we ask that kind of request.

I ask Jesus to be my ruler in my life not other.

And the way they believe that Mary able to hear billion people, is Stange for me, I believe only God is omnipresent.

thanks for respon.

Hi Jackson123,

We have much in common as Jesus is the ruler of my life as well! Mary and the saints can help me along the way just as my good friends help me as well, but we will agree to disagree on this point.

Thank you for the respectful dialogue.

-Ernie-

 

[tanakh]

Great! Let's see some scriptural EVIDENCE that there was MORE THAN ONE Christian denomination on earth before the early 1500's!

The Eastern Orthodox Church was in existence long before the early 1500's. It came about after their Bishops were excommunicated due to quarrels over the Trinity

 

[Ernie07]

But what basis from the word of God do we have to give us the idea that Mary, the woman who bore Jesus can hear us from the beyond? I can't accept a church council from Gangra ruling I'm afraid. The evidence has to be scriptural.

Isaiah 8:20
" To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them."

Hi Lucy,

I believe that the Catholic Church believes in Mary and the saints being able to hear our requests, in part due to Rev 5:8 where the "prayers of the saints" are mentioned. The Catholic Church would interpret this passage as the saints listening to our requests and offering them up to God on our behalf. Now I understand how you might disagree with this interpretation, but then we're back to who's interpretation is correct? Who has the final authority on truth?

That is why I always go back to a church council as it is the only way to know definitively what the single universal Church believed. And if you believe that Jesus keeps His promises then the truth yesterday must be the truth today. If there is evidence that the early universal Church believed in praying to the saints then it's good enough for me. What does any interpretation I may have compare to the truth as established by Jesus' Church?

-Ernie-