PDA

View Full Version : How do Catholics answer...



Keene
Sep 27th 2007, 05:35 AM
the omission of the 2nd commandment?

As I understand it, the RCC omitted the 2nd commandment and split the 10th into two giving them their own version of the ten commandments. But the Bible clearly states that this isn't accurate.

How does the RCC justify this?

Sold Out
Sep 27th 2007, 02:02 PM
the omission of the 2nd commandment?

As I understand it, the RCC omitted the 2nd commandment and split the 10th into two giving them their own version of the ten commandments. But the Bible clearly states that this isn't accurate.

How does the RCC justify this?

Don't know....I am interested to see the reponses.

Teke
Sep 27th 2007, 05:16 PM
I'm not RC, but do you mean this.


The Decalogue According to the Hebrew Version
First Commandment
I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.

The Decalogue According to the Catholic Version
First Commandment
I am the Lord thy God. Thou shalt not have strange gods before me.

The Decalogue According to the Protestant Version
First Commandment
Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

In the First Commandment, the reader will note that the words "I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage," is left out of the Protestant version completely, and partially from the Catholic. It forms the First Commandment according to the Hebrews.

In the Catholic and Protestant versions, the reference to being "brought out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage," was left out for very good and sufficient reasons! That part of the Commandment has absolutely nothing whatever to do with Protestants or Catholics. When the Commandments were written, they were not in existence. They were never in Egypt, and the Lord had no occasion to free them from the yoke of bondage; by this very omission the Ten Commandments are stamped as a purely provincial code, applicable, if at all, only to the Children of Israel. In this respect both the Catholics and the Protestants have judiciously, yet deceitfully, refrained from using it, despite the incontrovertible fact that it is part of the Decalogue, and just as vital as the other parts.

In some editions of the Hebrew Bible, the word "bondage" has been substituted for "slavery." The explanation given for this change by the best Biblical authorities is that the Jews do not want to characterize Egypt as a place of slavery while the Jews living in Egypt are Page 24 enjoying liberty there. Was the integrity of the text sacrificed for the sake of expediency? [**16]

In wording this Commandment, however, the Catholics were cleverer than the Protestants. They used the first five words of the Commandment but left out the succeeding damaging phrase, and have added, though in a corrupted form, the first part of the Second Commandment. The Protestants, unable to use the First Commandment as biblically recorded, have daringly taken the first sentence of the Second Commandment as the first one in the arrangement of the Decalogue!

(this is from an atheist site, so I'm not posting a link for the info):P

Keene
Sep 27th 2007, 05:58 PM
I was actually referring to Idolatry. They skip over that and split the 10th commandment into two, giving them 10 commandments as well.

I'm just wondering why.

GothicAngel
Sep 28th 2007, 02:10 PM
I was actually referring to Idolatry. They skip over that and split the 10th commandment into two, giving them 10 commandments as well.

I'm just wondering why.
First- Where are the 10 Commandments in the bible?

Second- Idolatry is worship of an object as a divinity. If one is to worship God alone as the divinity, worship of objects as such are condemned with that.

It is redeundant. It would be like saying, Do not steal. Do not steal horses, pigs, sheep, etc. Because all that is included in do not steal.

third hero
Sep 28th 2007, 05:13 PM
First- Where are the 10 Commandments in the bible?

Second- Idolatry is worship of an object as a divinity. If one is to worship God alone as the divinity, worship of objects as such are condemned with that.

It is redeundant. It would be like saying, Do not steal. Do not steal horses, pigs, sheep, etc. Because all that is included in do not steal.
The problem is that I know people in the RCC that pray to pictures of Lord jesus, and have statuettes of "Patron" saints, which they pray to. How is this not idol worship?

Keene
Sep 28th 2007, 07:01 PM
It is redeundant. It would be like saying, Do not steal. Do not steal horses, pigs, sheep, etc. Because all that is included in do not steal.


That is part of my point. The RCC splits the 10th Commandment into two.

9. Thou shall not covet thy neighbor's wife.

10. Thou shall not covet thy neighbor's possessions.

If redundancy is what you're trying to avoid, aren't the 9th and 10th commandements just that? They're both about not coveting.

Teke
Sep 28th 2007, 07:10 PM
The problem is that I know people in the RCC that pray to pictures of Lord jesus, and have statuettes of "Patron" saints, which they pray to. How is this not idol worship?

According to ecumenical council they are suppose to be two dimensional and not three dimensional as statues are. But no one prays to icons (pictures) or statues. Nor do they pray to the bible.:P

Keene
Sep 28th 2007, 07:13 PM
First- Where are the 10 Commandments in the bible?


Exodus chapter 20.


What I am referring to specifically is Exodus 20:4. "You shall not make for yourself any graven image..."

As far as I can tell (and please correct me if I'm wrong) the RCC has skipped over that commandment. I'm just wondering how they justify doing this?

I hope you don't think I'm attacking the RCC, I'm simply looking to learn. My family is RC and I've asked them the same question and haven't gotten an answer from them.

Teke
Sep 28th 2007, 07:22 PM
Exodus chapter 20.


What I am referring to specifically is Exodus 20:4. "You shall not make for yourself any graven image..."

As far as I can tell (and please correct me if I'm wrong) the RCC has skipped over that commandment. I'm just wondering how they justify doing this?

I hope you don't think I'm attacking the RCC, I'm simply looking to learn. My family is RC and I've asked them the same question and haven't gotten an answer from them.

I know, but I'm not RC. I'm curious to see if any RC know, so I won't answer.:P

GothicAngel
Sep 28th 2007, 11:12 PM
That is part of my point. The RCC splits the 10th Commandment into two.

9. Thou shall not covet thy neighbor's wife.

10. Thou shall not covet thy neighbor's possessions.

If redundancy is what you're trying to avoid, aren't the 9th and 10th commandements just that? They're both about not coveting.
Becuase a wife is not a possession; plus lust is seperate from coveting posessions.

GothicAngel
Sep 28th 2007, 11:14 PM
The problem is that I know people in the RCC that pray to pictures of Lord jesus, and have statuettes of "Patron" saints, which they pray to. How is this not idol worship?
They do not pray to the statues, but to the ones whom they represent.

Also, look up the definiton of prayer- it doesnt apply to deities exclusively.

Tanya~
Sep 28th 2007, 11:21 PM
Hi Teke,


I'm not RC, but do you mean this.


The Decalogue According to the Hebrew Version
First Commandment
I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.

The Decalogue According to the Catholic Version
First Commandment
I am the Lord thy God. Thou shalt not have strange gods before me.

The Decalogue According to the Protestant Version
First Commandment
Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

In the First Commandment, the reader will note that the words "I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage," is left out of the Protestant version completely, and partially from the Catholic. It forms the First Commandment according to the Hebrews.

What Protestant version do you mean? My Bible does have the introductory phrase:


Ex 20:1-3

And God spoke all these words, saying:

2 "I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.

3 "You shall have no other gods before Me.

Teke
Sep 29th 2007, 04:16 PM
Their in Deuteronomy as well as Exodus. That's likely the difference.

Tanya~
Sep 29th 2007, 05:39 PM
Their in Deuteronomy as well as Exodus. That's likely the difference.

My version has the introduction in Deuteronomy as well, so I don't think there is a protestant version that's different from the Hebrew. Maybe the atheist source was just conveniently omitting verse 6 so they could make their point.

Deut 5:6-10

6'I am the LORD your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.

7'You shall have no other gods before Me.

8'You shall not make for yourself a carved image — any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; 9 you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, 10 but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.
NKJV

I find that whenever atheists use Scripture against Christians or the Christian faith, they are usually misusing it.

Scruffy Kid
Sep 30th 2007, 01:41 AM
the omission of the 2nd commandment?

As I understand it, the RCC omitted the 2nd commandment and split the 10th into two giving them their own version of the ten commandments. But the Bible clearly states that this isn't accurate.

How does the RCC justify this?
The text of the ten commandments is the same in catholic and protestant (and Jewish) bibles, I think. The only thing different is the paragraph breaks, or the numbering of the commandments -- which of course is not part of the original text.

The RCC, rather than "omitting" any portion of the 10 commandments puts what we would call number 1 and number 2 together. We put what they would call number 9 and number 10 together. Catholic Bibles have all the same OT text (of Deut 5 or Exod 20) in them as protestant or jewish bibles.

Thus, what you are referring to is not an omitting of anything, but a different paragraph structure. One could as well say that protestants split the first commandment, and combine the nineth and tenth commandments. The catholic phrasing "omits the second commandment" only in the sense that the protestant phrasing "omits the nineth" or "tenth" commandment.

Thus the 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church groups the ten commandments into those which deal with love of God (what they reckon the first three, and what protestants would reckon the first four, commandments) and those which deal with love of man (what they reckon the latter seven, and what protestants would reckon the latter 6, commandments).

Under the first commandment, the catechism discusses (1) worshipping God, (2) only serving him, (3) having no other Gods, and (4) not making for yourself a graven image.

threebigrocks
Sep 30th 2007, 01:46 AM
Arg, what's wrong with the way scripture lays it out? :rolleyes: They are all there, no matter what number we assign to them, no matter our denomination.

Just follow them, being obedient to Christ giving thanks that we can now be forgiven and not have our sin held against us for breaking them.

Joyfilled
Oct 10th 2007, 02:20 AM
the omission of the 2nd commandment?

As I understand it, the RCC omitted the 2nd commandment and split the 10th into two giving them their own version of the ten commandments. But the Bible clearly states that this isn't accurate.

How does the RCC justify this?

Wow, I just saw a plaque of the Ten Commandments that omitted the 2nd Commandment in front of a Catholic Church in our town and had no idea that it's been endorsed by the Vatican. :o

Joyfilled
Oct 10th 2007, 02:24 AM
The text of the ten commandments is the same in catholic and protestant (and Jewish) bibles, I think. The only thing different is the paragraph breaks, or the numbering of the commandments -- which of course is not part of the original text.

The RCC, rather than "omitting" any portion of the 10 commandments puts what we would call number 1 and number 2 together. We put what they would call number 9 and number 10 together. Catholic Bibles have all the same OT text (of Deut 5 or Exod 20) in them as protestant or jewish bibles.

Thus, what you are referring to is not an omitting of anything, but a different paragraph structure. One could as well say that protestants split the first commandment, and combine the nineth and tenth commandments. The catholic phrasing "omits the second commandment" only in the sense that the protestant phrasing "omits the nineth" or "tenth" commandment.

Thus the 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church groups the ten commandments into those which deal with love of God (what they reckon the first three, and what protestants would reckon the first four, commandments) and those which deal with love of man (what they reckon the latter seven, and what protestants would reckon the latter 6, commandments).

Under the first commandment, the catechism discusses (1) worshipping God, (2) only serving him, (3) having no other Gods, and (4) not making for yourself a graven image.

Sorry, but in the "new" made-up Ten Commanments there was no mention anywhere that we aren't supposed to carve any images of anything above heaven or below it. So you are incorrect; the catholics indeed left that one out. There's no reason to do that unless they know they are breaking that commandment which can be seen in every single Catholic church in the world by their myriad of statues of everything from Mary to Appollo which stands in the Vatican. :mad:

Keene
Oct 10th 2007, 02:48 AM
I think I am more confused now than when I actually asked the question!

:confused

Joyfilled
Oct 10th 2007, 05:33 AM
They do not pray to the statues, but to the ones whom they represent.

Also, look up the definiton of prayer- it doesnt apply to deities exclusively.

And neither do pagans pray to statues but instead to those they represent. ;) God cannot be quantified into a statue so erecting statues that look like animals and people is revering animals and people. The Catholics revere people instead of crediting God for His work in people. And that's why Exodus 20:4, Deuteronomy 4:15, and Romans 1:23, tell us not to erect any carved images of any man or woman, animal, bird, or reptile. In fact, God knew that humans would try to get around his Word so God was very specific and spelled it out so that it couldn't be clearer. And nowhere in the bible does it tell us to pray to people. Only pagans do that.

GothicAngel
Oct 10th 2007, 01:28 PM
And neither do pagans pray to statues but instead to those they represent. ;)

You may consider it a joke, but in fact it is true.

Look up the story of St Boniface, for example. To convert some pagans, he cut down a tree that they considered to be a god. Whne he cut it down and was not killed, they believed- becuase they had faith in the actual tree itself.


God cannot be quantified into a statue so erecting statues that look like animals and people is revering animals and people. The Catholics revere people instead of crediting God for His work in people. And that's why Exodus 20:4, Deuteronomy 4:15, and Romans 1:23, tell us not to erect any carved images of any man or woman, animal, bird, or reptile.

No, idols of such. Remember that He put cherubim statues on the Ark.


In fact, God knew that humans would try to get around his Word so God was very specific and spelled it out so that it couldn't be clearer. And nowhere in the bible does it tell us to pray to people. Only pagans do that.

I pray you, look up the definition of pray. It means ask. In the bible, we are told to ask one another for prayers.

Joyfilled
Oct 10th 2007, 02:06 PM
You may consider it a joke, but in fact it is true.

Look up the story of St Boniface, for example. To convert some pagans, he cut down a tree that they considered to be a god. Whne he cut it down and was not killed, they believed- becuase they had faith in the actual tree itself.



No, idols of such. Remember that He put cherubim statues on the Ark.



I pray you, look up the definition of pray. It means ask. In the bible, we are told to ask one another for prayers.

No I don't think it's a joke! I made the comment because behind every statues is worship. And that includes statues of Mary. And Catholic churches are named after people rather than Jesus Christ. Virtually all the Catholic churches are named after people; St. Peters', St. Mary's, St. Anthony's, St. Mark, St. Augustine, St. Peter's Square, and on and on and on. That's paganism.

pnewton
Oct 10th 2007, 05:44 PM
No I don't think it's a joke! I made the comment because behind every statues is worship. Yes, but that does not logically equate to worshipping the statue. While it is unfortunate that some superstitious folk do fall into idolatry, it is not part of Catholic teaching, or necessary to equate using a statue to aid in prayer, meditation, etc. as equivalent to worshipping it.

To use an example, an Evangelical preacher may invite everyone to the altar for prayer as a symbol of unity or commitment, yet it is not the altar that is being worshipped. Posture can serve a similar function. It is not necessary to prayer kneeling, but there such a posture can be conducive to reminding us of the humility needed before God (or sorrow at or sin).

I have pictures of my family throughout my house and I love to pause and look at them. Yet it is the family I love, not the pictures. Statues serve the same purpose, as do icons in the Eastern Orthodox and even stained glass and crosses in Evangelical cirlces. I even remember having the Bible held as an object of adoration in VBS and pledging to it. It is but paper, yet it is the words inside that we pledged to.

As to the Ten Commandments, the Catholic numbering is no the "new" numbering. If you want the oldest, it would be best to use the Jewish version as already mentioned. That would be where the first commandment is split (unique to the Jewish numbering) the second and third are combined (like the Catholic version) and the ninth and tenth are combined (like the Protestant version). In any case, all the text is there in all versions.

BTW - It's been a while, but, "Hi, all."

Bing
Oct 11th 2007, 02:40 AM
No I don't think it's a joke! I made the comment because behind every statues is worship. And that includes statues of Mary. And Catholic churches are named after people rather than Jesus Christ. Virtually all the Catholic churches are named after people; St. Peters', St. Mary's, St. Anthony's, St. Mark, St. Augustine, St. Peter's Square, and on and on and on. That's paganism.
Have you ever lived on a street named after somebody? Is that paganism? I went to a protestant school, and both it and the nearby Anglican church were named after Saint Andrew. Is that paganism? Ships are usually named after famous and well-regarded people. Is that paganism? I'm guessing you're American. Your capital city is named after somebody (as are most cities in the world). Is that paganism? The King James Version of the Bible is named after a (not very nice) man who was king of England and patronised the book. Is that paganism? What car do you drive? It's probably named after somebody, and probably has an emblem or company logo (image?) on it somewhere. Is that paganism?

Simply making an image of somebody or something is clearly not idolatry (have you ever taken a photograph?). Deuteronomy 4:15-19 and Exodus 20:4-5 and Romans 1:23 are concerning themselves with acts of worship, and I think it is obvious that many Jews today could be said to revere with a passion approaching idolatry the idea of the Temple, or the Ark of the Covenant, or the Western Wall, or the city of Jerusalem, or the State of Israel itself. There were carved images on the Ark itself, so a blanket ban on "images" is clearly reading for the letter of the law and missing the point behind it.

Once we come away from the logical fallacies above, could you show me one Vatican-approved instruction for Catholics to worship saints, or for Catholics to worship images, or for Catholics to worship anybody except Jesus?

brakelite
Oct 12th 2007, 07:10 AM
You may consider it a joke, but in fact it is true.

Look up the story of St Boniface, for example. To convert some pagans, he cut down a tree that they considered to be a god. Whne he cut it down and was not killed, they believed- becuase they had faith in the actual tree itself.



No, idols of such. Remember that He put cherubim statues on the Ark.



I pray you, look up the definition of pray. It means ask. In the bible, we are told to ask one another for prayers.

Somewhere in the vatican is a very large black marble statue of a man.It is very ancient and was originally an idol - Jupiter.
It is now designated as being Peter. It is revered and worshipped by many pilgrims to the vatican and the foot of the statue has been kissed so often that the toe is worn off.
Of course a catholic would tell you that the pilgrims are actually kissing what the statue represents right? But who? Jupiter or Peter? Either way, whether Jupiter, Peter, or the statue, all is idolatry.

brakelite
Oct 12th 2007, 07:25 AM
I think I am more confused now than when I actually asked the question!

:confused

;) Just to add to your confusion. The catholic 3rd commandment referring to the Lord's day is the 4th commandment in the Bible.
In the Bible the Lord's day is the Sabbath.
Mr 2:28 Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.
Lu 6:5 And he said unto them, That the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.

In the catholic catechism the Lord's day is sunday. Upon enquiry you will discover that the church claims to have changed the day in the 4th century.
And history and church councils attest to this as being true.
The question is then, why do protestants, who claim the Bible as their only source of doctrine, also keep sunday in aquiessence to the authority of the catholic church whom they claim as a cult????

pnewton
Oct 12th 2007, 11:46 AM
Of course a catholic would tell you that the pilgrims are actually kissing what the statue represents right? But who? Jupiter or Peter? Either way, whether Jupiter, Peter, or the statue, all is idolatry.No, it would not all be idolatry. A kiss is a sign of respect and affection. Respect for Jupiter as God of Olympus would be idolatry. Respect for the stone for its own sake would be idolatry. But you also threw in Peter. Respect for Peter and the role he played in our faith would not be idolatry. After all, many forget that Peter is still alive.

BTW - the Vatican was built over a field outside of Rome. There was no altar to Jupiter there. I doubt there is any substantial truth in your claim, unless you can provide it.

GothicAngel
Oct 13th 2007, 03:05 PM
Somewhere in the vatican is a very large black marble statue of a man.It is very ancient and was originally an idol - Jupiter.
It is now designated as being Peter. It is revered and worshipped by many pilgrims to the vatican and the foot of the statue has been kissed so often that the toe is worn off.
Of course a catholic would tell you that the pilgrims are actually kissing what the statue represents right? But who? Jupiter or Peter? Either way, whether Jupiter, Peter, or the statue, all is idolatry.
Do you mean this (http://momentin.com/images/chap02pergamos/peter.jpg) statue? (its bronze)

I have never seen Jupiter be shown blessing with one hand, and holding the keys to the kingdom in another...

watchinginawe
Oct 13th 2007, 03:26 PM
Sorry, but in the "new" made-up Ten Commanments there was no mention anywhere that we aren't supposed to carve any images of anything above heaven or below it. So you are incorrect; the catholics indeed left that one out. There's no reason to do that unless they know they are breaking that commandment which can be seen in every single Catholic church in the world by their myriad of statues of everything from Mary to Appollo which stands in the Vatican. :mad:Hello Joyfilled. Here is the catechism of the Catholic Church regarding what they consider the First Commandment (http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c1a1.htm)to be. Study it through and see if there is explicit omission about the scriptural portion of idolatry.

No, I am not a Catholic defender. But we need to be careful what we allege regarding others.

God Bless!

brakelite
Oct 14th 2007, 06:51 AM
Do you mean this (http://momentin.com/images/chap02pergamos/peter.jpg) statue? (its bronze)

I have never seen Jupiter be shown blessing with one hand, and holding the keys to the kingdom in another...

Yes, that is the one. It was indeed Jupiter but was modified and renamed.
B.

GothicAngel
Oct 14th 2007, 01:25 PM
Yes, that is the one. It was indeed Jupiter but was modified and renamed.
B.
Really? Could you give some backup?

judi<>><
Oct 14th 2007, 01:51 PM
Hello Joyfilled. Here is the catechism of the Catholic Church regarding what they consider the First Commandment (http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c1a1.htm)to be. Study it through and see if there is explicit omission about the scriptural portion of idolatry.

No, I am not a Catholic defender. But we need to be careful what we allege regarding others.

God Bless!Thanks, watching... we need that reminder.

Ladies and Gentleman. Contrary to popular belief, there are no numbers assigned to the "10 Commandments" in the Bible. If you counted every declaratory (command) verb in the passage, you would find a lot more than 10. The Hebrew text doesn't even have commas, periods, and paragraphs.

So, RC lists of the commandments say "Thou shalt have no other God before me," and skip to "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain." And Protestant lists have only "Thou shalt not covet" in our "short version."

Oh, yeah.... Short version!!!!! We are all editing when we make those lists. Did you ever look at what the 10 commandment really says??
"You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor."Try getting your kids to memorize that.

So, we take the first two phrases, and make two commandments "Worship only Me," and "Don't bow down and worship idols...." Huh :hmm: isn't that the same thing??

And the RC's take the last two phrases, and make two commandments out of them "Don't desire your neighbor's stuff" and "Don't desire your neighbor's wife, children, livestock." Isn't that the same thing? :hmm: Maybe there are really only 9 Commandments...

And maybe we should just live by all of the Commandments, no matter how many there are... Better yet, let's try this...

" 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." - JESUS

watchinginawe
Oct 14th 2007, 02:15 PM
Revelation 1:10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet,


;) Just to add to your confusion. The catholic 3rd commandment referring to the Lord's day is the 4th commandment in the Bible.
In the Bible the Lord's day is the Sabbath.
Mr 2:28 Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.
Lu 6:5 And he said unto them, That the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath. brakelite, I fail to see how the scripture above confirms (or even suggests) that the Lord's day, spoken of in Reveleation 1:10, is the sabbath. Quite likely if it were the sabbath, the revelator would have said "on the sabbath".
In the catholic catechism the Lord's day is sunday. Upon enquiry you will discover that the church claims to have changed the day in the 4th century.
And history and church councils attest to this as being true.
The question is then, why do protestants, who claim the Bible as their only source of doctrine, also keep sunday in aquiessence to the authority of the catholic church whom they claim as a cult????Protestants generally agree with the early Church that the Lord's day as referenced in the scriptures was the first day of the week. Furthermore, Protestants generally agree that keeping the Lord's day is in the spirit with the commandment regarding the sabbath. So the "change" was in the day of observance of the sabbath to the Lord's day, not a change of the Lord's day from the sabbath to the first day of the week.

By your logic regarding Protestantism, a similar arguement could be constructed regarding the Trinity. It would seem that Protestants should discard the doctrine of the Trinity because the Catholics first held to that doctrine and because the word "Trinity" is not in the Bible. Instead, Protestants find the scriptures supporting the doctrine and thus passing the test of authority.

To be sure, there certainly are those who observe the 7th day sabbath and there certainly are those who reject the doctrine of the Trinity. In both cases, both groups probably refer to themselves as Protestants (which is why I used "generally" above, I am not trying to define who is and is not a Protestant). However, that really isn't the topic here.

God Bless!

Joyfilled
Oct 14th 2007, 02:41 PM
Hello Joyfilled. Here is the catechism of the Catholic Church regarding what they consider the First Commandment (http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c1a1.htm)to be. Study it through and see if there is explicit omission about the scriptural portion of idolatry.

No, I am not a Catholic defender. But we need to be careful what we allege regarding others.

God Bless!

Sorry, but I saw the new Commandments in front of a Catholic church last week, and it does not include the part about graven images. So they once again, are trying to change the bible and even their own catechism! :rolleyes:

Joyfilled
Oct 14th 2007, 02:44 PM
Have you ever lived on a street named after somebody? Is that paganism? I went to a protestant school, and both it and the nearby Anglican church were named after Saint Andrew. Is that paganism? Ships are usually named after famous and well-regarded people. Is that paganism? I'm guessing you're American. Your capital city is named after somebody (as are most cities in the world). Is that paganism? The King James Version of the Bible is named after a (not very nice) man who was king of England and patronised the book. Is that paganism? What car do you drive? It's probably named after somebody, and probably has an emblem or company logo (image?) on it somewhere. Is that paganism?

Simply making an image of somebody or something is clearly not idolatry (have you ever taken a photograph?). Deuteronomy 4:15-19 and Exodus 20:4-5 and Romans 1:23 are concerning themselves with acts of worship, and I think it is obvious that many Jews today could be said to revere with a passion approaching idolatry the idea of the Temple, or the Ark of the Covenant, or the Western Wall, or the city of Jerusalem, or the State of Israel itself. There were carved images on the Ark itself, so a blanket ban on "images" is clearly reading for the letter of the law and missing the point behind it.

Once we come away from the logical fallacies above, could you show me one Vatican-approved instruction for Catholics to worship saints, or for Catholics to worship images, or for Catholics to worship anybody except Jesus?

So are you trying to justify why we should not believe the bible? :hmm: Jesus always makes a distinction between true believers and the world. The world is everybody else (the non-elect). So what do you think the world would do in regard to statues as opposed to the elect? The catholic church is not supposed to represent the world which is run by Satan, but instead, the Christians who've been chosen out of the world. And that is the point.

pnewton
Oct 14th 2007, 03:06 PM
Sorry, but I saw the new Commandments in front of a Catholic church last week, and it does not include the part about graven images. So they once again, are trying to change the bible and even their own catechism! :rolleyes:
Once again, it is just shortened. I have never seen any version on a plaque or summary that mentions manservants, maidservants or donkeys. It is shortened to just "Thou shalt not covet. In the same sense, "No gods" means no gods: graven, spiritual, or financial.

judi<>><
Oct 14th 2007, 10:21 PM
Amen!

Dare I add... or denominational? Or is that too controversial??

GothicAngel
Oct 15th 2007, 02:13 AM
So are you trying to justify why we should not believe the bible? :hmm:

The bible says that naming churches after people is paganism?


Jesus always makes a distinction between true believers and the world. The world is everybody else (the non-elect). So what do you think the world would do in regard to statues as opposed to the elect? The catholic church is not supposed to represent the world which is run by Satan, but instead, the Christians who've been chosen out of the world. And that is the point.

Bing
Oct 15th 2007, 12:21 PM
So are you trying to justify why we should not believe the bible? :hmm: Jesus always makes a distinction between true believers and the world. The world is everybody else (the non-elect). So what do you think the world would do in regard to statues as opposed to the elect? The catholic church is not supposed to represent the world which is run by Satan, but instead, the Christians who've been chosen out of the world. And that is the point.
Joyfilled, let's talk about you for a moment and leave the world out of this. Have you ever taken a photograph or drawn a picture? Do you have children? What are their names? I bet you fifty bucks your kids are named after somebody else - all common names in the western world are patronised from historical (or usually biblical) figures.

My post was not to say "look at great things the world does" but rather to point out the obvious hypocrisy in the accusation that Catholics naming their churches after saints is idolatry, or that making an image is idolatry. If you believe that naming churches after saints or making images is idolatry, then I'll bet you safe money that you're an idolater. By that definition, of course. It's a risible definition.

Would you like to try answering the question again?

brakelite
Oct 17th 2007, 12:32 AM
The Lord's day is the Sabbath, and no other day.
Lu 6:5 And he said unto them, That the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.
If the Lord changed that, or any of the apostles or disciples, please show me from the scriptures where. The I will surely observe sunday, in the meantime, I'd rather have a 'thus saith the Lord' than a 'thus saith watchinginawe'. No offense.

pnewton
Oct 17th 2007, 01:43 AM
The Lord's day is the Sabbath, and no other day. If the Lord changed that, or any of the apostles or disciples, please show me from the scriptures where. The I will surely observe sunday, in the meantime, I'd rather have a 'thus saith the Lord' than a 'thus saith watchinginawe'. No offense. The earliest document from the first century, The Didache, state specifically that the Lord's Day it the day of resurrection. When one considers what the Bible means, we must try understand what the author meant at the time he wrote it and to the people he wrote it.

watchinginawe
Oct 17th 2007, 02:15 AM
The Lord's day is the Sabbath, and no other day.
Lu 6:5 And he said unto them, That the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.
If the Lord changed that, or any of the apostles or disciples, please show me from the scriptures where. The I will surely observe sunday, in the meantime, I'd rather have a 'thus saith the Lord' than a 'thus saith watchinginawe'. No offense.The verse quite simply says: The Son of man does not quit being Lord just becasue it is the sabbath. Or said another way: The Son of man does not rest from being Lord because it is the sabbath. What is not said: The Lord's day is the sabbath.

God Bless!

GothicAngel
Oct 17th 2007, 01:36 PM
The earliest document from the first century, The Didache, state specifically that the Lord's Day it the day of resurrection. When one considers what the Bible means, we must try understand what the author meant at the time he wrote it and to the people he wrote it.
Good point there.

Paul_born_again
Oct 17th 2007, 02:28 PM
I went to RC schools all my life, and as far as I can remember, I was taught the same commandments that all Christians use. So this thread puzzles me :confused

The only difference that I know of (from my schooling) is in the numbering of them on lists, etc...


Protestant:

#1 ...I am the Lord thy God...Thou shalt have no other gods before me...
#2 ...Thou shalt not make for thyself an idol...

RC:

#1 ...I am the Lord thy God...Thou shalt have no other gods before me....Thou shalt not make for thyself an idol...



Protestant:

#10 ...Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house...Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife...

RC:

#9 ...Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house...
#10 ...Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife...


As you see, the difference is in the numbering, but they are all there.

We used a variety of bible translations in school, so I'm wondering if the issue that some see is based of the translation of one bible versus another?

I<3Jesus
Oct 20th 2007, 04:14 PM
I have a really hard time with Catholicism. It is not that I believe myself to be better or right, but I do not agree with the fact that they pray to saints or kiss the feet of a crucifix (Jesus is not on the cross anymore, silly). I also do not like calling anyone other than God father and I have a hard time with the whole idea of confession (in terms of Catholicism). My fiance' thinks it is OK to pray to dead people instead of God and I cannot convince him that it is wrong. Maybe I am wrong, but it just does not sit right with me. I hope no one takes that as an attack.

Bing
Oct 21st 2007, 11:39 AM
I have a really hard time with Catholicism. It is not that I believe myself to be better or right, but I do not agree with the fact that they pray to saints or kiss the feet of a crucifix (Jesus is not on the cross anymore, silly). I also do not like calling anyone other than God father and I have a hard time with the whole idea of confession (in terms of Catholicism). My fiance' thinks it is OK to pray to dead people instead of God and I cannot convince him that it is wrong. Maybe I am wrong, but it just does not sit right with me. I hope no one takes that as an attack.
As an apologetic on behalf of the Catholics, kissing the feet of a crucifix seems to be a sign of reverence and worship, in recognition that it was on the Cross that Jesus was glorified (John 17:5). Catholics recognise and celebrate the resurrection just as all branches of orthodox Christianity do.

Teke
Oct 21st 2007, 01:48 PM
As an apologetic on behalf of the Catholics, kissing the feet of a crucifix seems to be a sign of reverence and worship, in recognition that it was on the Cross that Jesus was glorified (John 17:5). Catholics recognise and celebrate the resurrection just as all branches of orthodox Christianity do.

Yes, those silly catholics believe they are actually in heaven when they are inside the church. What type of behavior is that in a holy place like heaven with Jesus sitting there before you on His throne. Indeed those cattholics are fools for Christ all right.:saint:

In an Orthodox church, every part of the bread (Orthodox use unleaven, as He is risen) symbolizes the whole church of the saints, the very center being the Lord (bread has impressed the Greek letters IC XC, the first and last letters of the Greek word for Jesus Christ). The faithful are offered to partake of some of the blessed bread, "anaphora" in Greek, and a priest holds a cross before all who come near to partake, if they are of Christ, they kiss the cross, whether they partook of communion earlier or not.

I think many Christians misunderstand the beauty of worship.

I<3Jesus
Oct 21st 2007, 02:19 PM
I will have to agree to disagree because I find nothing beautiful about kissing the feet of a giant, dusty statue. I do think mass can be beautiful, but I personally get nothing from it. Sure it looks and sounds pretty, but it doesn't give me anything I can take out and use in my daily life like a Christian church does.

RSiscoe
Oct 21st 2007, 03:15 PM
I will have to agree to disagree because I find nothing beautiful about kissing the feet of a giant, dusty statue. I do think mass can be beautiful, but I personally get nothing from it. Sure it looks and sounds pretty, but it doesn't give me anything I can take out and use in my daily life like a Christian church does.

I have a question: If you would have been present on Calvary when Jesus was crucifed, what would you have got from it?

pnewton
Oct 21st 2007, 03:49 PM
Sure it looks and sounds pretty, but it doesn't give me anything I can take out and use in my daily life like a Christian church does.I can surely see how many things Catholics so would not seem relevant without understanding the theology behind it. Regarless of what Church we attend or what we believe we must not rely on our senses to determine truth. For Catholics, worship is what we give to God. What we get is secondary, but its safe to say we never out-give God.

I<3Jesus
Oct 21st 2007, 11:01 PM
I have a question: If you would have been present on Calvary when Jesus was crucifed, what would you have got from it?

I do not understand the question and how it is relevant to topic at hand. Perhaps if you explain it further.

Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't we supposed to have civilized, Christian debates (if that is the word you want to use)?

I<3Jesus
Oct 21st 2007, 11:03 PM
I can surely see how many things Catholics so would not seem relevant without understanding the theology behind it. Regarless of what Church we attend or what we believe we must not rely on our senses to determine truth. For Catholics, worship is what we give to God. What we get is secondary, but its safe to say we never out-give God.

Actually I have been with my fiance' for over three years and we have discussed his religion at great depths. I just do not think that a lot of the man made things his church does are Godly.

GothicAngel
Oct 21st 2007, 11:16 PM
Actually I have been with my fiance' for over three years and we have discussed his religion at great depths. I just do not think that a lot of the man made things his church does are Godly.
How do you know for sure that these things are man made and not from God?

RSiscoe
Oct 21st 2007, 11:35 PM
I have a question: If you would have been present on Calvary when Jesus was crucifed, what would you have got from it?


I do not understand the question and how it is relevant to topic at hand. Perhaps if you explain it further.

I was trying to make you think about it. If you were at the foot of the cross, what would you personally have got from it?

Another question: Let's say you and I were both Jews who lived during the days of the Old Covenent. Each year we would go to the temple where the Priest would sacrifice the Lamb for our sins. The Priest would go behind a think curtain to offer the sacrificial lamb to God. You and I were not allowed to go behind the curtian, neither were we able to witness what was taking place. If you and I lived during those days, what would we have got from this?

The point is that the Mass is similar. It is not primarily for us to get something out of; but a way for us to worship God. It is the way God Himself wants to be worshipped. In the Old covenant God desired them to sacrifice various animals to Him. In the New covenant, the sacrifice God desires is that which Jesus offered.

The Mass is that sacrifice. God has made a way for Christians to offer the sacrifice of the New Law to God, in reparation for our sins. The exact same sacrifice that took place on calvary is made present and renewed at the Mass. How does this happen?

The bread and wine are transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ, and then it is offered to God. This is what all of the sacrifices of the Old Law pointed to, and the one that the prphet Malachi predicted...

"From the rising of the sun even to the going down thereof, my name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation: for my name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord of hosts" (Malachi 1:11).

The sacrifices of the Old Law were mere types of the reality that is the Mass. There is more taking place at Mass than meets the eye. In some of the Eastern liturgies, the priest actually goes behind a thick curtain, just as the Priest in the Old Covenant did, and there offers in sacrifice "the Lamb of God who taketh away the sins of the world".

In the New Testament, Jesus is called a priest according to the order of Melchesidech. Melchesidech was the High Priest of Jerusalem who offered to God a sacrifice of bread and wine. Similarly, at the Mass, Jesus who is the High Priest and King of Jersusalem is offered as a sacrifice to God under the appearance of bread and wine.

In our day we often think of what we get from this or that; but that is not the way to think of the Mass. At Mass, we offer something to God - the sacrifice of His Son - in reparation for our sins. Since Mass is the sacrifice of Jesus transcending time and space, each Mass has the same eternal merit and value as did the sacrifice on Calvary.

So, to think of what we get from Mass is kind of backwards. We do receive at Mass, but primarily the Sacrifice of the Mass is what we offer to God.

The more a Catholic understands what the Mass is, the more he appreciates it. I go to a Mass that is in Latin, with the priest facing the altar, and with the prayers said by the priest quietly. During a week day Mass there is not even a sermon, just the Priest offering the sacrifice to God.

What we do receive from the Mass is the Body and Blood of Jesus in communion. From the earliest days, Christians have believed Jesus' words as recorded in John 6 literally. Near the end of that chapter, Jesus tells us that we must eat His Flesh and drink His Blood if we are to have eternal life. He tells us that His flesh is true food and His blood true drink, and that whoseover eats his flesh and drinks His blood will have eternal life (Read John, chapter 6, starting at verse 54).

After the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of Jesus and offered to God in Sacrifice, the people present actually partake of this body and blood of Jesus.

When we eat normal food, the food becomes part of us; but when a Catholic partakes in communion the opposite happens: we become part of the food.

brakelite
Oct 22nd 2007, 12:22 AM
The verse quite simply says: The Son of man does not quit being Lord just becasue it is the sabbath. Or said another way: The Son of man does not rest from being Lord because it is the sabbath. What is not said: The Lord's day is the sabbath.

God Bless!

Perhaps the following verses may make the issue clearer.

Ex 20:10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:

Le 23:3 Six days shall work be done: but the seventh day is the sabbath of rest, an holy convocation; ye shall do no work therein: it is the sabbath of the LORD in all your dwellings.

De 5:14 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thine ox, nor thine ass, nor any of thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; that thy manservant and thy maidservant may rest as well as thou

The above verses ought to be clear enough surely to prove that the sabbath belongs to the Lord, and therefore the sabbath must be the Lord's day.
Please note also that the sabbath is the seventh day, not the first.

QUOTE:
“Question: Which is the Sabbath day?
Answer: Saturday is the Sabbath day.
Question: Why do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday?
Answer: We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the Catholic
Church, in the Council of Laodicea (A. D. 336), transferred the solemnity
from Saturday to Sunday.” Rev. Peter Geiermann, The Convert’s
Catechism of Catholic Doctrine, (St. Louis: B. Herder Book Company,
1957 edition), p. 50. It is to be noted that this book received the “apostolic
blessing” of Pope Pius X on January 25, 1910.

This from the churches own writings surely should convince? I could quote many more if you wish.

Regards B.

brakelite
Oct 22nd 2007, 01:05 AM
The earliest document from the first century, The Didache, state specifically that the Lord's Day it the day of resurrection. When one considers what the Bible means, we must try understand what the author meant at the time he wrote it and to the people he wrote it.

Whilst I agree that there were among the early church fathers some who upheld sunday as a day for worship to honour the resurrection, I would like to emphasize 2 points.
a. None of them could justify calling it the Lord's day using evidence from scripture,and
b. None of them were apostolic fathers.

There were in those early days much controversy and persecution, not only of Christians, but also of Jews. Many Christians, to distance themselves from the Jew and hope by so doing distance themselves from persecution, exalted sunday in honour of the resurrection and made of less importance the sabbath.
This was not, I repeat, was not, done at the instigation of the apostolic writers. They all, without exception, observed the seventh day sabbath of the Lord their God. During the entire apostolic age, no controversy arose among the many Jewish converts to Christianity about a change in the day of worship. Over diet, yes. Over circumcision, yes. Over the annual feast days, yes. But never over the weekly sabbath. Why? Because that did not change. Not then anyway. It crept in slowly but surely over the ensuing years until it was officially recognised by the Roman church in the 4th century. Constantine, an avowed sun worshipper and professed convert made sunday an edict of the kingdom in 321ad. This was, however a secular decree not a church one. It did however have a profound impact on the practice of the church from that time onward.
Question is, did the church or the emperor have the authority from God to do so? The catholic would quote certain scriptures and state that the authority was given to the bishop of Rome and his descendants and answer yes.
The protestant would quote certain scriptures and state that the law s of God are irreversible and eternal and stand forever.
One must decide therefore on what he bases his faith. The traditions of the church, or scripture.On what the Holy Spirit says to the individual as to the meaning of scripture, or what the church says is the meaning of scripture. Are we therefore all priests, or not? And thus began the protestant reformation.These are issues which do divide Christendom, and will ever remain till Jesus returns. I thank God that He is fair and just and knows who are His.

Ex 33:13 Now therefore, I pray thee, if I have found grace in thy sight, shew me now thy way, that I may know thee, that I may find grace in thy sight: and consider that this nation is thy people.
Ex 33:17 And the LORD said unto Moses, I will do this thing also that thou hast spoken: for thou hast found grace in my sight, and I know thee by name.

John 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.


Jer 6:16 Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein.
17 Also I set watchmen over you, saying, Hearken to the sound of the trumpet. But they said, We will not hearken.
18 ¶ Therefore hear, ye nations, and know, O congregation, what is among them.
19 Hear, O earth: behold, I will bring evil upon this people, even the fruit of their thoughts, because they have not hearkened unto my words, nor to my law, but rejected it.


The above verses apply equally to the catholic (as I once was) and the protestant. To the catholic who trusts in the rituals and traditions and church councils and popes above the word of God, the Bible,, and to the [protestant who claims to hold the scripture as the foundation of his faith but clings to the traditions of the church despite the plain teachings of those very same scriptures.
God bless B.

watchinginawe
Oct 22nd 2007, 01:15 AM
Perhaps the following verses may make the issue clearer.brakelite, please show me where I stated that the sabbath was not the 7th day. None of this post addresses your claim that:
In the catholic catechism the Lord's day is sunday. Upon enquiry you will discover that the church claims to have changed the day in the 4th century.
And history and church councils attest to this as being true.As I stated, observance of the sabbath was changed from the 7th day of the week to the 1st day of the week, which is largely held as "The Lord's day". So no, your scripture brings nothing new to light here. No one is shocked that the sabbath is actually Saturday, the seventh day of the week.
QUOTE:
“Question: Which is the Sabbath day?
Answer: Saturday is the Sabbath day.See, no one is trying to sweep anything under the rug here.
Question: Why do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday?
Answer: We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the Catholic
Church, in the Council of Laodicea (A. D. 336), transferred the solemnity
from Saturday to Sunday.” Rev. Peter Geiermann, The Convert’s
Catechism of Catholic Doctrine, (St. Louis: B. Herder Book Company,
1957 edition), p. 50. It is to be noted that this book received the “apostolic
blessing” of Pope Pius X on January 25, 1910.

This from the churches own writings surely should convince? I could quote many more if you wish.And here is what I said regarding the matter and it lines up with your sources:
Protestants generally agree with the early Church that the Lord's day as referenced in the scriptures was the first day of the week. Furthermore, Protestants generally agree that keeping the Lord's day is in the spirit with the commandment regarding the sabbath. So the "change" was in the day of observance of the sabbath to the Lord's day, not a change of the Lord's day from the sabbath to the first day of the week.
It is apparent we aren't going to convince one another on the subject. I have enjoyed the discussion (notwithstanding the "thus sayeth watchinginawe" comment you offered) and I understand your point regarding the sabbath. But we are just going to have to disagree on what the Catholic (the early) Church regarded as "the Lord's day".

God Bless!

RSiscoe
Oct 22nd 2007, 01:36 AM
Whilst I agree that there were among the early church fathers some who upheld sunday as a day for worship to honour the resurrection, I would like to emphasize 2 points.
a. None of them could justify calling it the Lord's day using evidence from scripture,and
b. None of them were apostolic fathers.

This was not, I repeat, was not, done at the instigation of the apostolic writers. They all, without exception, observed the seventh day sabbath of the Lord their God.

According to the Acts of the apostles, we are told that the Christians came together on the first day of the week (Sunday):

Acts 20:7: "And on the first day of the week, when we were assembled to bread bread, Paul discoursedto them... and he continued his speech until midnight."

We are also told that the collection was taken up on the first day of the week:

"On the first day of the week let every one of you put apart with himself, laying up what it shall well please him" (1 Cor 16:2).

Why did they have the collection on Suday? Because that was the day they gathered for Church.

From the earliest years Christians have worshipped on the first day of the week, Sunday, which is known as the Lord's day. Here's a few quotes from the Church Fathers before the council of Nicea. The first is from St. Ignatius of Antioch, the second successor of Peter who started the Church at Antioch. St. Ignatius was a disciple of John the Apostles and wrote the following on his way to Rome where he was to be matryed for the faith by being fed to the lions:

St. Ignatius, A. D. 110: "If, therefore, those who were brought up in the ancient order of things have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord's Day, on which also our life has sprung up again by Him and by His death--whom some deny, by which mystery we have obtained faith, and therefore endure, that we may be found the disciples of Jesus Christ, our only Master." (Letter to the Magnesians, 9:1)

Barnabas who died AD 132, wrote: "Moreover God says to the Jews, 'Your new moons and Sabbaths cannot endure.' You see how he says, 'The present Sabbaths are not acceptable to me, but the Sabbath which I have made in which, when I have rested from all things, I will make the beginning of the eighth day which is the beginning of another world.' Wherefore we Christians keep the eighth day for joy, on which also Jesus arose from the dead and when he appeared ascended into heaven". (The Letter of Barnabas, 15:6-8)

AD 225, THE DIDASCALIA: "The apostles further appointed: On the first day of the week let there be service, and the reading of the Holy Scriptures, and the oblation, because on the first day of the week our Lord rose from the place of the dead, and on the first day of the week he arose upon the world, and on the first day of the week he ascended up to heaven, and on the first day of the week he will appear at last with the angels of heaven" (Didascalia 2).

AD 200, TERTULLIAN: Others . . . suppose that the sun is the god of the Christians, because it is well-known that we regard Sunday as a day of joy. (To the Nations 1: 133)

AD 220, ORIGEN: "On Sunday none of the actions of the world should be done. If then, you abstain from all the works of this world and keep yourselves free for spiritual things, go to church, listen to the readings and divine homilies, meditate on heavenly things. (Homil. 23 in Numeros 4, PG 12:749)

According to the Bible and the writings of the Church Fathers, the Christians assembled on Sunday.

I<3Jesus
Oct 22nd 2007, 01:39 AM
How do you know for sure that these things are man made and not from God?

I just typed out this long response and my laptop went nuts and I had to reboot. I am going to take that a message, so I will refrain from discussing this further. :hug:

I<3Jesus
Oct 22nd 2007, 01:40 AM
I was trying to make you think about it. If you were at the foot of the cross, what would you personally have got from it?

Another question: Let's say you and I were both Jews who lived during the days of the Old Covenent. Each year we would go to the temple where the Priest would sacrifice the Lamb for our sins. The Priest would go behind a think curtain to offer the sacrificial lamb to God. You and I were not allowed to go behind the curtian, neither were we able to witness what was taking place. If you and I lived during those days, what would we have got from this?

The point is that the Mass is similar. It is not primarily for us to get something out of; but a way for us to worship God. It is the way God Himself wants to be worshipped. In the Old covenant God desired them to sacrifice various animals to Him. In the New covenant, the sacrifice God desires is that which Jesus offered.

The Mass is that sacrifice. God has made a way for Christians to offer the sacrifice of the New Law to God, in reparation for our sins. The exact same sacrifice that took place on calvary is made present and renewed at the Mass. How does this happen?

The bread and wine are transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ, and then it is offered to God. This is what all of the sacrifices of the Old Law pointed to, and the one that the prphet Malachi predicted...

"From the rising of the sun even to the going down thereof, my name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation: for my name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord of hosts" (Malachi 1:11).

The sacrifices of the Old Law were mere types of the reality that is the Mass. There is more taking place at Mass than meets the eye. In some of the Eastern liturgies, the priest actually goes behind a thick curtain, just as the Priest in the Old Covenant did, and there offers in sacrifice "the Lamb of God who taketh away the sins of the world".

In the New Testament, Jesus is called a priest according to the order of Melchesidech. Melchesidech was the High Priest of Jerusalem who offered to God a sacrifice of bread and wine. Similarly, at the Mass, Jesus who is the High Priest and King of Jersusalem is offered as a sacrifice to God under the appearance of bread and wine.

In our day we often think of what we get from this or that; but that is not the way to think of the Mass. At Mass, we offer something to God - the sacrifice of His Son - in reparation for our sins. Since Mass is the sacrifice of Jesus transcending time and space, each Mass has the same eternal merit and value as did the sacrifice on Calvary.

So, to think of what we get from Mass is kind of backwards. We do receive at Mass, but primarily the Sacrifice of the Mass is what we offer to God.

The more a Catholic understands what the Mass is, the more he appreciates it. I go to a Mass that is in Latin, with the priest facing the altar, and with the prayers said by the priest quietly. During a week day Mass there is not even a sermon, just the Priest offering the sacrifice to God.

What we do receive from the Mass is the Body and Blood of Jesus in communion. From the earliest days, Christians have believed Jesus' words as recorded in John 6 literally. Near the end of that chapter, Jesus tells us that we must eat His Flesh and drink His Blood if we are to have eternal life. He tells us that His flesh is true food and His blood true drink, and that whoseover eats his flesh and drinks His blood will have eternal life (Read John, chapter 6, starting at verse 54).

After the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of Jesus and offered to God in Sacrifice, the people present actually partake of this body and blood of Jesus.

When we eat normal food, the food becomes part of us; but when a Catholic partakes in communion the opposite happens: we become part of the food.

That was an amazing, thought provoking post!

brakelite
Oct 22nd 2007, 04:27 AM
Hi watching.
The verses I quoted were not to convince anyone that the sabbath is the 7th day or Saturday. Everyone knows that. I quoted them to show that the sabbath is the Lords day, and no other.
The Lord's day has been changed from the 7th day to the first, under the authority of the church, not scripture. But catholics ought to be comfortable with that because catholic doctrine places tradition on equal footing with scripture. My issue is with those protestants who, while claiming scripture as the basis and foundation for their faith, keep and observe sunday in accordance with catholic tradition.

B.

Teke
Oct 22nd 2007, 01:34 PM
Hi watching.
The verses I quoted were not to convince anyone that the sabbath is the 7th day or Saturday. Everyone knows that. I quoted them to show that the sabbath is the Lords day, and no other.
The Lord's day has been changed from the 7th day to the first, under the authority of the church, not scripture. But catholics ought to be comfortable with that because catholic doctrine places tradition on equal footing with scripture. My issue is with those protestants who, while claiming scripture as the basis and foundation for their faith, keep and observe sunday in accordance with catholic tradition.

B.

Uh, Sunday is the first day of the week (look at your calendar).

pnewton
Oct 22nd 2007, 01:43 PM
Jer 6:16 Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein.
17 Also I set watchmen over you, saying, Hearken to the sound of the trumpet. But they said, We will not hearken.
18 ¶ Therefore hear, ye nations, and know, O congregation, what is among them.
19 Hear, O earth: behold, I will bring evil upon this people, even the fruit of their thoughts, because they have not hearkened unto my words, nor to my law, but rejected it.


The above verses apply equally to the catholic (as I once was) and the protestant. These verses apply to all, but only as an application. This passage was addresses specifically to the nation of Judah to whom Jeremiah was a prophet. If we truly get literal, then this passage literally only applies to the audience. The application is that God will punish those in rebellion to Him. As far as your first set of verses, one simply can not glue two unrelated passages together to come up with a third meaning. As in:

"Judas hung himself"

"Go ye and do likewise."

Only when there is biblical eveidence n the later passage that the author is referencing an earlier verse is this type of cross-referencing significant.

brakelite
Oct 23rd 2007, 04:07 AM
I beleive that any willful rejection of the laws of God will be met by God's judgement. Ignorance is no excuse either when the scriptures are before us.
1Jo 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

Ro 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Re 22:14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.

Myqyl
Dec 6th 2007, 05:13 PM
the omission of the 2nd commandment?

As I understand it, the RCC omitted the 2nd commandment and split the 10th into two giving them their own version of the ten commandments. But the Bible clearly states that this isn't accurate.

How does the RCC justify this?

Not to sidetrack this thread by answering the original question... but...

Catholics believe that what some protestants have decided was the 2nd commandment is actually the first... Clipped with permission from the Catholic catechism:


ARTICLE 1
THE FIRST COMMANDMENT
I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them.


So the commandment against idolatry is definitely in there... We just don't shorten the commandments to the first 4 or 5 words... When I was growing up I found this disturbing because I had to memorize all 74 words while my protestant friends got off with just 14... Didn't seem fair at all, until I read about suffering for my faith and the rewards it brings.

Catholics are warned constantly to avoid idolatry of all forms. It is a basic tenet of our faith and we hear about it regularly from the pulpit...

Thank you for your concern though :)

Myqyl (Mike)

David Taylor
Dec 6th 2007, 06:05 PM
ARTICLE 1
THE FIRST COMMANDMENT
I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them.


So the commandment against idolatry is definitely in there... We just don't shorten the commandments to the first 4 or 5 words... When I was growing up I found this disturbing because I had to memorize all 74 words while my protestant friends got off with just 14... Didn't seem fair at all, until I read about suffering for my faith and the rewards it brings.



Perhaps if you had been taught Commandment #1 from the Bible, as opposed to from an article from a catholic catchecism book, you would have found the shorter version of Commandment #1, and had less to memorize.:eek:

Looks like they snuck one by you, and made you memorize both Commandments #1 and #2 at the same time....Commandment #1 is short, according to the scriptures.

Commandment #1

Exod 20:3 "Thou shalt have no other gods before me."
Deut 5:7 "Thou shalt have none other gods before me."


Commandment #2

Exod 20:4 "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me, but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments."

Deut 5:8 "Thou shalt not make thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters beneath the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me, And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me and keep my commandments."


:bounce:

Myqyl
Dec 6th 2007, 06:37 PM
Perhaps if you had been taught Commandment #1 from the Bible, as opposed to from an article from a catholic catchecism book, you would have found the shorter version of Commandment #1, and had less to memorize.:eek:

Looks like they snuck one by you, and made you memorize both Commandments #1 and #2 at the same time....Commandment #1 is short, according to the scriptures.

Commandment #1

Exod 20:3 "Thou shalt have no other gods before me."
Deut 5:7 "Thou shalt have none other gods before me."


Commandment #2

Exod 20:4 "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me, but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments."

Deut 5:8 "Thou shalt not make thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters beneath the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me, And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me and keep my commandments."


:bounce:

Which version is that that has Commandment #1 with the bold, underline, etc and has Exodus and Deut mixed together? Does the original Hebrew actually have numbers of the commandments?!? I'm amazed!!! I never saw them in any version I read!!! Please point me to the version of Scripture that numbers the Commandments!!! This is GREAT! Where is it?!?


Oh, btw ~ The clip I posted was straight from the Catechism...

David Taylor
Dec 6th 2007, 11:01 PM
The bolded 'Commandment #1' and 'Commandment #2' were from me to you, purely for your viewing pleasure and enjoyment.

As far as numbers in the original goes....I'm sure Moses just started off by counting 'Thou shalts.....(you know he spoke some create Elizabethon English), and looking at the context where the topic changed to know when to change the number.

(But don't let #4 and #5 trick you....since they weren't numbered in the Hebrew, and since they didn't start with King James 'thou shalts' like the other 8 do).

Wintermute
Dec 6th 2007, 11:15 PM
Which version is that that has Commandment #1 with the bold, underline, etc and has Exodus and Deut mixed together? Does the original Hebrew actually have numbers of the commandments?!? I'm amazed!!! I never saw them in any version I read!!! Please point me to the version of Scripture that numbers the Commandments!!! This is GREAT! Where is it?!?


Oh, btw ~ The clip I posted was straight from the Catechism...Ex 34:28 (http://bible.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=ex+34:28&version=nkj&st=1&sd=1&new=1&showtools=1) So he was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights; he neither ate bread nor drank water. And He wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments.
De 4:13 (http://bible.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=de+4:13&version=nkj&st=1&sd=1&new=1&showtools=1) So He declared to you His covenant which He commanded you to perform, the Ten Commandments; and He wrote them on two tablets of stone.
De 10:4 (http://bible.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=de+10:4&version=nkj&st=1&sd=1&new=1&showtools=1) And He wrote on the tablets according to the first writing, the Ten Commandments, which the Lord had spoken to you in the mountain from the midst of the fire in the day of the assembly; and the Lord gave them to me.

More than once, the commandments of God are referred to as ten. And they are given in both Exodus 20 and Deut 5

KnightwithDignity
Dec 7th 2007, 12:08 AM
there are several aspects of the catholic mass which should be taken into consideration.

One is that when the catholic priest prays over the bread and wine of the mass, that these are converted by miracle into the actual body and blood of Jesus. In the protestant communion the bread and wine are only symbols of the body and blood of Jesus.

For the catholic, once the bread has been prayed over by the priest and converted into the body of Jesus, this is then called the host. This host is then often paraded around in different catholic processions during which it, the host is to be worshipped. The people and priests, bow before this host and offer prayers to it.


And here is another not commonly talked about aspect of the catholic mass. When the catholic priest prays over the bread and wine, at that moment the priest calls Jesus down from heaven, the symbols are changed into actually being Jesus, and Jesus in obedience to the prayers of the priest, offers his life again for the sins of mankind, on the roman altar.

Jesus who is sitting on the throne of heaven, Jesus who is the creator of all mankind, must obey the prayers of the priest?

Jesus who offered his life on the cross, once and for all, must offer his life again and again on the roman alter, every time the priest makes this prayer?

These are some of the main reasons of protestant rejection of the catholic mass.

Wintermute
Dec 7th 2007, 01:27 AM
Regarding the mass and the re-sacrifice of Christ:
Hebrews 9:24-28 For Christ has not entered the holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us; not that He should offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood of another-- He then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment, so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation.And there's more. When sin enters the world it is declared that Satan will bruise the heel of Christ, in reference to the crucifixion.
Genesis 3:15 And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her Seed; He shall bruise your head, And you shall bruise His heel."When Israel is in the wilderness there is a rock, from which water comes. A rock representing Christ.
1 Corinthians 10:1-4 Moreover, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware that all our fathers were under the cloud, all passed through the sea, all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ. See also Habakkuk 1:12; Psalms 18:2, 31, 46; Deuteronomy 32:4, 15-18, 30-31, 37The water is the everlasting life that comes from the sacrifice of Christ
John 4:13-14 Jesus answered and said to her, "Whoever drinks of this water will thirst again, but whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst. But the water that I shall give him will become in him a fountain of water springing up into everlasting life." See also John 7:37-39When Moses first strikes the rock in the wilderness, it is done by the direction of God and is symbolic of the crucifixion.
Exodus 17:6 Behold, I will stand before you there on the rock in Horeb; and you shall strike the rock, and water will come out of it, that the people may drink." And Moses did so in the sight of the elders of Israel.However, later Moses is instructed to speak to the rock and water would come forth. But instead he strikes the rock, twice.
Numbers 20:8-12 "Take the rod; you and your brother Aaron gather the congregation together. Speak to the rock before their eyes, and it will yield its water; thus you shall bring water for them out of the rock, and give drink to the congregation and their animals." So Moses took the rod from before the Lord as He commanded him. And Moses and Aaron gathered the assembly together before the rock; and he said to them, "Hear now, you rebels! Must we bring water for you out of this rock?" Then Moses lifted his hand and struck the rock twice with his rod; and water came out abundantly, and the congregation and their animals drank. Then the Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron, "Because you did not believe Me, to hallow Me in the eyes of the children of Israel, therefore you shall not bring this assembly into the land which I have given them."God supplied the physical needs of Israel at that point. However, He clearly ordered that the rock was only to be spoken to. By striking the rock, and twice at that, Moses was symbolically acting out a re-sacrifice of Christ. Because of this, Moses was not allowed to enter Canaan. Moses even begs God, but it is forbidden.
Deuteronomy 3:23-27 "Then I pleaded with the Lord at that time, saying: 'O Lord God, You have begun to show Your servant Your greatness and Your mighty hand, for what god is there in heaven or on earth who can do anything like Your works and Your mighty deeds? I pray, let me cross over and see the good land beyond the Jordan, those pleasant mountains, and Lebanon.' But the Lord was angry with me on your account, and would not listen to me. So the Lord said to me: 'Enough of that! Speak no more to Me of this matter. Go up to the top of Pisgah, and lift your eyes toward the west, the north, the south, and the east; behold it with your eyes, for you shall not cross over this Jordan. See also Deuteronomy 32:48-52 & Deuteronomy 34:1-6Moses was merely acting out a symbol and what he did is the reason he died on Pisgah; but according to Roman teaching, the mass isn't just a symbol, it is literal. And if God prevented Moses from entering Canaan, a symbol of Heaven and the reward of the righteous, He certain does not take lightly that which is performed in the mass.
The dignity of the priest is also estimated from the power that he has over the real and the mystic body of Jesus Christ. With regard to the power of priests over the real body of Jesus Christ, it is of faith that when they pronounce the words of consecration the Incarnate Word has obliged Himself to obey and to come into their hands under the Sacramental Species. We are struck with wonder when we hear that God obeyed the voice of Josue-----The Lord obeying the voice of man-----and made the sun stand when He said move not, O sun, towards Gabaon . . . and the sun stood still. But our wonder should be far greater when we find that in obedience to the words of his priests-----HOC EST CORPUS MEUM-----God Himself descends on the altar, that He comes wherever they call Him, and as often as they call Him, and places Himself in their hands, even though they should be His enemies. And after having come, He remains, entirely at their disposal; they move Him as they please, from one place to another; they may, if they wish, shut Him up in the tabernacle, or expose Him on the altar, or carry Him outside the church; they may, if they choose, eat His flesh and give Him for the food of others. "Oh, how very great is their power," says St. Laurence Justinian, speaking of priests. "A word falls from their lips and the body of Christ is there substantially formed from the matter of bread, and the Incarnate Word descended from Heaven, is found really present on the table of the altar! Never did Divine goodness give such power to the Angels. The Angels abide by the order of God, but the priests take Him in their hands, distribute Him to the faithful, and partake of Him as food for themselves." St. Alphonsus de Liguori, The Dignity and Duties of the Priest

The priest is the man of God, the minister of God. . . He that despiseth the priest despiseth God; he that hears him hears God. The priest remits sins as God and that which he calls his body at the altar is adored as God by himself and by the congregation. . . It is clear that their function is such that none greater can be conceived. Wherefore they are justly called not only angels, but also God, holding as they do among us the power and authority of the immortal God. A. Nampon, Catholic Doctrine as Defined by the Council of Trent

KnightwithDignity
Dec 7th 2007, 01:53 AM
In the very early church, as recorded in Acts, there are several things that need to be considered.

From the year of the crucifiction and resurrection of Jesus until the year that the first gentiles were admitted into the church, we are looking at a period of about 7 to 10 years. During this time, the church consisted of coverted Jews or gentiles who had converted to Jews. What would have been the main day of worship for them? It would be obviously the Sabbath. This does not mean that they did not meet to fellowship together on the first day in rememberance of the resurrection, but it does also not take away the fact that their main day of worship of God would have been the sabbath.

When the Gentiles came into the church, they came from a roman background which had the main pagan festival of sun worship on the day of the sun called sunday. The church meeting together on the sunday to celebrate the resurrection would not have posed any dificulties to the gentiles. the lack of any discussion or controversy over the day of worship indicates that the gentile believers also accepted the worship on the sabbath as part of their faith.

To most christians, Jesus died on the friday, rested in the grave on saturday, and rose from the grave on sunday. The saturday is associated with the day of the passover.

In the jewish system the passover was followed by 7 days of unleavened bread. The first and last days of these 7 days were called sabbath days also. And during this feast all were required to be in Jerusalem.

The reason that the disciples were still in the upper room after the resurrection was for several reasons. One, they were required to under the laws governing the observance of the feast of unleavened bread. And secondly as recorded in the scripture, they were in fear of the jews.

we are told that a week later they were again together in the upper room. However a look at scripture says ... after eight days...

Where do you count these eight days. From the crucifiction, from the passover or from the resurrection.

If you count from the crucifiction which was on a friday you come to friday. This method of counting can be vindicated from Jesus appearing to the two disciples on the road to emmais. Which was on a Sunday. And they said that this was the 3rd day...

If you count from the resurrection which was on a sunday, you come to sunday.

However there is another option. And that is to count from the Passover. Which was a Saturday. And eight days later would be Saturday. The last day of the Jewish festival of unleavened bread. This is the most likely starting point because there is another festival which is counted from the Passover. And that is the feast of weeks, commonly called today, Penticost. This is 50 days after passover. In the year that Jesus died and rose from the grave, penticost would have been on a sunday.

It is interesting to note that for the majority of the history of the early church there is no controversy within the church or with the non believing Jews about the day of worship. And this is the case for about 27 years after the resurrection of Jesus.

during this period of time we find numerous mentions of paul teaching both jews and gentiles on the sabbath while on his mission trips. There is no mention of paul teaching the jews on the sabbath while teaching the gentiles on the first day of the week.

it is not until Acts 20 that we again find again mention of the first day. And this is tied up with his collection for Jerusalem. At the end of his third mission trip. And just before he is about to enter a time of captivity. Paul is in a hurry to get the collection to Jerusalem before penticost.

the people have gathered together to hear paul preach before he leaves. they are gathered together on the first day of the week. But notice the time that they meet. It is at night. this meeting is therefore being held on Saturday night. Paul is leaving in the morning. he is leaving on Sunday during the daylight hours.

Paul in his letter to the corinthians makes the only other mention regarding the first day, and again it is tied up with the collection for jerusalem. He tells them to make their collection on the first day of the week so that there is no meeting when he comes. this is emphasising he is in a hurry to get to jerusalem.

If the day of worship was saturday for the early church, then there would be no controversy in the church and with the jews regarding this matter. and that is what we find in Acts. No controversy.

If the day of worship was sunday, then the early church would be in great controversy with the Jews on this issue. But this is not the case. If the Church was meeting on the sunday, and this was their main day of worship, then the Jews would have raised this in protest against paul as a false teaching. but they dont. and this is the case for 27 years of church history until acts 20.

And the meeting in acts 20 is on a saturday night. and paul is leaving in the morning. This is the local churches last chance of hearing paul preach. He is heading to jerusalem where it has been prophecied that he would enter into bondage. They may never hear from him again. That is the reason they were so eager to hear him speak that he went all night long.

Scruffy Kid
Dec 7th 2007, 02:47 AM
Dear KnightwithDignity,
Welcome to Bibleforums!! :hug:
It's good that you're here!! :pp :pp :pp


Please stop lying about Catholic belief:
The Bible forbids us to bear false witness against others

May I suggest, though, that the Bible tells us not to bear false witness against others? To do so is both a sin in speaking falsely, a sin regarding not living in truthfulness, and also a sin against charity: against our duty to love one another. Jesus, you may be interested to learn, taught us that to love one's neighbor as onesself is paramount (only after love of God) amongst our duties.
In the protestant communion the bread and wine are only symbols of the body and blood of Jesus. ... When the catholic priest prays over the bread and wine, ... Jesus in obedience to the prayers of the priest, offers his life again for the sins of mankind, ...

Jesus who is sitting on the throne of heaven, Jesus who is the creator of all mankind, must obey the prayers of the priest?

Jesus who offered his life on the cross, once and for all, must offer his life again and again on the roman alter, every time the priest makes this prayer?

The things that you have said about catholics are untruthful, and untruthful in ways that you could easily ascertain are erroneous. Therefore you are deliberately telling untruths, at least in the sense of telling them negligently, and with the intent of attacking others. For the sake of your own soul, and for the sake of the board, and for the sake of all who need the gospel of Christ, and for the sake of our one and only savior Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, crucified once for us and risen from the dead, please STOP!

Cease and desist! Put away your slander and your lies! Stop acting with malice and hatred for others!

The fact is, dear brother or sister, that both your "knighthood" and your "dignity" -- and more important you witness as a Christian are tarnished -- turned in fact to foulness -- by the evil in your heart when you slander other Christian brothers and sisters.


Some specific falsehoods corrected

(1) The Catholic church does not believe that Christ is re-sacrificed, or sacrificed again, in the communion. Rather they believe that in the eucharist God makes Christ present in the Eucharist: that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ, and thus the life and death of Jesus are present and are presented to God as the one and only sacrifice that Christ once made.

These things are stated clearly in the catechism of the Catholic Church.

(2) There is no question of the priest having power over Christ: it is rather, in the catholic view, what God chooses to do, in response to the priest and congregation's act of obedience. Let me make an analogy. Jesus says "when two or three are gathered together in my name, I am in the midst of them." So when Christians gather together for prayer, we often say that Christ is in the midst of us, and sometimes pray, also, to that effect: "Come Lord Jesus, come and be with us as you have promised to be where two or three gather together. Does this mean that those who do so think that they have the power to bring Christ from heaven, as you put it. Of course not. Rather, we mean that Christ chooses to come as he promised, just as he in other ways promises to hear our prayers, and fulfills his promises. To suggest that Catholics think the priest has power over Jesus is erroneous, slanderous, and plain stupid.

(3) You state that Protestants think that the Eucharist (Lord's Supper) is purely symbolic. It is true that some Protestants do. Historically, most Protestants have not thought that. Anglicans (about 60 million) think that Christ is really present in the Eucharist -- that the bread and wine in some sense became the body and blood of Christ, though without specifying how that occurs. Though slightly different language is used, Luther, Calvin, and other reformers generally thought that Christ was present in the Eucharist in more than a merely symbolic way. Most Lutherans, and Methodists, and many Reformed Christians -- and lots from other Protestants -- along with Anglicans, (and Copts, Syrian Orthodox Christians, Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics) think that, in one way or another Christ is present in the Lord's Supper. So your statement about what Protestants think is also erroneous in the sense of being an incorrect overgeneralization.


This applies to all on this thread

Hi, WIntermute!
I welcome you also to Bibleforums! :hug:
It's also good that you are here! :pp :pp :pp


Hebrews 9:24-28 Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many.Regarding the mass and the re-sacrifice of Christ: But as is the case with the previous poster, I must ask you to refrain from false and harmful posts which suggest untrue things about others. You also have suggested in your post that Roman Catholics think that the sacrifice of Christ is repeated, according to the RCC, in the Mass. As I just explained they do not hold that.


The root problem are self-righteousness and hatred:
God teaches us to be humble, and to love one another

The root problem here, though, is not a willingness to carelessly, and in a wrong attitude, make false and harmful statements against others -- and other Christian brothers and sisters at that; though certainly to do so is to commit serious sin.

The problem is more fundamentally that you folks are consumed with a kind of hatred against the Catholic Church. Wake up! Come to Jesus! You do not have to live that way: Christ can help you to a walk with Himself, instead!

Scripture says: "He who abides in love abides in God and God abides in him" (I John 4) and tells us that "If you do not love your brother whom you have seen, you cannot love God whom you have not seen!" Likewise it tells us that "He who loves God must love his brother also!"


Wake up!

You also need to wake up about the world you live in today, and about the content of the Christian faith.


The essentials of the Christian faith

Christians believe that there is one God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and that God the Son became fully a human being for our sake, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, who -- because we are fallen, and bound in death and evil also by our sins, and guilty -- bore our sins on the cross, and rose from the dead, defeating sin, hell, death, and the devil, and freeing us from the judgment that rightly rested upon us. Christians believe that Christ ascended to heaven, and ever lives to make intercession for us, and Christians believe the Bible. We pray to God as Christ told us to, and celebrated the Lord's supper as he told us to, and seek to obey his commandments, to imitate Christ, to love as God loves by his help, to repent, and to seek the coming of his kingdom.

All faithful Christians, Protestant, Catholic, and other, believe these things and behave this way.

Obedience to God's moral standards -- as regards the family and sex, and honesty, and forgiveness, and love, and concern for the poor, and seeking peace, and avoiding idolatry, and worshipping God, not practicing abortion and euthanasia -- are increasingly under attack in society. These things are upheld by almost all faithful Christians, Protestant and Catholic and other.


Wake up about the dark anti-Christian world out there!

There are many countries -- China, parts of India, Pakistan and the middle East, much of nothern Nigeria, all Nothern Africa, considerable parts of Indonesia, Burma, and other places -- where Christianity is subject to severe and open persecution. There are, increasingly, laws being passes in Europe and the US and Canada which start to penalize public practice of Christianity and preaching of moral truths which others disagree with. These oppress all Christians, Protestant, Catholic, and other.

It is a dark world, and getting darker fast!

Instead of fighting among ourselves, Christians need to be joined in love, and be bringing Christ's gospel to a needy world, and championing godly standards in society.

By all means, if you have to, clarify doctrinal points where you think others err -- gently, fairly, and with love, as the Bible teaches us to do. But let's have no more of this angry, nasty, slanderous stuff. It stinks.


About myself and those I know personally

I am not a Roman Catholic -- in fact, I am a Protestant, and have been ever since I was converted as a teenager or young adult. (I come from a non-Christian family.)

I have many friends both Catholic (some of them adult converts from Protestant faith) and Protestant (some of them adult converts from Catholicism), and Orthodox, and other: we get along well, and confess the same Lord Jesus Christ in many circumstances in which Christianity is publicly opposed, and also in Western societies in which we have comparative religious freedom.

I have Protestant and Catholic friends around the world with whom I have stayed: and the same spirit of devotion to Jesus and to God, of love and of service is present among them all. Some of my Protestant friends, and some Catholic friends, are converts from other religions -- including Islam and Hinduism -- or from atheism. The big question is whether or not we follow Jesus.

Try to get a grip on reality. Wake up! Follow Christ!


Summary: Follow Christ, Believe God, Love One Another

Jesus taught us to love one another. On the most central essentials of the Christian faith all Christians agree. Jesus especially prayed that those who believe in Him might act in love and unity.

In friendship, :)
Scruffy Kid

Wintermute
Dec 7th 2007, 03:09 AM
But as is the case with the previous poster, I must ask you to refrain from false and harmful posts which suggest untrue things about others. You also have suggested in your post that Roman Catholics think that the sacrifice of Christ is repeated, according to the RCC, in the Mass. As I just explained they do not hold that.While individual Catholics may or may not believe that the mass is a sacrifice of Christ, the traditional, historical teaching from the magisterium has been exactly that.

Please do not think that I am implying that that there are no Christians within Rome. In fact when in Revelation 18:4 God calls His people out of Babylon, the implication is indeed that His people are to be found within the Religions that constitute that power. Pointing out the problems with the religion should not be interpreted as attacking the people. To be silent on the topic is an injustice to Revelation 14 and 18 and the people referred to there.

Scruffy Kid
Dec 7th 2007, 03:26 AM
I said what I had to say. There's no point in endlessly repeating it.
However, since you are confused about what was plainly stated,
I'll once again restate the main points briefly.

(1) The root issue is following Christ. The Christian faith is powerful and unified in its testimony to Christ our God.

Christians believe that there is one God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and that God the Son became fully a human being for our sake, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, who -- because we are fallen, and bound in death and evil also by our sins, and guilty -- bore our sins on the cross, and rose from the dead, defeating sin, hell, death, and the devil, and freeing us from the judgment that rightly rested upon us. Christians believe that Christ ascended to heaven, and ever lives to make intercession for us, and Christians believe the Bible. We pray to God as Christ told us to, and celebrated the Lord's supper as he told us to, and seek to obey his commandments, to imitate Christ, to love as God loves by his help, to repent, and to seek the coming of his kingdom.

All faithful Christians, Protestant, Catholic, and other, believe these things and behave this way.

Obedience to God's moral standards -- as regards the family and sex, and honesty, and forgiveness, and love, and concern for the poor, and seeking peace, and avoiding idolatry, and worshipping God, not practicing abortion and euthanasia -- are increasingly under attack in society. These things are upheld by almost all faithful Christians, Protestant and Catholic and other.

The differences among faithful, orthodox Christian believers, while not unimportant, are relatively minor.

(2) It's a dark world, in which the unified witness of Christians is vital, and in which Christian truth, Christian principles, and Christian behavior are under attack from all sides. In this struggle those who faithfully proclaim Christ, whether Protestant or Catholic are essential allies.

Wake up about the dark anti-Christian world out there!

There are many countries -- China, parts of India, Pakistan and the middle East, much of nothern Nigeria, all Nothern Africa, considerable parts of Indonesia, Burma, and other places -- where Christianity is subject to severe and open persecution. There are, increasingly, laws being passes in Europe and the US and Canada which start to penalize public practice of Christianity and preaching of moral truths which others disagree with. These oppress all Christians, Protestant, Catholic, and other.

It is a dark world, and getting darker fast!

Instead of fighting among ourselves, Christians need to be joined in love, and be bringing Christ's gospel to a needy world, and championing godly standards in society. When Christianity first came to Japan, the society was ready to embrace Christian truth -- although both Catholics and Protestants had missionaries there. But when the different Christian groups started quarrelling, the Japanese thought that this would disrupt society: they banned Christianity, and almost entirely stamped it out. There are few Christians in Japan today; it's never caught on again. The religious conflicts of the 16th and 17th centuries are often given as major reasons why Europeans and others are disillusioned with Christianity. We need to learn from this, and concentrate on Christ whom we love, not on long-standing and relatively peripheral differences among orthodox Christians.

(3) Hateful and lying anti-catholic posts are a denial of the savior. God tells us to love, and to tell the truth.

(4) Recent posts did indeed misrepresent Catholic doctrine -- the doctrine of "the magisterium" and not just of individual Catholic believers -- and many did so with malicious and hateful words. What was said, repeatedly, and implied by the previous poster in an earlier post, was that the Catholic Church claimed to be sacrificing Christ anew or again, in the Mass: to be re-sacrificing Christ. It does not claim that, and explicitly denies that; what it does say is easily ascertainable and set out in documents easily available. It rather claims that Christ, the crucified, is present in the Eucharist, and that therefore the Eucharist is a participation in the sacrifice of Christ.

However, the main point is not to quibble over doctrinal differences, but to act in love, even when we disagree about minor doctrinal matters, because we are bearing witness to Christ our God and Savior and to His love.
Try to get a grip on reality. Wake up! Follow Christ!


Summary: Follow Christ, Believe God, Love One Another

Jesus taught us to love one another. On the most central essentials of the Christian faith all Christians agree. Jesus especially prayed that those who believe in Him might act in love and unity.

Let's start loving God, speaking gently and truthfully, extolling Christ, and loving one another!

pnewton
Dec 7th 2007, 05:01 AM
And here is another not commonly talked about aspect of the catholic mass. When the catholic priest prays over the bread and wine, at that moment the priest calls Jesus down from heaven, the symbols are changed into actually being Jesus, You are correct here. This is a legitimate reason Catholics differ from many Protestants. I know there are various denominations that have differing opinions on the level of presence of Christ. Not all Protestants believe the bread to be only symbolic. Still, Catholics do not believe that Christ is sacrificed again and again. The Bible clearly stated the sacrifice at Calvary was offered once for all. The reason we call it a re-presentation, is because we do believe that this sacrifice is for all time: past, present, and future. I mean if not, it sure would be hard to be saved unless one cut out their sinning by 30 A.D.

Myqyl
Dec 8th 2007, 10:24 AM
Ex 34:28 (http://bible.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=ex+34:28&version=nkj&st=1&sd=1&new=1&showtools=1) So he was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights; he neither ate bread nor drank water. And He wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments.
De 4:13 (http://bible.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=de+4:13&version=nkj&st=1&sd=1&new=1&showtools=1) So He declared to you His covenant which He commanded you to perform, the Ten Commandments; and He wrote them on two tablets of stone.
De 10:4 (http://bible.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=de+10:4&version=nkj&st=1&sd=1&new=1&showtools=1) And He wrote on the tablets according to the first writing, the Ten Commandments, which the Lord had spoken to you in the mountain from the midst of the fire in the day of the assembly; and the Lord gave them to me.

More than once, the commandments of God are referred to as ten. And they are given in both Exodus 20 and Deut 5

There is no debating that there are indeed 10 commandments. The question lies in where each of the commandments begin. I was taught 10 commandments as a child and have done my level best to live up to each and every word of each and every one.

Myqyl
Dec 8th 2007, 09:38 PM
Incidently...

The Catechism of the Catholic church lists the 10 commandments and you will find that there is not one letter or tilde removed from the stated commandments from Scriptures. What the church does do is explain, in great detail, how these commandments must be applied to our lives.

Anyone that believes they know the teachings of the Catholic church, especially those that feel the church is horribly wrong, should go and read the Catechisms section on the 10 commandments. Even if you bring along your bias against the church, the worst that can happen is you walk away with ammo to "better bash the beast"... Or maybe you will come away with a better understanding of what my church teaches and believes and how we live our lives.

For any interested, here is a link to the 1st commandment... There is a link at the bottom to the table of contents in case you're interested in the church teachings on the rest of the commandments or any other aspect of the faith.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c1a1.htm

May God bless and guide you...

Mike

solja
Dec 27th 2007, 05:45 AM
the omission of the 2nd commandment?

As I understand it, the RCC omitted the 2nd commandment and split the 10th into two giving them their own version of the ten commandments. But the Bible clearly states that this isn't accurate.

How does the RCC justify this?

It depends on which "camp" you are in as to what truth is in the OP.
If one is Protestant, then one would say there was an ommission by the Catholics.
If one is Catholic, then one would say that the 10 commandments have been changed from the original translations.

Studyin'2Show
Dec 27th 2007, 11:26 AM
I believe what causes any problem here is that people don't want to actually pick up the Bible and read it for themselves. They want a simple plaque; some easy commands to memorize in 4th grade and feel something has been accomplished. The bottom line is that whether RC or some other denomination, if one would read the Bible, they would get all the information the Father wanted to convey; no matter what's on the plaque at the front of the church! :rolleyes: I believe the OP is trying to point out the graven images omission but I think the point is moot if one merely reads the Bible.

God Bless!

solja
Dec 29th 2007, 01:37 AM
I believe the OP is trying to point out the graven images omission but I think the point is moot if one merely reads the Bible. God Bless!


It is only moot if you believe Protestant translations of the Bible are correct and at the same time believe that Christians mistranslated the Bible for 1600 years.

Studyin'2Show
Dec 29th 2007, 03:17 AM
It is only moot if you believe Protestant translations of the Bible are correct and at the same time believe that Christians mistranslated the Bible for 1600 years.Somehow you've missed my point completely. :D Why focus on where a particular denomination decides one commandment stops and another starts. Just read the Bible and don't expect that someone else should cherry pick the word to tell you what a commandment is. I encourage anyone who's interested to go to Exodus and Deuteronomy and read for yourselves. Put in the breaks wherever you want....just do it! :idea:

As for the translations, read 'em all! :lol:

God Bless!

Studyin'2Show
Dec 29th 2007, 01:57 PM
Although I do think quarreling over the substance of the Eucharist is a bit of semantics and would qualify as what Paul called foolish contentions, one thing I would like to ask is this. Due to the omnipresence of God, is it not obvious that He is present in the Eucharist?

threebigrocks
Dec 29th 2007, 03:34 PM
Although I do think quarreling over the substance of the Eucharist is a bit of semantics and would qualify as what Paul called foolish contentions, one thing I would like to ask is this. Due to the omnipresence of God, is it not obvious that He is present in the Eucharist?

Indeed. He was there at the Last Supper, He hasn't left what He commanded His followers to do in remembrance of Him.

Do this to remember Me.