• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is Catholicism a Christian religion ?

Neuropteron

Active Member
when were the four gospels first definitively and exclusively chosen to be in the canon. Who decided that?

Your question has nothing to do with the OP.

It is commendable that you wish to do extended research in the bible and I am honored that you chosen me to help you in this task, however I already have a job.

I will be happy nonetheless to answer any question relevant to statements I've made.
 

Neuropteron

Active Member
I need to understand what you mean by it, here for instance you juxtapose it with human ability to murder when Jesus specifically said that people can't harm the soul.

So, what do you mean by immortal?

I mentioned murder because you stated that only God can take a life.

As for the definition of immortality. I answered that my personal views are irrelevant, as is any unscriptural opinion.

I suggest that the bible's definition are what counts.
Since this question is not relevant to the O.P. please read the bible if you want to get that information.
 

Mister Emu

Emu Extraordinaire
Staff member
Premium Member
I have no idea why you would think that.
Since I imagine you're going to remain obtuse, the Church was first called Catholic in roughly 110 by Ignatius of Antioch. The debate on the Canon ran for centuries and wasn't really decided until the late 4th century, well after you might decry the Roman abuse of the Catholic Church.

The relevance being that, even if you absurdly consider that the Catholic Church only goes back to when it was called Catholic even though that name addressed the already extant Christian community, it was Catholics who collected the books and decided which ones would actually be the Bible. The Catholic Church decided what books you now read as Canonical. It is under the auspices of the authority of Catholic extra-Biblical Tradition that you read the Bible. Because, guess what, the make-up of the Bible isn't in the Bible.

I quoted this from memory, I don't remember the source.
I expect you won't find one, or that it will be as spurious as the source you quoted to say the Catholic Church formed at the time of Constantine. Catholic means universal or whole, the word parts that make it up meaning "addressing" and "the whole". Every Christian is a member of the Catholic Church, whether they know or acknowledge it, because there is only one Christian Church, only one body of Christ.

I mentioned murder because you stated that only God can take a life.
No, I said only God can kill the soul.

I suggest that the bible's definition are what counts.
I'm asking what you think the Bible's definition is.

Since this question is not relevant to the O.P. please read the bible if you want to get that information.
One of the bullet points of your OP was "teaching the immortality of the soul". It is highly relevant that you are mistaken.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
That's what you say .
@Neuropteron

What core belief in christianity is not present in catholicism outside repentance, communion, conviction, baptism, salvation, and belief in a creator?

Core belief(s) in christianity are shared among all christian denominations-belief in christ is one of them. Are there others that we can rule out which denomination is christian which are not?
 

John1.12

Free gift
@Neuropteron

What core belief in christianity is not present in catholicism outside repentance, communion, conviction, baptism, salvation, and belief in a creator?

Core belief(s) in christianity are shared among all christian denominations-belief in christ is one of them. Are there others that we can rule out which denomination is christian which are not?
Same words ,different dictionary. The difference between Roman Catholicism and biblical Christianity on what matters is so astronomically different. No one is saved because of the teachings of RC ,only in spite of it .
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Same words ,different dictionary. The difference between Roman Catholicism and biblical Christianity on what matters is so astronomically different. No one is saved because of the teachings of RC ,only in spite of it .

The Church teaches salvation through baptism, repentance, belief in one creator, salvation, christ, and conviction via scripture. What is it missing?
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
Considering that the Catholic Church and the Eastern Armenian Church are the eldest denomination of Christianity, it would be ridiculous not to consider them Christians.
@Neuropteron this response is the crux of the whole thread I believe.....
There was no such thing as a "denomination" in original Christianity, just as there was no such thing as a sect of ancient Judaism. (1 Corinthians 1:10)
Christianity has no nationality....not Roman, Armenian, Greek, Russian or any other nation can claim to be a denomination of what Christ taught.

It is humans who came in with their man-made traditions and pagan adoptions and contaminated the truth with lies, as history will attest.
Mark 7:6-7...
"He [Jesus] said to them [the Jewish Pharisees and scribes]: ‘Isaiah aptly prophesied about you hypocrites, as it is written, “This people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far removed from me. It is in vain that they keep worshiping me, because they teach as doctrines commands of men.”’”

So, regardless of whom a group professes to worship, if they hold to doctrines of men instead of the inspired Word of God, their worship is in vain. It's really that simple, IMO. History is repeating for the same reasons that it always does....we never learn from the mistakes of our predecessors.

Can anyone provide scripture to support any of the following doctrines? I can find scriptural support for none of them by direct statement.

Did Jesus ever claim to be part of a three headed god? NO!
Did he ever solicit worship for himself? NO!
Was Mary a figure in the Bible to be adored and given undue honor? NO!
Was there a teaching that an immortal soul would depart the body at death? NO!
Is there such a place as Purgatory in the Bible? NO!
Is there a "hell" of eternal fiery torment for the wicked? NO!
Should images be used in worship? NO!
Was the cross a religious symbol for Christians before Catholicism introduced it? NO!
Were there "priests" officiating in massive cathedrals in original Christianity? NO!
Were those who were shepherds in the congregation to wear distinctive garb and headgear? NO!

I could go on and on....but still people would have no idea what original Christianity looked like because those who claimed to represent Christ on earth totally misrepresented him. These were passed off as "Christian" teachings and those indoctrinated by them, don't know any different.

So, why persecute someone fore telling an inconvenient truth? Isn't that what they did to Jesus? Wasn't he hated for exposing the Pharisees for the woeful hypocrites that they were?

How amazing that people can leave Catholicism for reasons that they consider valid, but when it is criticized, come to its defense.....doesn't it show how complete the indoctrination really is?

"Give me a child until they are seven years old and they will be a Catholic for the rest of their lives"....wasn't that the claim? Isn't this what we are seeing on this thread?

The OP was a valid question IMO.....who has really answered that question truthfully and scripturally?
We need to be reminded that at the judgment, no excuses will be accepted.....if we claim to be Christians and we have failed to accept and follow the truth.....to be found "doing the will of the Father", then it will not go well for any of us, no matter what we call ourselves. (Matthew 7:21-23)

Christian is as Christian does....and that is where I believe we can see clearly who is a genuine Christian and who is just a label wearer. Jesus knows the difference and demonstrated most forcefully that any step outside of what the scriptures teach, is not a step towards God, but away from him.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Because on all of those , the Bible does not SAY the way in which RC believes on each of those points .

But we're talking about the core beliefs of christianity not denominational differences. For example, all denominations believe in repentance.

What about RC repentance is different than, say, Baptist and JW that's "related to" a person's individual relationship with christ?
 

epronovost

Well-Known Member
@Neuropteron this response is the crux of the whole thread I believe.....
There was no such thing as a "denomination" in original Christianity, just as there was no such thing as a sect of ancient Judaism.

Of course there were. In fact Christianity started as dozens of cults with their own leaders and teaching all more or less connected and sometime viciously opposed to one another. Debates on doctrine within Christianity are older than the Bible you are quoting bellow. Christianity is centuries older than its canonical scriptures. The same thing goes for Judaism whose history is fraught with debates and conflict between rival branches.
 

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
But we're talking about the core beliefs of christianity not denominational differences. For example, all denominations believe in repentance.

What about RC repentance is different than, say, Baptist and JW that's "related to" a person's individual relationship with christ?
This is where his "on what matters" safety net comes into play.
With the whole "on what matters" scheme, he gets to pick and choose what it is that "matters"....
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Jesus was Jewish, and believed in the Jewish God. The Christian religion spun off of the Jewish religion, and shares the same God.
No, it very plainly doesn't, though I agree it claims to.

The Christian version of God has undergone two major modifications ─ the abandonment of the covenant of circumcision (of which Paul was the chief instigator as far as we can tell), and three hundred years later, the invention of the "triune" God in an effort to elevate Jesus to God status while claiming to continue their version of God.

As you know, all five versions of Jesus in the NT expressly deny that they're God, and none ever claims to be God+. I'd have thought this would be an insuperable obstacle to triunity, but that shows how little I understand about church politics. What we can say with confidence is that if there was an historical Jesus, he never heard of it.

And if you look at it from the Jewish point of view, it's gibberish ─ indeed the Christian churches acknowledge that the Trinity doctrine is incoherent ─ or as they like to phrase it, "a mystery in the strict sense".
 

Mister Emu

Emu Extraordinaire
Staff member
Premium Member
three hundred years later, the invention of the "triune" God in an effort to elevate Jesus to God status while claiming to continue their version of God.
Not wanting to quibble about when and where the doctrine originates(for instance Justin Martyr is specifically saying that Jesus is of one substance with the Father at about ~150), you're at best around 150 years off. Not just the doctrine, but the actual term itself was being used in the late 2nd century by Theophilus, who died in the mid 180s.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Not wanting to quibble about when and where the doctrine originates(for instance Justin Martyr is specifically saying that Jesus is of one substance with the Father at about ~150), you're at best around 150 years off. Not just the doctrine, but the actual term itself was being used in the late 2nd century by Theophilus, who died in the mid 180s.
There were various models proposed in order to confer God status on Jesus (and I guess three must be a lucky number, because I can't think of any other reason for including the Ghost) ─ that Father Jesus and Ghost were three manifestations of the one entity (just as the ruach in the Tanakh is a manifestation of God, not a distinct entity); that God was the sum of the three (whether as a partnership, the board of a corporation, a club &c); and so on.

The distinctive thing about the Trinity doctrine is that each of the persons is 100% of God. This is where the incoherence of the idea comes in ─ 100%+100%+100%=300%=3 gods, but the Trinity doctrine denies this, at the same time admitting the result is incoherence by calling the Trinity "a mystery in the strict sense" ─ which means that "it cannot be known by unaided reason apart from revelation, nor cogently demonstrated by reason after it has been revealed" (their words, not mine).

The politics behind this were the push to give Jesus, as the focus of Christianity, God status, without being open to the charge that like the pagans they were polytheists. But since the only interpretation of the Trinity that is in fact coherent is that Christianity has three gods, I don't think they succeeded.

Did the Jesuses of Mark and Matthew really cry out on the cross, "Me, me, why have I forsaken me?"
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
Of course there were. In fact Christianity started as dozens of cults with their own leaders and teaching all more or less connected and sometime viciously opposed to one another. Debates on doctrine within Christianity are older than the Bible you are quoting bellow.

Isn’t it amazing how atheists purport to be the greatest experts on Christianity? o_O

The first Christians were guided by the original apostles, and as long as they were alive, the ”weeds” planted by the devil (who were snapping at their heels even then) were kept at bay (Matthew 13:24-30; 36-43)....but as soon as the last apostle John passed away, there was no longer a restraint preventing the foretold apostasy from spreading. (2 Thessalonians 2:3; 6-12)
That is why the Bible canon ends with John’s last contributions. Our Scripture was written by the first Christians.....all of them were Jewish.....not a single Catholic teaching or writer is contained in it.

Compilation of the final “word of God” was from its author, not from any church. Whom he used is inconsequential since he could have used his enemies, as he had done in times past to accomplish his will. As I see it, “the church” (after the first century) became God’s enemy when they ‘jumped into bed’ with the world’s rulers. (James 4:4) They held that position of power for centuries.

Roman Catholicism was the brainchild of a pagan Roman Emperor as a means to consolidate his divided empire. It was a stroke of genius because he fused pagan Roman beliefs and practices with a thin veneer of Christianity, and forced it on his people. It was declared the state religion and because it was apostate, it did not have God’s blessing or backing. That is why its history is soaked in innocent blood. Christ has never set foot in it.

Christianity is centuries older than its canonical scriptures. The same thing goes for Judaism whose history is fraught with debates and conflict between rival branches.
No kidding....:rolleyes:

Judaism was off the rails long before Jesus began his ministry. In fact God had not sent a prophet to Israel for about 300 years. Why? Because there was no point. In their whole history, they had failed to uphold their covenant with God and with the murder of his son, he cast them off as the hypocritical covenant breakers that they always were. (Matthew 23:37-39)

That is why Jesus was sent only to “the lost sheep of the house of Israel”.....he was not sent to their religious leaders because they were incorrigible. They taught “the commands of men as doctrines” just as the hopelessly fractured churches of Christendom do. (Matthew 15:7-9)

Christendom is the mirror image of Judaism.....both are separated from God by their willfull disobedience.
That is what I see clearly stated in the scriptures.
The “weeds” of Jesus parable are alive and well and still teaching deception in the world.....but I don’t believe it will be for much longer....
 
Last edited:

epronovost

Well-Known Member
Isn’t it amazing how atheists purport to be the greatest experts on Christianity? o_O

Well the laureated and quoted specialist on the history of early Christianity, Bart Ehrman, is indeed not a Christian (he qualify himself as an agnostic) as are many historians studying early Christianity because knowing and studying history isn't a privilege of the faithful. You seem to know very little about the actual history of early Christianity or of the Bible and how it came to be as you know it in favor of the dogma of your particular denomination. Be careful about that for a lot of that dogma was set well before modern scholarship on the history of early Christianity and advances in archeology and philology.
 
Top