Well that can't be true, Deeje because several hundreds of years passed before the bible was published, and generations of Christians lived out their entire lives without the scripture... And they most certainly did know things about the Christ and his role in the redemption of mankind. So you're wrong there.
Actually the early Christians did. They had the Hebrew Scriptures that Jesus and the apostles used to teach about the role of the Messiah and first century Christians had the letters written by Peter, Paul, John and others to guide them. These were used and circulated among the congregations long before the Roman church was established.
If you recall, it was because the church took the scriptures away from the common people that they held sway over an ignorant population by feeding them things that were not scriptural. For centuries the people had no way to check the authenticity of what they were being taught. It is very easy to control an ignorant population. Only with the Reformation was the Bible translated and given to everyone. We have Luther to thank for speaking up and exposing the corruption in the church.
Nothing was added though Deeje, things were just expanded on and clarified.
Is that what they told you? Would you like a list? It's a long one.
The Pharisees did exactly the same thing, they also expanded and clarified doctrines that ended up teaching the opposite of what their scriptures said. The Bible doesn't need that kind of clarification....it explains itself.
Please stop comparing / drawing parallels to things that are not exactly the same. This is know as "abstraction", and while it is a natural human tendency, it's not always correct. As I mentioned earlier, Christians survived for centuries without the bible, and relied solely on oral traditions.
The Bible is full of such comparisons. Everything in the Bible is pictorial. Jesus used the flood of Noah's day to picture the world situation when he would return....we are there now. Christendom is a mirror image of the Pharisees. Satan's tactic are the same...he has no new weapons...he doesn't need any, the old ones still work.
Yes, which is why there are no Catholic teachings that contradict scripture... Nobody is obligated to genuflect or pray in front of statues. And nobody Is praying to statues. To suggest otherwise is a display of dishonesty.
Since the law given to Israel was not to even "MAKE" an image of "ANYTHING" to be used in worship, it is apparent who is being dishonest. (Exodus 20:3) You can't bow before something you never made.
The "genuflecting" is making the sign of the cross....a religious symbol that pre-dates Christianity, and is tied up with disgusting pagan practices. There is no cross in the Bible. Constantine borrowed it along with many other pagan ideas that he "Christianized".
If Jesus had been hanged instead of being nailed to a stake, would Catholics have a gallows with Jesus swinging from the end of a rope set up in their churches? Does it not strike you as bizarre that you would make a replica of the instrument used to put someone you love to death, and glorify it? What if Jesus had been shot with a gun? Would you wear one around your neck?
Rosary beads have no precedent in Christianity or Judaism for that matter. According to Wiki...
"dating from the 17th c. BC (c. 1613 BC.) The exact origins of prayer beads remain uncertain, but their earliest historical use probably traces to Hindu prayers in India. Buddhism probably borrowed the concept from Hinduism." Guess who borrowed them from false religious practices?
There is a long list of other "borrowed" things that have no place in Christianity. (2 Corinthians 6:14-18)
I find that comment to be not only rude, but dishonest.
The truth is sometimes confronting. Jesus was "rude" to the Pharisees because he saw no need to water down the truth to preserve their feelings. It was why they hated him so much. They didn't like the truth.
Yes, the bible actually was written by Catholics. Later, those writings were sifted through, and compiled by Roman Catholic clergymen.
Not a word of scripture was written by anyone but Jews. Those who later compiled it when God was ready to have it consolidated, is inconsequential. It is God's word, not the church's. It is interesting that God's word is the very thing that condemns Christendom the most.
Then please do show me the scripture that explains that the bible is the sole source of Christian teaching.
I already did. Try 2 John 9. Those who fail to stay within the teachings of the Christ have lost not only him, but also his Father. (Matthew 7:21-23)
Which scriptures are you asking about?
The ones I already mentioned that you said were taken out of context.
But we were talking about sin. And now you cite a verse based on obeying those who rule over you. You're way out of context, seeming to attempt to use scripture to fit your agenda.
Hang on....the principle is the same....we are to obey God in all things. Those who teach us to disobey him will be held accountable.
If God's law was "thou shalt not murder" and the church was responsible for not only murdering, but torturing innocent people into forced confessions just to justify their disgraceful actions.....and the modern clergy support their nations in shedding innocent blood when the military drop bombs and kill women and children.
The context does not alter the principle. Failure to obey God, resulting in bloodshed, ensures that the perpetrators will be held to account.