Mother Mary??

I've already checked it. Cotton answered this well. The word "catholic" simply means "universal." The Roman Catholic Church, as such had its beginnings in the fourth century under Constantine when it became a state church.

And you point is...

If Moses was inspired by God to write the first five books of the Bible, then it wasn't oral tradition was it? It is the Word of God, written by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. There is no Oral Tradition here, only the inspired Word of God. It is God's revelation to mankind. If you claim this to be Oral Tradition, then you are denying it to be the Word of God.

Were these events talked about? Sure they were talked about. There are over 1,000 references to the Old Testament in the New Testament. Jesus referred to the creation, to Adam and Eve, to the flood, and to other events such as Jonah and the whale. To deny their historicity is call Jesus a liar. Jesus referred to them as the Books of Moses. Jesus considered them as Scripture, and not tradition. Whose word is more authoritative: yours or Jesus? I know whose word I will go with!

It seems to me that you don't study your Bible enough. The Bible does give us answers to these questions, if you motivated enough to study it.
Check Genesis 5:4
The events are recorded in the Bible, and enough information about them that God wants us to know are given. We don't need frivilous speculation on the rest.

The Assumption is taken as a doctrine of the Catholic Church. Any doctrine must have its foundation in the Word of God or it is heresy. There is no Biblical basis for the Assumption. It is a heretical doctrine.
DHK

 

Gen. 5:4 "And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:" What does this have to do with the question that I asked. If we go with your answer then, Cain's wife had to be Eve or perhaps his sister.
Also DKH, I have 30+ years of Bible memory and study. I once was one of the top Bible Quiz team members in highschool.

I never said that my word is authoritative. It appears that you are still missing the point. Before the complete Bible was put together, the early Christians had to rely on oral tradition. We know that the NT is made up of letters that were sent to the different churches. Therefore, the early Christians had to rely on oral tradition.

God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow.

It's foolish to say that because it's not recorded in the Bible doesn't mean it didn't happen.

I guess you didn't really read Cotton's answer

He did not say anything remotely to what you are saying that the Church had its beginnings under Constantine.

 

If you have 30 plus yers of studying the Bible is it so hard for you to comprehend that Cain married one of his sisters. Adam lived to be 930 years. Do you know how many children he could have had in that time. The verse says that after he had begotten Seth (which wasn't his first son, and no mention of how many daughters were born before this time), he lived 800 more years. He was 130 years old when Seth was born. All the children of Adam are not mentioned. Only some of them. People living to the age of 900 plus can beget a lot of children. He married his sister. Civilization had to start somewhere. Does this bother you? Does it bother you that Abraham married Sarah, his half-sister.
Incest, as we know it today, was not condemned until 2,000 years later when God gave Moses the Law on Mt. Sinai. Does this answer your question.

Before the Bible was complete the early Christians had the Old Testament, and as you say they had some of the epistles. Even with just the Old Testament they had the Scriptures. What do you think happened at Berea:

Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

They searched the Scripturess to verify the gospel message that Paul was preaching was true. What Scriptures. The Old Testament Scriptures of course. What was the result:

Acts 17:12 Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few.

This is not Oral Tradition. This is the Word of God. Paul did not preach Oral Tradition. He preached the Word of God that he received from the Lord.

1 Corinthians 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

The writer of the Book of Hebrews says:
Hebrews 2:3-4 How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him;
4 God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?

The epistles were written by the Apostles who had seen and heard the Lord, and were eyewitnesses of Him. This is not Oral Traditon.

1 John 1:1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;

As each epistle was written it came into the hands of the early believers and was recognized as Scripture. Peter recognized the writings of Paul as Scripture (2Peter 3:15). Peter also recognizes the writings of the other apostles as having as much weight and authority as the prophets of the Old Testament.
2 Peter 3:2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:

Actually he did. "Christianity" did not become a state church until Constantine legalized it, and made it a state church, thus forming the Catholic Church. What he did is paganize Christianity, and Christianize pagans. That is what the Catholic Church is today. They still have their pagan idols that Constantine introduced. They still commit idolatry. They still pray to the dead. They still have many of the pagan concepts that Constantine introduced into Christianity when he made it a state church. That is when and where the Roman Catholic Church began.
DHK

 

DKH,
I want to make sure that I am not taking your words out of context....
Are you saying that there wasn't a Church until Constantine made one?

 

There was no such thing as a "state church" until the time of Constantine. The word "church" in the Bible is "ekklesia" in the Greek, which simply means congregation or assembly. Paul went on three missionary journeys and established over 100 churches; not denominations, but churches. Jesus wrote to seven churches in the Book of Revelation. It is evident that Jesus planned to have many churches, not just one. The one that he spoke of in Matthew 16 would be a model of all others. It would be built upon the solid rock of Christ Himself, which every Bible believing church is.

1 Corinthians 3:11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
DHK

 

I don't offer opinion. That is what you just gave. I give you the facts contained in the Word of God.

Hebrews 1:1-2 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

Hebrews 1:1 says that God spoke in the Old Testament at different times, in various ways by the prophets, not through Oral Tradition.

Verse 2 declares that in these days He speaks to us through His Son, Jesus Christ--who is revealed to us through His Word.

The fifteen stations of the cross, that you bow down in front of and pray before is idolatry. The Bible specifically says in the Ten Commandments that you shall not make any graven image, and shall not bow down before them. This is idolatry. The Catholic Church has images or icons all throughout their churches which they kneel before, and which they pray before. That is idolatry. Any Bible dictionary will define worship as a bowing down before God. You are bowing down before an idol.
DHK

 

Peace of Christ to you DKH.

What do you say to this? Formation of Catholic Church

The word "catholic" means universal. Jesus created one universal church for all of mankind. The Catholic Church was established by Jesus with his words spoken in Matthew 16. Jesus asked his disciples "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?" The disciples then offered various answers - "Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets." But the question that Jesus then asked was crucial: "But who do you say that I am?"

The answer provided by Simon Peter set in motion the formation of the Catholic Church by Jesus. "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God." With this answer, Jesus established the Catholic Church with Simon Peter designated the first Pope.

"Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

OR From Constantine: Founder of the Catholic Church?

As for all those “pagan practices” Constantine supposedly introduced...



The Sign of the Cross was found in the ruins of Pompeii in a house chapel. Pompeii was destroyed in AD 79, LONG time before Constantine, nearly 300 years in fact. Also: At the beginning of the 20th Century, a graveyard of Jewish-Christians was found on the Mount of Olives by archeologist P. Bagatti, dating from the First Century after Christ. FIRST Century, that would be from around AD 33 – AD 100, when the Apostles and those who knew Jesus were still alive. On the ossuaries of the departed were found typical Jewish names of the time and (ready for a shock?) many were marked with the Sign of the Cross, or the Chi Rho (monogram of Christ in Greek), and with the Greek monogram IXB (which means, “Jesus Christ Helper”). And here’s the BIG shock: ossuaries were found in a First Century family crypt with the names “Maryam”, “Martha”, and “Eleazar” written on them and signed with the cross. Oh, by the way, those names translate to Mary, Martha, and Lazarus.

But folks not only used the Sign of the Cross marked on things (such as ossuaries and graves), they also made the Sign on their bodies. Tertullian, an early Christian theologian born around AD 160, tells us that, as Christians, “before all we do, we make the Sign of the Cross upon our foreheads.” And he tells us it is a custom coming from the Apostles’ own day (which, for him, was only 50 years before!).

 

I thought my post covered the topinc quite well, but I'm sorry you didn't. You also seem to be willingly overlooking the distinct difference of the Assumption of Christ and of Mary. Christ assumed into heaven under His own power, Mary did not. She was assumed through divine intervention much in the same way as Elijah. Therefore, Mary did not assume into heaven on the same level that Christ did.
</font>[/QUOTE]You are not following the point. The RCC does not HAVE the witness reports for Mary's assumption that the Bible gives for Christs. They have to use "something else".

They use "an argument" and that argument is NOT "well what if we like to think of Mary as assumed into heaven - after all Moses was".

RATHER they argue "Mary was sinless like Christ THEREFORE She had to be assumed into heaven" and they use the argument of Acts 2 that is applied to Christ - as the "reason" that Mary ought to have been assumed.

See?

Catholic Digest – Fr Ken Ryan Answers:
Fr Ryan: Yes, at least partly. The Grace of a happy death should be among the intentions of all who recite the Fourth Glorious Mystery because the "Mystery", or the subject of meditation, is the belief that the Blessed Mother, after her death, was taken up body and soul into Heaven without experiencing the natural corruption of the dead body. A "happy death" is one which the expectation of the resurrection is present: an "unhappy death" would be one in which there is expectation only of relief from pain or escape from sorrow. The Blessed Mother must have known that her entry into heaven was imminent and that expectation was certain to bring the happiness we Pray for when we Pray the Fourth Glorious Mystery.

But there is, of course, far more to the Assumption than hope and Prayer for a happy death. Mary was Free from sin (immaculate conception), including Original Sin and so escaped one of the penalties for that sin: Corruption of the dead body. Death itself, also a penalty for Original Sin, was accepted by her so that she would be like her divine Son. The Assumption of Mary is an echo of the Resurrection of Christ.

It is a kind of Divine Pledge to humankind that bodily entry to Heaven is possible for one who is only a human being, not only for the God-human, Christ. It is Conceivable only with the Resurrection of Christ as a background, not as an isolated honor given by the Church to it's greatest saint, Mary.

The Assumption was not declared an article of the Catholic Faith until 1950, ALTHOUGH it was celebrated as a feast as early as the 7th century. It is not, in so many words, found in the bible, BUT is founded on inescapable logic, if one first accepts the truths of the Scriptures, for instance, it was absolutely necessary that the Mother of God should be without Sin, which came along with being a member of the human race, If she was without original Sin, she was free from the penalties of Sin, in the case of Original Sin from death and corruption of the body. The whole purpose of every human life should be to become "Like Christ". Mary became more "Like Christ" by her Assumption. The quotation from the book of Revelation shows, as applied, the glory of Mary, but is not part of the basis of the doctrine of the Assumption.&gt;&gt;

</font>[/QUOTE]In Christ,

Bob

 

Clearly the 1950 doctrine is argued FROM The basis of the heresy that Mary was like Christ - born sinless and living a sinless life.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Why? Does the Nicene Creed have any more credence than Fortran IV? Neither one will prove that RCC is founded on Christ. The RCC is not a Christian Church, never has been a Christian, and never will be. A Christian church is one that preaches the gospel; the RCC does not.
A Christian church believes that Christ died for their sins; the RCC does not--thus the belief in purgatory.

And I guess we don't have to. You presume upon yourself too much. We don't have any crosses in our church, and would never have them. None of our people would ever wear a cross as a piece of jewelry. 50 years ago you would never find a cross on a Protestant church--a steeple maybe, but not a cross. A cross is a Catholic symbol; not a Christian symbol. If Christianity has a symbol it is the empty tomb, not the cross. We serve a risen Saviour; not a dead Christ!!

Concerning kneeling, did it not ever occur to you that kneeling is a posture that we take when praying to God. "Kneeling in prayer to God" The difference is that we don't kneel in front of a statue, an idol like Mary, etc. Unlike the RCC, we do not commit idolatry.

That is exactly what idolatry is. The visualization of the god that is behind the idol. When a Hindu bows down before one of its many gods, he is not worshipping the actual piece of wood or metal, but rather the "god" or demon that it represents--its visualization as you say. You do the same thing with Mary. It is pure idolatry.

Catholics like to force a different meaning of tradition into this word than that which the context would have it mean.
A Catholic encyclopedia tells us that tradition is oral or written teaching that is handed down from generation to generation throughout the centuries.
(That's the concise version). But the important thing to note that it is teaching that is handed down from generations throughout the centuries. Now tell me? How many centuries had passed from the death of Christ til the time that Paul wrote that statement to Timothy. Christ died 29 A.D. 2Thessalonians was written no later than 53 A.D. How much tradition, in the classic definition of the word--the way that Catholics define it--took place in the 24 years between the death of Christ and the time of the writing of that epistle. Your argument holds no water. The word "tradition" simply refers to the teaching--teaching from the Word of God--that Paul had given Timothy. There was no tradition in the sense that you define it. What kind of tradition can accrue in 24 years??
DHK

 

It is not what the Nicene Creed says necessarily; it is what it doesn't say. 93% of Americans say they believe in God; that doesn't make them all Christians does it?
BTW, when I made that post it was not made out of anger. I was stating my convictions. I will state this again: I do not believe that a person being both knowledgeable about the gospel and their Catholic doctrine, can be a Catholic and a true Christian (born again) at the same time. It is impossible. It is like trying to be a Muslim and a Christian at the same time. It can't be done. You have to choose one or the other. You can't be both.
The difference of "faith alone" is one of the most important differences there is. Unless you come to that realization in salvation you cannot be saved. A man is not saved by works (Eph.2:8,9). He is saved by faith alone. Until you accept that truth you cannot and will not be a Christian, for your salvation will be resting on works which God says are as filthy rags (Isa.64:6), and he does not accept them. Salvation is by faith alone. That is what a Christian believes. Every religion of the world, Cathoicism included, bases their relgion on works. Biblical Christianity alone bases their faith on a personal relationship with Christ which comes by faith alone in the sacrifice of Christ.

I am not uninformed. I was in the Catholic Church for 20 years and never heard the gospel message once. The RCC does not preach the gospel. It preaches another gospel--as Paul says a gospel by which one is accursed. It is a gospel of works; not of grace and faith. It is a gospel born out of the heresy of baptismal regeneration--not taught in the Bible.

No lies--just the truth. Because I don't speak the gospel according to frozencell or according to the RCC you are angry. But as I explained before, I have one standard, and one standard only--the Word of God. Defend yourself with the Bible, and the Bible only. I have had an outstanding challenge to my relatives here and to those in our community: "Show to me from the Bible that the Catholic religion is the true religion, and I will become a Catholic; but if I can show you from the Bible what I believe is true, then you change your faith." I have never had anyone accept my challenge.

Like I said, it is not what the Nicene Creed says; it is what it does not say that is important.
If Catholics truly believed that Christ died for their sins, then they would not believe in purgatory where they go and must pay the penalty of the same sin themselves. Christ already suffered for our sins. So what is the purpose of purgatory? It is redundant, if not downright cruel. What a cruel God the Catholics believe in. What an insult to spit in the face of Christ. Christ pays the penalty for your sin with His own blood, and you insult Him by saying:
"Nope Christ, that's not good enough for me; I have to do my own suffering, I have to purge myself of my own sins in my own purgatory. Your blood just isn't sufficient for me. When you said "It is finished" (John 19:30), Lord, you lied. And that's why we have purgatory Lord, because you lied to us."
You don't believe that Christ died for your sins, because you believe that you have to be baptized for you to be saved. The blood of Christ isn't sufficient to atone for your sins. You think that you need to wash those sins away with the magical waters of baptism!! Such superstion! This is not Christianity; it is more like Hinduism. Add in all the Hindu-like statues that you worship and it is very similar to Hinduism, not Christianity. The blood of Christ isn't good enough for the Catholic; he must trust in the waters of baptism as well, even though the Bible says that the blood of Christ washes away all our sin.

Yes I will agree that most evangelical and even Baptist churches now put up crosses. But note what I said. Protestant churches of about 50 years ago never did. Things gradually change over time. Jesus said: When I come shall I find faith on the earth?

And we both agree that the cross is a Catholic symbol. But the Catholic church is not a Christian church, because (as explained already) it does not preach a Christian gospel. It wasn't the first "church." The church at Jerusalem was the first church, of which James was the pastor. It was far more Baptistic in nature than Catholic. From the Bible alone, we can show you Baptist doctrine that the early churches (in the Bible) practiced. But you can't do the same with the Catholic church. Your definition of "church" isn't even found in the Bible. There is no "Catholic Church" in the Bible, nor even the very concept of one. It is a man-made concept, as is most of your doctrines.

Is it simply a sign of respect? Look closely at a small part of a definition of "worship" taken from the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia:

As you can see, the eastern form of kneeling, or (prostrating oneself) is very much a part of worship. It is even part of the very definition of the word. When one worshipped, the bowed down or kneeled in front of, or prostrated themselves, depending on the culture. In our culture we kneel; in the Muslim culture they prostrate themselves to the ground. You kneel before Mary; you pray to Mary; you commit idolatry. Don't fool yourself--you can't fool God, and you can't fool others.

"I never said visualization, you did." Alright, let's take a look at what you did say:

ERROR #1. "No one is bowing before anyone but God." This is a lie, an untruth. You bow down before the stations of the cross. You bow down before an image of Christ (the crucifix). You bow down before images of Mary. You say the rosary. You pray directly to Mary by saying the "Hail Mary." Kneeling before Mary, praying to Mary, is the ultimate form of both idolatry and necromancy--praying to the dead.

ERROR #2. "The stations of the cross are visuals."
Yes, they are. Every statue, every icon is a visual, a visualization of what you are praying to. If you were just praying to God, you wouldn't need a "visual."
John 4:24--God is spirit, they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

If therefore, you are worshipping God in spirit and in truth you would never need a visual. But you are not worshipping God; you are worshipping idols--idols of Mary, Joseph, various saints, and even an idol of Christ. Idolatry is wrong. You need to study the Ten Commandments.

That Thomas went to India as a missionary is a tradition--probably true.
That Peter was in Rome in 45 A.D. (according to the link that Living4Him gave) is someone's tradition, but it is definitely false.
Tradition is knowledge passed on throughout centuries--may be true or not.

What Paul taught Timothy was knowledge from the Word of God. It was truth. It was not tradition in the sense that you are defining it. It was the tradition or truth of the Word of God. There was no tradition within 24 years to be passed on. Your logic at this point is ridiculous. Even the Catholic definition of tradition requires generations throughout centuries of time to develop. So why are you trying to invent your own definition??

Here you are wrong again. I couldn't be any happier. I have a relationship with Jesus Christ. I don't have religion; I have a relationship. That is the difference. I fear that you are making the accusations that you do (or just did) because you don't and you realize that the things I say about the Catholic Church are true. Remeber that I was there for a long time. I know what it was like.
My proof is in the Bible. "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved."
The Catholic doctrines, one by one, can be refuted by the Bible, and have been.
What kind of proof are you looking for? And proof for what? I pray that your eyes will be opened to the errors of Catholicism that lead so many astray from Christ.
DHK