Catholicism = Christianity?

[helluin]

Wow. This question just comes down to "YOUR interpretation of the Bible contradicts ours, therefore, by our definition, you aren't Christian."

Catholicism was the only form of Christianity for well over a thousand years. It was the Christian church founded by Christ's followers who wrote and compiled the books of the Bible and created a religion based on them.

The word "catholic" only came about when some members of Catholicism decided in the late Middle Ages that they didn't agree with the expression of their religion by the Catholic Church in those times, and Protestants wanted to worship differently and emphasize different things. In short, they saw different parts of the Bible and Christ's teachings as more important than other parts. BOTH Protestantism AND Catholicism were based on and rooted in the Bible and in belief in Christ.

However, Protestantism can't claim to be THE Christianity. It is one version. Catholicism is another. Eastern Orthodox is a third. Coptic is a fourth.

All of these Christianities arose because the many texts and oral histories about Jesus' life and death were not written down and organized into a body for the first few hundred years of the Christian era. The Catholic church eventually decided which four Gospels would be included in the New Testament at the Council of Nicea -- remember? -- before that, there were many gospels, and no one way to be Christian save to try to remember what Jesus said and put it into practice.

To say that Catholicism, which has provided the final form of the Bible to which Protestants adhere so closely, and most of the structures and principles of their religion, is not Christian, is hopelessly arrogant -- it's a bit like whites saying that blacks are not human. No, it means that Catholics are not Protestant.

As a scholar who's worked on early Christian writings and who has been exposed to the many, many different manuscripts and writings that existed in the first couple hundred years of the Christian era -- there was a time when the so-called Apocrypha weren't hidden, and other Gospels like Thomas were just as widely-accepted by early Christians as Mark, Matthew, Luke and John -- it frustrates me to see Christians denying the heritage and origin of their own religion and sacred texts. Come on, folks. It's your religion. Get more informed about it.

[Plastik Assassin]

Right on.

Helluin just owned this thread....

About time someone spoke the truth.... In my eyes atleast.

[maxpower]

That Helluin does seem to be right on the $money$. Go Helluin your #1! It does seem that many religions often argue on doctrine but when it comes right down to it Christians all believe in Christ and should try to leave by his teachings. If you are trying to do the best you can do with what ever you believe that seems to be all that anyone can do. So I would say if your Buddhist be the best Buddhist you can be, if your a Satanist be the best Satanist you can be, and if your Christian lets just love everyone because that seems to be the nice thing to do. Besides if your Christian shouldn't you want to see other denominations profess to be Christian also?

[TomStrife]

You guys are spamming.

There ARE Christians who are Catholics and we have our similarities, but we do not share the same beliefs of how to get to get to Heaven which is sort of "key".

I believe there are born again Christians that are part of the Catholic denomination and there are Catholics that are part of the Christian denomination but the two religions have enough differences to be classifed as "different." We have different beliefs and same beliefs.

[Sasquatch]

Originally Posted by maxpower

I would like to argue the idea that Mormonism is not Christianity! If you look at the definition of Christianity "The Christian religion, founded on the life and teachings of Jesus."

When was Jesus in Utah?

The Church of Jesus Christ of latter day saints or the Mormons would seem to fit this definition. They follow all the teachings in the bible, and believe in Jesus Christ.

If they followed the Bible, there would be no debate here. But since they don't, the question is raised whether they could be considered Christian or not. We've already seen at least two specific nonBiblical beliefs Mormonism holds, just in this thread.

I am also wondering if someone can send me the scripture which says plainly that Jesus and the Lucifer were not brothers?

Men are not angels, and angels are not men. Lucifer was cast out of Heaven before the Fall of Man, and Jesus was born about two thousand years ago. That's quite an age difference. (EDIT: Jesus wasn't in Heaven before that, either. He was created on Earth -- before two thousand years ago, there wasn't a Jesus, and before His ascension into Heaven after His crucifiction and resurrection, there was no Holy Spirit.) If they were "brothers", they are no more "brothers" than you and I are "brothers".

By the way, just because there is no verse that says "Jesus and Lucifer were not brothers, so quit arguing about it" doesn't mean they were brothers. If you assume something's true simply because it isn't disproven, you'd be pretty gullible. For example, did you know that Jesus was seven feet tall with pasty white skin and bright orange hair? It doesn't say he didn't look like that in the Bible, so it must be true, right?

Originally Posted by helluin

Wow. This question just comes down to "YOUR interpretation of the Bible contradicts ours, therefore, by our definition, you aren't Christian."

Actually, it's more like "YOUR manipulations of the Bible, including additions and subtractions, have polluted your denomination's teachings to the extreme of not even adhering to Biblical Christianity any longer. Therefore, by the definition of Christianity and according to the Bible, you aren't Christian."

To say that Catholicism, which has provided the final form of the Bible to which Protestants adhere so closely, and most of the structures and principles of their religion, is not Christian, is hopelessly arrogant -- it's a bit like whites saying that blacks are not human. No, it means that Catholics are not Protestant.

It would be more like people saying that monkeys are not human. Sure, they have some similarities, and they might work close to the same way, but upon examination, they are very different. Conratulations, Catholicism. You were very important in the formation of our religion. But now, you've outlived your usefullness and strayed severely from your original course.

Originally Posted by maxpower

Besides if your Christian shouldn't you want to see other denominations profess to be Christian also?

I would like to see other people become Christian. But no, I would rather not have every religion claiming a part of Christianity, as it clouds true Biblical Christianity. Just like how I wouldn't want my entire town claiming that they're part of the Abbott family.

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

So...well? Is Catholicism merely a denomination of Christianity, or is it an entirely seperate religion?

I believe it's a seperate religion. Yes, it has some similarities to Christianity, but it's branched way too far off. It is as much Christianity as Mormonism and Jehova's Witnesses are Christianity (which, by the way, they're not). There are myriads of differences between Catholicism and Christianity -- the manipulations and misinterpretations of the Bible, along with additions to and subtractions from the Bible contradict Christianity. Non-Biblical beliefs concerning salvation, behavior, redemption, forgiveness, the afterlife, and many other subjects set it apart from any type of Christianity.

Yes i also agree that they are Completely Different Religions, well not Completely but they are Different. I believe you have covered the rest of which i was going to say. Nice One.

[maxpower]

Hey Sasquatch, I don't understand your argument “when was Jesus in Utah?” If we are making Christianity only available in places that Jesus visited wouldn't that make the Jewish religion Christianity? Also you keep saying that Mormons don't follow the Bible. I could argue that the way the Christians voted to believe does not always follow the Bible. For example the idea of the Trinity says that God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost are one being, yet does it not say that at Jesus’ baptism he heard God's voice and saw the Holy Ghost? If God is Jesus and the Holy Ghost, is it not strange that he heard himself and saw himself? He also prayed to the father while he was on the cross why did he do this? Or how about John 16:27. Right here you can say yeah but he is God he can do those things and I would say "well God can do anything why can't he be Lucifer's Brother (it's hard to prove that he is or is not with Lucifer only mentioned twice in the Bible.) Also if you think Christians always believed the way they believe now you are very mistaken try looking up the Trinity in Wikipedia, or the First Council of Nicaea. I will agree that in 325 AD the Roman Emperor Constantine brought together some priests and they voted on what the church should believe and that became the definition of Christianity. Still it seems ridiculous to say that since some people voted 300 years after the birth of Christ on what the Bible means that anyone else who reads the Bible differently is not Christian. But if it is true that only people who believe this way I guess the church that they were from “the Church of Alexandria.” Still even the priests at this convention were brought together because they had arguments over what the Bible meant, if they had different interpretations of the Bible but were still all considered Christian why can’t people today still have different interpretations and be considered Christian?

Also are we not brothers? Acts17:24-29 seems to say that God created us all so that would make you and I brothers. It also says we are Gods children in Deut 14:1, Psalms 82:6, Hosea 1:10,Romans 8:16, etc. Also if Christ wasn’t alive before his birth why does John 6:62 talk about Jesus returning to where he was before? Or John 8:58 which says he lived before Abraham or John 17: 5 where he had glory before the world was? I think you get the point.

Finally I would like you to show me the definition of Christians in the Bible I can’t find it. I don’t believe it involves trying to distance other groups that are interested in worshiping Christ. I agree that these are different religions Catholic is Catholic, Baptist is Baptist, LDS is LDS and Rastifarian is Rastifarian but they are all Christian. If you feel that your church is the only Christian church because you believe in Christ a certain way that seems very un-Christ like.

I am not trying to argue and I don’t want you to feel like I feel that any church is wrong. I just feel that if people are trying to live the best that they can then it should not matter how they believe in Christ. Did he not teach that the tow greatest commandments were to love God and love our neighbor? It seems like this should be the most important aspect of Christianity. If we can love God and our neighbor and try to live so that we express this love then we are at least following Gods greatest commandments.

[TomStrife]

I am not a mod but I do suggest that you space out your paragraphs.

And that was a good point you made about Catholics being just as similar to Christians as Jews, Sasquatch.

[Sasquatch]

Originally Posted by maxpower

Hey Sasquatch, I don't understand your argument “when was Jesus in Utah?” If we are making Christianity only available in places that Jesus visited wouldn't that make the Jewish religion Christianity?

You claimed that Mormonism was Christianity because it was founded on the life and teachings of Jesus. It wasn't. It was founded on the teachings of Joseph Smith. Maybe he only added to the Bible to form his religion, but you can't add to a religion by defying the religion. Joseph Smith never saw Jesus, never met Jesus, never lived within nearly two thousand years or ten thousand miles of where Jesus ever was.

For example the idea of the Trinity says that God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost are one being, yet does it not say that at Jesus’ baptism he heard God's voice and saw the Holy Ghost? If God is Jesus and the Holy Ghost, is it not strange that he heard himself and saw himself? He also prayed to the father while he was on the cross why did he do this?

Three in one. One Trinity. Not three seperate powers, but one power in three forms. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. God makes the decisions. Jesus is the middle-man so we can talk to God. And the Holy Spirit, you could say, is the middle-man so that God can talk to us. Most people call the Holy Spirit their "conscience".

Or how about John 16:27.

John 16:27. For the Father Himself loveth you, because you have loved me, and have believed that I came out from God.

How about it? What's your point?

Right here you can say yeah but he is God he can do those things and I would say "well God can do anything why can't he be Lucifer's Brother (it's hard to prove that he is or is not with Lucifer only mentioned twice in the Bible.)

Please, please don't try this. If you're going to get into the "if God can do anything why can't he do this", you might as well start with the "can God make a burrito so hot not even He can eat it?", and I'm sure we all grew out of that around second grade.

Still even the priests at this convention were brought together because they had arguments over what the Bible meant, if they had different interpretations of the Bible but were still all considered Christian why can’t people today still have different interpretations and be considered Christian?

A "different interpretation" is fine. That's what we have denominations for. Manipulations and additions, though, seperate a "denomination" into an entirely seperate religion. Hence Mormon, Catholic, etc.

Also if Christ wasn’t alive before his birth why does John 6:62 talk about Jesus returning to where he was before? Or John 8:58 which says he lived before Abraham or John 17: 5 where he had glory before the world was? I think you get the point.

John 6:62 refers to Jesus ascending into Heaven. John 8:58 mentions I Am, which was a name God told Moses (I believe) to refer to Him by -- and says that I Am was before Abraham, meaning God has been around forever -- and since Jesus is God, well, you get the picture. And John 17:5 talks about the glory Jesus had when he was with God -- meaning, not seperated from God -- before the world was.

I don’t believe it involves trying to distance other groups that are interested in worshiping Christ.

Again. They may be interested in worshipping Christ, and that's great. Should that be the case, they will not be shunned by any Christian church. In Catholicism, Mormonism, or even Islam, Judaism, or any other religion, they are distancing themselves from Christianity.

[maxpower]

I see that arguing is really going nowhere (I get the feeling that this is the Sasquatch belongs to the Christian church and all the rest of you don't post.) I would continue arguing your interpretation of the Bible but I am afraid that we could spend many pages on the topic, I also feel like my arguing Mormon doctrine vs. your doctrine is not really what this post is about. Still perhaps the best thing about Christianity is that when you believe in Jesus you don't need someone else to tell you that you’re a Christian. So why argue more when all this post seems to be saying is that the Bible must be interpreted a certain way for you to be a Christian, (I believe the scribes at Jesus’ time said the same thing about their interpretations of the OT.) Still it just coming down to your interpretation the Bible (isn’t that why the Bible was originally maintained by only a select few, so that they could give the masses their interpretations of the Bible without anyone believing anything they didn’t believe). I can't even really argue against you because while I am quoting the Bible to back up my assertions all you do is say that is not right it's this way (why use the Bible to back things up when you can just say your wrong this is how it is, right?)

Still, even though I’m not Catholic, I would like to thank the Catholic Church because who knows if the Christian belief would have survived the dark ages without it. Perhaps we could argue whether or not Christians would still exist without the Catholic Church being the official church of the state.

I will say though that it is nice to see someone that defends their religion so vigorously (I would love to continue this conversation over PM if you are interested Sasquatch, but I really did not come to this forum to make people mad or attack your beliefs.) But if you are interested please visit my van I’ll buy you a coke, and we can talk religion. I would like to say that I have read the Bible and Book of Mormon multiple times and taken various religion classes pertaining to both (from multiple church denominations.)

I would like too say one more time that I really did not want to attack anyone’s religion and if you feel like I did please PM and I will erase what I wrote. I would much rather see someone else believe in some higher being (who ever or whatever that is) then go through life not believing in anything.

PS what churches do you consider to be Christian church’s?

[Jof]

Christ, How has this ever got to 3 pages, i must admit i only read the first paragraph of the first post but...*shakes head*

I'll clear it up right now, Christianity is a group of people who believe in Christ, the factions in Christianity are all still members, HIgher/Lower CoE/Anglican/orthodox/catholics/baptists etc ALL are members of christianity, Christianity isn't so much a religion as a belief if you follow, It is the belief in God, Jesus, etc. Catholocism has certain differences from other religion such as...

=>Eucharist is the main focus of mass whilst other denominations such as quakers do not have the host.
=>The alter is the focus of the Church whilst in other denominations (CoE i think) It is the Lecturn or wherever the Sermon is directed from.

Those are just two there are many but...Well time is ticking.

Thanks

[Malevolence]

I'm just going to put a few things out there. Sasquatch said that Jesus was quoted in saying that people can find salvation by believing in Him. The capitalized "Him" indcates that Jesus was referring to God, not to himself in second/third person. Jesus never claimed that he was the son of God, the messiah, moshiach, or as far as I've been told, any other type fo saviour other than in the texts written by a group of people that were nigh-fanatically devoted to him. This sounds harsh, but when you realize that, as stated before, these texts were written after Jesus death by about 20 to 30 years, and by people who didn't even witness the events described, you can't take them into account. As well, parts of the New Testament have been removed, and placed int he annals of Christianity and called the "Apocryphal Books," or basically, "Books we don't want you to read because they contradict what we keep telling you, or say things we don't even understand." In fact, the book of Revelation was an Apocryphal book as ruled by the Papacy up until the mid 16th century during the Great Awakening in Europe.

Now, on to the contradictions between the first 9/10ths of the Bible and the last skinny bit. Jesus said, as stated before, that a person must find God within oneself, instead of through the established religion - at that time, either Roman paganism or the Jewish Religion based around the Second Temple and the harsh rabbinical Kohain caste (yes, up until 70 CE and the destruction of the Second Temple, there was a caste system in Judaism). The issue was that religion was too organized and rigid, and was, in fact, not religion anymore. Jesus said too much effort was put into the rituals, and not enough into the meaning. Ironically, it's the same argument as the "Put Christ back in Christmas" slogans of the late 90's and today.

I must conclude with a point I've been making a lot recently, and that's the fact that the most recent incarnation of Judaism - Reform or Progressive Judaism, emphasizes the same points that Jesus was making - use religion as a base, then do what you want to do on your own so that you can personally feel closer to God. This could mean one of two things: 1) Jesus was the first Reform Jew, or 2) The Jewish religion is finally catching on. Oh sure, there are still Chasidim (the ones with the silly hats and pais, the twirly temple curls) and Orthodox Jews, but for the most part, Progressivism is catching on.

What then, does this mean for Catholocism? What this means is that a gigantic established religion with rituals, prayers, multiple sources of salvation/prayer targets is exactly what Jesus didn't want. This was the point of Martin Luther's 95 Theses, a mentioned before. They all kept saying the same thing - still worship as a community, but be as un-established as possible so as to find your own path to salvation.

"But what does it all mean?" you ask. It means that the plurality religion in the world not majority, as it is not more than 50%, and neither is Islam), needs to re-examine iself, and do some shaping up.