Catholicism vs. Christianity?

I figured that a good debate would be to see what you guys think about Catholicism being Christianity. Some people think that the Catholic church is just paganism, some think it the most prestegious religion in the world.

Here's what I want to know:

Why doesn't the bible mention "holy water"?
Where in the bible say that you have to pray to Mary, not God?
Where in the bible does it mention purgatory?
Why, when seeing the failures of the Pharasees in Jeruselum throughout the bible due to having a spiritual hiarchy, did the Catholic church develop a chain of command?
Why are patron saints required, instead of Jesus?
Why do the popes continually create new rules and regulations regarding religous practices?
Why do you have to confess to a priest, and not God?
Why do you have to repeat "Hail Mary" rather than "Hail Jesus"?
Where in the bible does it say that priests must be force to live in poverty?
Why are monks even needed when thousands are studying religion in universities and colleges?
Why do priests and officials have to be virgins, even if they only had relations with thier spouse?

I feel that one of the biggest differences between Catholicism and the pre-2nd/3rd century Christianity (that which I follow, thanks be to God) is that Catholicism places great emphasis on Tradition and downplays the importance of the canonized (basically, authorized early on by those who were suited to do so) Word of God.

The problem with this is that Jesus has warned us to not teach as doctrine the traditions of men (which was a problem far before Jesus' time, even, and continues to be in Catholic and non-Catholic denominations alike).

As it is written, "And in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrine the commandments of men." (Isaiah and Jesus, Book of Isaiah and Gospel according to Matthew)

There are hundreds of other aspects which are historically and Biblically addressed, but that is the main one, I feel.

Originally Posted by DarkFire360

I figured that a good debate would be to see what you guys think about Catholicism being Christianity. Some people think that the Catholic church is just paganism, some think it the most prestegious religion in the world.

In fact, it is not a very good debate. What if I made a thread "Protestantism vs. Christianity?:

Why doesn't the bible mention "holy water"?

Where does the bible mention the word "Trinity?" (For that matter, why does it matter whether the bible explicitly mentions it?)

Where in the bible say that you have to pray to Mary, not God?

Why are patron saints required, instead of Jesus?

Whoever made it an either/or situation? As for prayer, the saints are certainly aware of us and our prayers. In Revelation 5:8 depicts the saints offering prayers to God "gold bowls filled with incense, which are the prayers of the holy ones. "

"First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way. This is good, and pleasing to God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim. 2:1–4)

Paul asks for prayers many times in his writings.

Or one of my favorites:
James 5:16-18

...the fervent prayer of a righteous person is very powerful. 17 Elijah was a human being like us; yet he prayed earnestly that it might not rain, and for three years and six months it did not rain upon the land. 18Then he prayed again, and the sky gave rain and the earth produced its fruit.

If we can pray to the saints... and they are in heaven, and thus undeniably righteous people, why not do it? After all, the fervent prayer of a rightous person is very powerful. And who is more righteous than Mary, who was graced to be the Ark of the Covenant in the New Testament, carrying our God? The lady for whom Jesus willingly performed a miracle at Cana at her asking (John 2). But whatever it is, don't think of it as either/or, it's not! No Catholic neglects praying to God.

Where in the bible does it mention purgatory?

Explicitly in 2 Maccabees. But, eh, read this:

Christ refers to the sinner who "will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come" (Matt. 12:32), suggesting that one can be freed after death of the consequences of one’s sins. Similarly, Paul tells us that, when we are judged, each man’s work will be tried. And what happens if a righteous man’s work fails the test? "He will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire" (1 Cor 3:15). Now this loss, this penalty, can’t refer to consignment to hell, since no one is saved there; and heaven can’t be meant, since there is no suffering ("fire") there. The Catholic doctrine of purgatory alone explains this passage.

Then, of course, there is the Bible’s approval of prayers for the dead: "In doing this he acted in a very excellent and noble way, inasmuch as he had the resurrection of the dead in view; for if he were not expecting the dead to rise again, it would have been useless and foolish to pray for them in death. But if he did this with a view to the splendid reward that awaits those who had gone to rest in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Thus he made atonement for the dead that they might be freed from this sin" (2 Macc. 12:43–45). Prayers are not needed by those in heaven, and no one can help those in hell. That means some people must be in a third condition, at least temporarily.

Why, when seeing the failures of the Pharasees in Jeruselum throughout the bible due to having a spiritual hiarchy, did the Catholic church develop a chain of command?

Remember everything he says about the Pharisees?
Matt 23:2-3

2 ...The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses.
3 Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you,

In other words, authority given is authority given. You still have to listen to them, they occupy the seat of Moses.

As for authority given...

Matthew 16: 17-19.

17Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.18 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. 19 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."

Jesus establishes a Church. The Church has Apostles. It also has an Apostle that is a leader. This is a heirarchy. (Also note that the early Church had bishops, i.e., James the Just who was stoned to death.) (Cross reference this verse with Isaiah 22:22 where we see the keys given as a symbol of authority to Eliakim.) And remember... you do not put a light under a bushel...

Why do the popes continually create new rules and regulations regarding religous practices?

Typically Church Councils create new rules and regulations. Disciplines are just that, rules and regulations. They are done to ensure uniformity and validity of practice. Would you prefer if anything was allowed?

Why do you have to confess to a priest, and not God?

"Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matt. 18:18).

‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained’" (John 20:21–23)

And of course, how could anyone know what to sins to retain or forgive... if they weren't being told.

I'm not sure how well this fits in, but, James 5:16

Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed.

Why do you have to repeat "Hail Mary" rather than "Hail Jesus"?

Where in the Bible does it say, "Hail Jesus?"
Luke 1:28

And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

1:42. And she cried out with a loud voice and said: Blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.

The rest should be pretty obvious. The prayer to saints bit was covered up earlier.

Hail Mary, full of grace, the lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of my womb Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our deaths. Amen.

Where in the bible does it say that priests must be force to live in poverty?

Where does the Catholic Church say that priests must be forced to live in poverty? (Let's forget the parable of the rich man who Jesus tells to sell everything, for just a moment.) The Church doesn't. Diocesan priests are not required to take a vow of poverty. (Religious priests, i.e., those of religious orders [Franciscans], most likely are.)

Why do priests and officials have to be virgins, even if they only had relations with thier spouse?

There is nothing that says priests must be virgins... however they are expected to be celibate. First off, priests in the Eastern Catholic rites are not required to be celibate as they are permitted to marry. Priests in the Latin rite of the Catholic Church are expected to be celibate.

Our Lord does say that celibacy can be good for some:

"For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can." Matthew 19:12

And Paul in 1 Corinthians 7 first talks about a husband's duty to his wife, and then talks about his status:

This I say by way of concession, however, not as a command.7Indeed, I wish everyone to be as I am, but each has a particular gift from God, 5 one of one kind and one of another

Do not forget the love that Jesus showed to John, the beloved disciple, who himself remained celibate. Jesus, Paul and John. Not bad company to be in. But a good point about celibacy is that it allows the priest to be wholly committed to the Church.

"Are you free from a wife? Do not seek marriage. . . those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that. . . . The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband" (1 Corinthians 7:27-34).

As the priest is supposed to be totally commited to the Church, he can ideally do this when celibate.

-Rob

EDIT: Posted by David:

I feel that one of the biggest differences between Catholicism and the pre-2nd/3rd century Christianity (that which I follow, thanks be to God) is that Catholicism places great emphasis on Tradition and downplays the importance of the canonized (basically, authorized early on by those who were suited to do so) Word of God.

The problem with this is that Jesus has warned us to not teach as doctrine the traditions of men (which was a problem far before Jesus' time, even, and continues to be in Catholic and non-Catholic denominations alike).

"I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2)

"So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15)

"Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us" (2 Thess. 3:6).

The Catholic Church rightly holds to Sacred Tradition. We understand that ordinary tradition can be cast aside.

(As a side note, David, Scripture wouldn't have even been widely available in the early Church... as it is, it wasn't exactly set or canonized until almost 400 AD [the Council of Carthage? I can't recall]. The comment that Catholics downplay the importance of Scripture is really just an unneeded jab. The underlying implication is that we Protestants are "Bible Christians" and hence, by exclusion, Catholics aren't. [Not saying you meant that, but that's what ends up coming out of the words.])

The Catholic Ghurch has created many new traditions, rather than upholding the older ones. And "trinity" is a term used to group the Ghost, Jesus, and the Father together. It has a reference. Let's see the holy water make a reference to something.

Let's move on to Immaculate Conception, the idea that Mary was born without original sin. However, according to Luke 1:46-49:

Mary said "My soul glorifies the lord and my soirit rejoices in God my Savior, for he has been mindful of the humble state of his servant. From now on all generations will call me blessed, for the mighty one has done great things for me."

Mary wasn't anything special. She was important, but held no position of honor:

While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, waiting to speak to him. Someone told him, "Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you." He replied to him,"Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?" Pointing to his diciples, he said," Here are my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of my father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother."(Matthew 12:46-50)

So, Mary was definitly not anything in an exalted position. She gave birth to Jesus. Other than that, she had no reason to be exalted by the Roman Catholics.

Why pray to her when you can pray to Jesus? She holds no power. I'm confident God holds power.

And Jesus had physical brothers. Therefor, Mary did not remain a virgin her whole life. Perpetual Virginity is flawed as well.

"Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife..." But he had no union with her UNTIL she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.(Matthew 1:24,25)

So, how do you get through purgatory? How do you escape this "fire" as you described. We're Christians, not simply Jewish. Quote the New Testament. How, do you escape Purgatory if you are already there?

there are some pagan aspects to catholocism and that would have been because those who adopted early christianity had been pagans. Likewise there are some very adulterated protestant sects.

When it comes down to it, mankind F's everything up.

Okay, no on the concept of Holy Water. Why is this even included? Find it in the bible.

Note that you won't find the Trinity in the bible, but it is a term used to reference the holy ghost, Jesus, and the father together. What is the point of holy water?

Originally Posted by DarkFire360

Okay, no on the concept of Holy Water. Why is this even included? Find it in the bible.

Note that you won't find the Trinity in the bible, but it is a term used to reference the holy ghost, Jesus, and the father together. What is the point of holy water?

I think it is to make profit for the movie industry... though there is supposedly a spring of thst stuff up in the vatican.

Okay. First, I'll answer the title: Catholics believe in Jesus Christ as the Saviour, therefore they are Christians. Now for the rest of it.

Originally Posted by Bobslob

Where does the bible mention the word "Trinity?" (For that matter, why does it matter whether the bible explicitly mentions it?)

If holy water isn't mentioned in the Bible (which it isn't), where is the basis for it? Answer: to my knowledge, there isn't one.

Originally Posted by Bobslob

If we can pray to the saints... and they are in heaven, and thus undeniably righteous people, why not do it? After all, the fervent prayer of a rightous person is very powerful. And who is more righteous than Mary, who was graced to be the Ark of the Covenant in the New Testament, carrying our God? The lady for whom Jesus willingly performed a miracle at Cana at her asking (John 2). But whatever it is, don't think of it as either/or, it's not! No Catholic neglects praying to God.

How about because the Lord told us the way in which we should pray, and it has nothing to do with anyone but us, the Lord, and God?

"After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name..." - Matt. 6:9. You probably know the rest.

Just pointing out, though, I have no problem with praying on behalf of someone else - but praying to someone whose already dead to put in a good word?

Originally Posted by Bobslob

Christ refers to the sinner who "will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come" (Matt. 12:32), suggesting that one can be freed after death of the consequences of one’s sins. Similarly, Paul tells us that, when we are judged, each man’s work will be tried. And what happens if a righteous man’s work fails the test? "He will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire" (1 Cor 3:15). Now this loss, this penalty, can’t refer to consignment to hell, since no one is saved there; and heaven can’t be meant, since there is no suffering ("fire") there. The Catholic doctrine of purgatory alone explains this passage.

Not true. LDS doctrine also explains this, to my complete satisfaction. Plus, we go into a little bit more detail than this.

Oh, and btw - a righteous man's works will always fail the test. That is why we need the Atonement.

Originally Posted by Bobslob

Then, of course, there is the Bible’s approval of prayers for the dead: "In doing this he acted in a very excellent and noble way, inasmuch as he had the resurrection of the dead in view; for if he were not expecting the dead to rise again, it would have been useless and foolish to pray for them in death. But if he did this with a view to the splendid reward that awaits those who had gone to rest in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Thus he made atonement for the dead that they might be freed from this sin" (2 Macc. 12:43–45). Prayers are not needed by those in heaven, and no one can help those in hell. That means some people must be in a third condition, at least temporarily.

Uh...excuse me, but where did this quote come from? I've never heard of a "Book of Maccabee" before, let alone two of them.

Originally Posted by Bobslob

Jesus establishes a Church. The Church has Apostles. It also has an Apostle that is a leader.

I wasn't aware the Catholic church had Apostles. Is the Pope considered to be one? And who else would be? Just curious.

Originally Posted by Bobslob

"Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matt. 18:18).

And something that the Lord said to one of His Apostles would apply to every Catholic priest in the world...why?

Originally Posted by Bobslob

"For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can." Matthew 19:12

A eunuch is something a bit different to just someone who is celibate, Bobslob. They normally have pretty high voices. Just thought I'd point that out.

Originally Posted by DarkFire360

So, Mary was definitly not anything in an exalted position. She gave birth to Jesus. Other than that, she had no reason to be exalted by the Roman Catholics.

Agreed.

If any of my comments have annoyed/offended anyone, then I apologise for it. I have simply stated my viewpoint.

Originally Posted by DarkFire360

The Catholic Ghurch has created many new traditions, rather than upholding the older ones. And "trinity" is a term used to group the Ghost, Jesus, and the Father together. It has a reference. Let's see the holy water make a reference to something.

To be honest, I've never heard anyone have a problem with holy water. I'll look it up and see what I can find, though. (EDIT: Got it! Check the bottom.)

Let's move on to Immaculate Conception, the idea that Mary was born without original sin. However, according to Luke 1:46-49:

Mary said "My soul glorifies the lord and my soirit rejoices in God my Savior, for he has been mindful of the humble state of his servant. From now on all generations will call me blessed, for the mighty one has done great things for me."

Mary wasn't anything special. She was important, but held no position of honor:

Gabriel addresses Mary saying, "Hail, full of grace." What grace is this? We interpret it to be the very grace that Adam and Eve took from us in original sin. They forfeited the sanctiying grace by their original sin. No position of honor? What? Nothing special? Mary is the Ark of the Covenant of the New Testament!

2 Sam 6:2
And David arose and went with all the people who were with him from Baale-judah, to bring up from there the ark of God

Luke 1: 39
In those days Mary arose and went with haste into the hill country, to a city of Judah

2 Sam 6:9
And David…. said, "How can the ark of the Lord come to me?"

Luke 1: 43.
[and Elizabeth said to Mary] “And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?”

2 Sam 6:10
David took it [the Ark] aside to the house of Obededom the Gittite.

Luke 1: 40. and she[Mary]entered the house of Zechariah

2 Sam 6:15
So David and all the house of Israel brought up the ark of the Lord with shouting

Luke 1:42
and she [Elizabeth] exclaimed with a loud cry,

2 Sam 6: 16
As the ark of the Lord came into the city…Michal saw King David leaping and dancing before the Lord;

Luke 1: 41
And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb;

2 Sam 6:11.
And the ark of the Lord remained in the house of Obebedom the Gittite three months;

Luke 1:56
And Mary remained with her [Elizabeth] about three months

Also note:

Gabriel replied that it would happen by the power of God: "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you" (see Luke 1:35)

The Power of the Most High will Overshadow You

The word translated "overshadow" is used nowhere else in the New Testament. In fact, it occurs only one other place in Scripture, if we refer to the Greek translation of the Old Testament that Luke was familiar with.

The book of Exodus tells us how Moses had the Ark of the Covenant placed in the Dwelling, the holy place in great tent that was to serve as the dwelling-place of God among His people. (The word translated "Dwelling" is often translated "Tabernacle.")

"Then the cloud covered the meeting tent, and the glory of the LORD filled the Dwelling. Moses could not enter the meeting tent, because the cloud settled down upon it and the glory of the LORD filled the Dwelling" (see Exodus 40:34-35).

In the Greek version of the Old Testament, the word translated "settled down upon" ("the cloud settled down upon it") is the same as Luke's word "overshadow" ("the power of the Most High will overshadow you").

Luke is telling us that the power of God will overshadow Mary just as the power of God overshadowed the Ark of the Covenant in the tent.

Cool, huh?

While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, waiting to speak to him. Someone told him, "Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you." He replied to him,"Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?" Pointing to his diciples, he said," Here are my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of my father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother."(Matthew 12:46-50)

This isn't truly applicable. Plus, it defeats the argument you use later that says that Jesus had brothers.

So, Mary was definitly not anything in an exalted position. She gave birth to Jesus. Other than that, she had no reason to be exalted by the Roman Catholics.

I think being the Ark of the Covenant is good enough reason.

Why pray to her when you can pray to Jesus? She holds no power. I'm confident God holds power.

And so are Catholics...

And Jesus had physical brothers. Therefor, Mary did not remain a virgin her whole life. Perpetual Virginity is flawed as well.

Not necessarily. First of all, the brethren of the Lord mentioned in Scripture, his 'brothers' are most likely cousins, as in Scripture 'brothers' are commonly not literal brothers, but close kin like cousins. Second, if Jesus did have physical brothers, it is altogether possible that they were Joseph's sons from his first marriage. Backing me up, I'm going to cut and paste these explanations. I don't like doing this, but I just can't spend hours tracking this all down individually. Here:

First on virginity:

When the angel Gabriel appeared to Mary and told her that she would conceive a son, she asked, "How can this be since I have no relations with a man?" (Luke 1:34). From the Church’s earliest days, as the Fathers interpreted this Bible passage, Mary’s question was taken to mean that she had made a vow of lifelong virginity, even in marriage. (This was not common, but neither was it unheard of.) If she had not taken such a vow, the question would make no sense.

Mary knew how babies are made (otherwise she wouldn’t have asked the question she did). If she had anticipated having children in the normal way and did not intend to maintain a vow of virginity, she would hardly have to ask "how" she was to have a child, since conceiving a child in the "normal" way would be expected by a newlywed wife. Her question makes sense only if there was an apparent (but not a real) conflict between keeping a vow of virginity and acceding to the angel’s request. A careful look at the New Testament shows that Mary kept her vow of virginity and never had any children other than Jesus.

Now on the brethren of Christ:

When trying to understand these verses, note that the term "brother" (Greek: adelphos) has a wide meaning in the Bible. It is not restricted to the literal meaning of a full brother or half-brother. The same goes for "sister" (adelphe) and the plural form "brothers" (adelphoi). The Old Testament shows that "brother" had a wide semantic range of meaning and could refer to any male relative from whom you are not descended (male relatives from whom you are descended are known as "fathers") and who are not descended from you (your male descendants, regardless of the number of generations removed, are your "sons"), as well as kinsmen such as cousins, those who are members of the family by marriage or by law rather than by blood, and even friends or mere political allies (2 Sam. 1:26; Amos 1:9).

Lot, for example, is called Abraham’s "brother" (Gen. 14:14), even though, being the son of Haran, Abraham’s brother (Gen. 11:26–28), he was actually Abraham’s nephew. Similarly, Jacob is called the "brother" of his uncle Laban (Gen. 29:15). Kish and Eleazar were the sons of Mahli. Kish had sons of his own, but Eleazar had no sons, only daughters, who married their "brethren," the sons of Kish. These "brethren" were really their cousins (1 Chr. 23:21–22).

The terms "brothers," "brother," and "sister" did not refer only to close relatives. Sometimes they meant kinsmen (Deut. 23:7; Neh. 5:7; Jer. 34:9), as in the reference to the forty-two "brethren" of King Azariah (2 Kgs. 10:13–14).

It also notes that Hebrew had no word for cousin, hence they could only use circumlocutions, i.e., the son of my uncle. Brother was used in a wider sense because such terms are so unwieldy.

Furthemore:

When Jesus was found in the Temple at age twelve, the context suggests that he was the only son of Mary and Joseph. There is no hint in this episode of any other children in the family (Luke 2:41–51). Jesus grew up in Nazareth, and the people of Nazareth referred to him as "the son of Mary" (Mark 6:3), not as "a son of Mary." In fact, others in the Gospels are never referred to as Mary’s sons, not even when they are called Jesus’ "brethren." If they were in fact her sons, this would be strange usage.

Also, the attitude taken by the "brethren of the Lord" implies they are his elders. In ancient and, particularly, in Eastern societies (remember, Palestine is in Asia), older sons gave advice to younger, but younger seldom gave advice to older—it was considered disrespectful to do so. But we find Jesus’ "brethren" saying to him that Galilee was no place for him and that he should go to Judea so he could make a name for himself (John 7:3–4).

Another time, they sought to restrain him for his own benefit: "And when his family heard it, they went out to seize him, for people were saying, ‘He is beside himself’" (Mark 3:21). This kind of behavior could make sense for ancient Jews only if the "brethren" were older than Jesus, but that alone eliminates them as his biological brothers, since Jesus was Mary’s "first-born" son (Luke 2:7).

Consider what happened at the foot of the cross. When he was dying, Jesus entrusted his mother to the apostle John (John 19:26–27). The Gospels mention four of his "brethren": James, Joseph, Simon, and Jude. It is hard to imagine why Jesus would have disregarded family ties and made this provision for his mother if these four were also her sons.

"Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife..." But he had no union with her UNTIL she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.(Matthew 1:24,25)

From that same link:

But they are using a narrow, modern meaning of "until," instead of the meaning it had when the Bible was written. In the Bible, it means only that some action did not happen up to a certaipoint; it does not imply that the action did happen later, which is the modern sense of the term. In fact, if the modern sense is forced on the Bible, some ridiculous meanings result.

Consider this line: "Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death" (2 Sam. 6:23). Are we to assume she had children after her death?

There is also the burial of Moses. The book of Deuteronomy says that no one knew the location of his grave "until this present day" (Deut. 34:6, Knox). But we know that no one has known since that day either

Until isn't quite used the same way. Translations and usages in different languages are funky.

You may disagree with the doctrines on Mary, but they are perfectly defendable

So, how do you get through purgatory? How do you escape this "fire" as you described. We're Christians, not simply Jewish. Quote the New Testament. How, do you escape Purgatory if you are already there?

Funny that you bring up the Jewish religion. Even today the Jews pray the Kaddish, or the prayer for the dead. What does it avail someone to pray for the dead if the prayers cannot help them? Tradition dictates that they pray for eleven months, because twelve months would be the length of prayers needed for an evil man, and that would be disrespectful.

You don't "escape" the fire, you are cleansed and "purged" by it, and then you proceed to heaven. This is because, as Scripture tells us, nothing unclean can enter heaven (Rev 21:27). And of course, Matthew 5:48 You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect (why? because nothing unclean can enter heaven, of course.)(Probably for the same reason Moses could not directly see God.) Also note Matt 18: 23-25

his lord summoned him and said to him, 'You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you besought me; and should not you have had mercy on your fellow servant, as I had mercy on you? 'And in anger his lord delivered him to the jailers, till he should pay all his debt. So also my heavenly Father will do to every one of you, if you do not forgive your brother from your heart."

Where can you pay your debt like the jail? Not hell: that is eternal. There is no escape. Not heaven, there are no debts to pay there...

Originally Posted by Tirioth

Just pointing out, though, I have no problem with praying on behalf of someone else - but praying to someone whose already dead to put in a good word?

But they are indeed living. God is the God of the living. They live in God's glory in heaven.

And something that the Lord said to one of His Apostles would apply to every Catholic priest in the world...why?

Apostolic succession.

The Apostles gave their authority to the Bishops, Bishops may perform the laying on of the hands to ordain priests. The Bishops are truly the successors of the Apostles. The authority of the apostles is handed down in apostolic succession. (And at the very least, Catholics claim apostolic succession from the head of the apostles, that rock, Peter.)

Uh...excuse me, but where did this quote come from? I've never heard of a "Book of Maccabee" before, let alone two of them.

Ah, the Book of Maccabees. Yes, you should really give them a try. Scripture is truly wonderful. They are part of Scripture, indeed, they were part of the Septuagint, and the Church has long recognized them as Scripture. The Deuterocanonicals.

Originally Posted by Divine Dragoon

Revelation 19:9-10 - "And the angel said to me, "Write this: Blessed are those who are invited to the marriage supper of the Lamb." And he said to me, "These are true words of God." Then I fell down at his feet to worship him, but he said to me, "You must not do that! I am a fellow servant with you and your brethren who hold the testimony of Jesus. Worship God." For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy."

The angel told him not to worship him as if he was God because he isn't God. What's your point? It is extremely sinful to worship anyone but God with the worship due to God (latria). God alone deserves this worship. Are you implying that Catholics worship saints with the worship due to God? This couldn't be further from the truth.

Originally Posted by Divine Dragoon

But maybe this is not for all priests.
1 Corinthians 7:9 - "But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion. "

Indeed, not all priests are required to be celibate, as I mentioned. Priests in the Eastern Catholic rites may marry. However, it has become the standard discipline of the West. A discipline is something that can be changed. It is not doctrine, it is merely practice. There is no reason that priests should not be celibate if they can. It is certainly the ideal practice.

Clarification:
Techically, no priest may marry. The idea of administering the Sacrament of Marriage after Holy Orders is abhorrent, and anyway, no priest should be searching for a mate when he should be ministering to his community. Just as deacons in the Church must be married before they are given the Sacrament of Holy Orders, so too priests must be married before they are priests. So, techically, priests cannot get married. Prospective priests can.

EDIT (though certainly not the first edit!):

Originally Posted by xelink

there are some pagan aspects to catholocism and that would have been because those who adopted early christianity had been pagans. Likewise there are some very adulterated protestant sects.

What pagan aspects? Which ones? Point them out to me.

Oh cool, HOLY WATER EDIT. Hehe.

Numbers 5:17
Then he shall take some holy water in a clay jar and put some dust from the tabernacle floor into the water.

And from here (here specifically):

Ex. 29:4; Lev. 8:6 - Aaron and his sons were washed in holy water in their consecration to the priesthood. Thus, we see the use of holy water during the beginning of salvation history.

Ex. 30:18-19 - the Lord requires Aaron and his sons to wash their hands and feet in holy water before they offered sacrifices to Him. The Church uses holy water for various purposes, and holy water fonts are generally located at the entrance of Catholic churches to be used before the sacrifice of Christ is offered to the Father.

Num. 5:17 - here again, the priest uses holy water. God uses natural matter to convey the supernatural, just as God who is Spirit became flesh in Christ Jesus.

Num. 8:7 - the Lord says to "sprinkle them with the water of remission." The Lord uses water, a physical property, to convey His supernatural property of grace.

1 Kings 7:38-39 - in King Solomon's temple, there were ten large basins of holy water. Holy water has always been used in the context of worship.

John 9:6-7 – Jesus uses clay and spittle to heal the blind man’s eyes, and ordered him to wash in the pool of Siloam to effect the cure. Jesus did not need to use spittle, clay and water, but He does to demonstrate that God uses the material things He created to give graces and heal us.

John 13:4-10 - the Lord uses water to wash the apostles' feet to prepare them for their sacramental priesthood.

John 19:34 - water and blood flowed from Jesus' pierced side on the Cross. The Church uses holy water as a symbol of our Lord's life giving water that flowed from His sacred Heart, and as the property which brings about the power of Jesus Christ Himself, in baptism, the Eucharist, and other sacred rites of the Church.

Originally Posted by Tiroth

I wasn't aware the Catholic church had Apostles. Is the Pope considered to be one? And who else would be? Just curious.

Peter. James. John. Thomas. And others. Peter being the first Pope, and passing on his authority to the succeeding Bishops of Rome.

Originally Posted by Tiroth

If holy water isn't mentioned in the Bible (which it isn't), where is the basis for it? Answer: to my knowledge, there isn't one.

It doesn't matter if there's any non-Biblical basis. All of the Church's traditions come from the Bible. They must, since it was the Church that defined what the Bible was.

Oh, and btw - a righteous man's works will always fail the test. That is why we need the Atonement.

The Atonement being prayer, faith, and works... if I am not mistaken... since these are the things that Christ has comissioned us to do.

Mary wasn't anything special. She was important, but held no position of honor

Gabriel addresses Mary saying, "Hail, full of grace." What grace is this? We interpret it to be the very grace that Adam and Eve took from us in original sin.

Very true. And she is full of that grace. Can any of us say that we are "full of grace"? Most certainly not! If grace is no honorable thing, then worshipping God, who is grace, cannot be honorable either.

Why pray to her when you can pray to Jesus? She holds no power. I'm confident God holds power.

Why ask our Blessed Mother to pray for us? Because her grace has greater power than that of our own.

The angel told him not to worship him as if he was God because he isn't God. What's your point? It is extremely sinful to worship anyone but God with the worship due to God (latria). God alone deserves this worship. Are you implying that Catholics worship saints with the worship due to God? This couldn't be further from the truth.

Well put. To expand on that, we do not worship saints. We revere them. We hold them in high esteem and respect. We do not ask miracles of them. We rather ask them to offer up their perfect prayers that we might have the same grace and the same strength that they had. We do not pray to them. We ask them to pray for us--the Litany of saints. In the same way that we offer up our intentions in a liturgical congregation, we also offer our intentions to the Heavenly congregation--the communion of saints.

Just a few things I want clarified from people's posts. Again, I don't want to offend anyone, and sorry if I do.

Originally Posted by Bobslob

Gabriel addresses Mary saying, "Hail, full of grace."

Not in my Bible, he doesn't. He says "Hail, thou that art highly favoured". Doesn't mean quite the same thing, does it?

And no offence, but I don't buy into your parallel-verses point there. I could probably find a hundred other parallels between things that we would both agree mean absolutely nothing.

Originally Posted by Bobslob

When the angel Gabriel appeared to Mary and told her that she would conceive a son, she asked, "How can this be since I have no relations with a man?" (Luke 1:34). From the Church’s earliest days, as the Fathers interpreted this Bible passage, Mary’s question was taken to mean that she had made a vow of lifelong virginity, even in marriage. (This was not common, but neither was it unheard of.) If she had not taken such a vow, the question would make no sense.

Yes it would. At this point, Mary was not yet married. How, then, without breaking both the law of God and the law of man, could such a thing happen? She didn't know, so she asked.

Originally Posted by Bobslob

Until isn't quite used the same way. Translations and usages in different languages are funky.

Entirely true. However, as long as we're talking English here, I'm fully capable of telling which version is being used. Not knowing the languages the Bible was written in, however, I'll leave interpreting individual words to those who know more.

Incidentally, Bobslob may remember me making the point that basing an idea on the way something is worded in English after translation is daft (but not in those words ). My position on that still stands.

Originally Posted by Bobslob

Where can you pay your debt like the jail? Not hell: that is eternal. There is no escape. Not heaven, there are no debts to pay there...

You can't repay the debt. The Saviour died for us so that our sins could be cleansed. How could anyone possibly repay a debt like that without spending eternity doing it?

Originally Posted by Bobslob

But they are indeed living. God is the God of the living. They live in God's glory in heaven.

Very well - let me rephrase that. I can understand - and encourage - praying on behalf on another person. But what I do not understand is praying to someone who no longer dwells on this earth, and who is instead in Paradise, to intercede on your behalf with the Saviour. Basically, that's asking someone to intercede with the intercessor. Where's the sense in that?

Originally Posted by Bobslob

Ah, the Book of Maccabees. Yes, you should really give them a try. Scripture is truly wonderful. They are part of Scripture, indeed, they were part of the Septuagint, and the Church has long recognized them as Scripture. The Deuterocanonicals.

Sorry, but you've just managed to confuse me further. They were part of the what?

Originally Posted by Bobslob

Oh cool, HOLY WATER EDIT. Hehe.

Okay. So you say each of those references mentions "holy" water? Well, I hate repeating myself, but...not in my Bible, it doesn't. The Num. 5:17 reference is the only one that mentions "holy" water, and that has consecrated down in the footnotes as an alternate meaning for the word. Which has a rather different meaning.

Well, that's about it. Wait a sec...that all came from Bobslob's post, didn't it? Maybe I'm starting to develop a prejudice...

Nah.

DarkFire360, do you want to get a word in edgewise before this turns into another Christian Debate thread?

EDIT: Lionharted posted before me. So I'd better add something on here.

Originally Posted by LionHarted

Peter. James. John. Thomas. And others. Peter being the first Pope, and passing on his authority to the succeeding Bishops of Rome.

I'll accept what you're saying on a theoretical basis, but it's not something I personally believe. Alhtough my question was geared more towards who be considered Apostles by the Catholic church today.

Originally Posted by LionHarted

It doesn't matter if there's any non-Biblical basis. All of the Church's traditions come from the Bible. They must, since it was the Church that defined what the Bible was.

I can tell you right now there is no Biblical basis for christening, yet the Catholic church practices it. If you can prove me wrong (without the children-must-be-christened-or-be-damned-to-hell argument - I've heard it before), then please do so.

Originally Posted by LionHarted

The Atonement being prayer, faith, and works... if I am not mistaken... since these are the things that Christ has comissioned us to do.

The Atonement being what Christ did for us in Gethsemane and on the cross. Faith, prayer and works are what we must do in order to qualify for that Atonement.

Originally Posted by LionHarted

Very true. And she is full of that grace. Can any of us say that we are "full of grace"? Most certainly not! If grace is no honorable thing, then worshipping God, who is grace, cannot be honorable either.

I've answered this already. See above.

Originally Posted by LionHarted

Well put. To expand on that, we do not worship saints. We revere them. We hold them in high esteem and respect. We do not ask miracles of them. We rather ask them to offer up their perfect prayers that we might have the same grace and the same strength that they had. We do not pray to them. We ask them to pray for us--the Litany of saints. In the same way that we offer up our intentions in a liturgical congregation, we also offer our intentions to the Heavenly congregation--the communion of saints.

Again, see above. This idea just seems absurd to me.

Originally Posted by Tiroth

Not in my Bible, he doesn't. He says "Hail, thou that art highly favoured". Doesn't mean quite the same thing, does it?

That's because your Bible is detracting the original Greek. And, in either case, that would place Mary's favor above ours, in a position of respect and of reverence.

Originally Posted by Kecharitomeme: Full of Grace

So, here's what some modern, English-speaking scholars tell us "Kecharitomene" denotes, based purely on the definition of the word and its grammatical usage:

" 'Highly favoured' (kecharitomene). Perfect passive participle of charitoo and means endowed with grace (charis), enriched with grace as in Ephesians. 1:6, . . . The Vulgate gratiae plena [full of grace] "is right, if it means 'full of grace which thou hast received'; wrong, if it means 'full of grace which thou hast to bestow' " (A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, p. 14)

"It is permissible, on Greek grammatical and linguistic grounds, to paraphrase kecharitomene as completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace." (Blass and DeBrunner, Greek Grammar of the New Testament).

However, Luke 1:28 uses a special conjugated form of "charitoo." It uses "kecharitomene," while Ephesians 1:6 uses "echaritosen," which is a different form of the verb "charitoo." Echaritosen means "he graced" (bestowed grace). Echaritosen signifies a momentary action, an action brought to pass. (Blass and DeBrunner, Greek Grammar of the New Testament, p.166). Whereas, Kecharitomene, the perfect passive participle, shows a completeness with a permanent result. Kecharitomene denotes continuance of a completed action (H. W. Smyth, Greek Grammar [Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1968], p. 108-109, sec 1852:b; also Blass and DeBrunner, p.175).

Both words, echaritosen and kecharitomene, come from the same root verb, charitoo, meaning "to [bestow] grace." Echaritosen is an indicative active form, meaning "he graced" or "he bestowed grace," and it is used in the first chapter of Ephesians:

...for the praise of the glory of his grace that he granted us in the beloved. (Ephesians 1:6).

Kecharitomene, on the other hand, is a perfect passive participle of the same verb charitoo, so, despite the fact that it is often translated as, literally "[one who is] highly favored," if the definition is adopted from the root verb, it can also mean "[one who is] endowed with grace."

Therefore, the Catholic Bible's translation of the verse is not only acceptable, but also more precisely represents what the Greek denotes.

More on the original Greek, and interpretations by ancient experts of Greek from the 3rd century, can be found here: Kecharitomene: Full of Grace

Originally Posted by Tiroth

I can tell you right now there is no Biblical basis for christening, yet the Catholic church practices it. If you can prove me wrong (without the children-must-be-christened-or-be-damned-to-hell argument - I've heard it before), then please do so.

Originally Posted by John 3:5

Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit."

Baptism is here declared a condition for Christians to enter heaven.

Originally Posted by Romans 6:4

Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.

Here it is declared a condition for "new life," directly from St. Paul.

Originally Posted by Titus 3:5

He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit,

Originally Posted by 1 Peter 3:21

baptism now saves you

^^ Pretty self-explanatory. ^^

Originally Posted by Tiroth

And no offence, but I don't buy into your parallel-verses point there. I could probably find a hundred other parallels between things that we would both agree mean absolutely nothing.

If it is so highly probable, why don't you do it? What about the alleged coincidence of the same word used so few times, once to describe the Holy Spirit and Mary, and the other time to describe God and the Ark of the Covenant?

The idea is rooted more broadly, including in texts from the Book of Revelations as well. Indeed, I don't even think what I showed you is the main idea for it. It's just a flashy intro. I don't have space to make the entire argument, so just read this link here which connects Old Testament with the Book of Revelations.

Yes it would. At this point, Mary was not yet married. How, then, without breaking both the law of God and the law of man, could such a thing happen? She didn't know, so she asked.

But she was bethrothed to be married. Normally, you'd be expecting to have children if you were engaged, no? She knew how babies were made, as it was so nicely put. She was going to get married. The angel tells her that she is going to conceive (not that she has), hence, she's looking towards the future. But, this perplexes her because she hasn't been planning to conceive at all. Obviously, we can quibble about this, but I think it's a totally acceptable explanation.

Entirely true. However, as long as we're talking English here, I'm fully capable of telling which version is being used. Not knowing the languages the Bible was written in, however, I'll leave interpreting individual words to those who know more.

Incidentally, Bobslob may remember me making the point that basing an idea on the way something is worded in English after translation is daft (but not in those words ). My position on that still stands.

Indeed, I would have answered, but LionHarted's post pretty much summarizes the position on the full of grace deal.

You can't repay the debt. The Saviour died for us so that our sins could be cleansed. How could anyone possibly repay a debt like that without spending eternity doing it?

We're talking about the temporal punishment of purgatory. Purgatory doesn't elminate eternal punishment (because eternal punishment is hell, and no one gets out of there). It eliminates temporal punishment. It's easiest to think of it as stains and imperfections. Or on the other hand, say you break your neighbor's window. You go and tell her you're sorry. And you are forgiven. But you still have to make amends for the broken window. That's very much in the vein of purgatory.

Very well - let me rephrase that. I can understand - and encourage - praying on behalf on another person. But what I do not understand is praying to someone who no longer dwells on this earth, and who is instead in Paradise, to intercede on your behalf with the Saviour. Basically, that's asking someone to intercede with the intercessor. Where's the sense in that?

Have you ever told a friend, hey, pray for me? It's so natural, I believe all Christians do it all the time. Why do it? Because we do. It's the same thing as praying to a saint. You're asking someone else to pray for you. It certainly isn't necessary, but, it still works. You know, hey, I'm having that operation tomorrow Joe, will you pray for me? Why, sure I will. It's that innocuous. I think that it's made to be too big of a deal in these Protestantism vs. Catholicism threads.

Sorry, but you've just managed to confuse me further. They were part of the what?

The Deuterocanonicals. They're part of Scripture, part of the Old Testament. They were removed at the time of the Protestant Reformation by Luther. The Catholic Church, on the other hand, continued to use them.

Okay. So you say each of those references mentions "holy" water? Well, I hate repeating myself, but...not in my Bible, it doesn't. The Num. 5:17 reference is the only one that mentions "holy" water, and that has consecrated down in the footnotes as an alternate meaning for the word. Which has a rather different meaning.

I'm sorry, but the issue seems to be coming down to your Bible being an inaccurate translation. Lionharted documents the kecharitomeme issue. As far as I know, the Mormons claim to use a version of the King James Bible which is... correctly translated? I don't know where we can go from there. The point is more that water is used ritually, and that is holy water. I only see the quote from Numbers 5:17 claiming to say "holy" water. It's more than just claiming the word "holy." It's sound enough. And anyway, why do you think that there were large basins of water in the temple (the 1 Kings passage) if not for some ritualistic, holy purpose? Things can be implicit as well as explicit. (Not to mention that in the case of Mormons, they indeed accept non-Biblical sources, of course these are the Book of Mormon, etc... but my interest now is, why is it wrong for Catholics to have non-biblical sources, but not Mormons?)

Not in my Bible

Stop trying to claim ownership of the Bible.

I don't think they were claiming ownership of the bible. I think they were refering to the copy of the bible they own.

Now, praying to the saints is pointless, as is to Mary. Technically, a saint is anyone who follows Christ, so you very well should pray to yourselves.

Now, why pray to Mary when there's the Father? Honestly, it is pointless. A saint will do nothing;They have no powers. God does. Get over all the patron saints stuff.

Why not make your church into a Jesus's Church, not St. Paul's Church? It would make more sense to give ownership of the churches to God, not any man, regardless of the abused term "sainthood".

Everyone who knows of the Midevil Catholic Church knows of the corruption of many leaders, including certain Popes, who were involved during that time period. I notice that then many new "traditions" appeared miraculously.

Now, on the subject of being Excommunicated, can the Pope, a simple man, or a Bishop, another mere human, turn another equal away from God and Heaven? Is it thier place to? Can't God decide who goes to Heaven and Hell?

Originally Posted by DarkFire360

I don't think they were claiming ownership of the bible. I think they were refering to the copy of the bible they own.

I was being sarcastic.

Now, praying to the saints is pointless, as is to Mary. Technically, a saint is anyone who follows Christ, so you very well should pray to yourselves.

We're not saying, "St. John, grant us our prayers." We're saying, "St. John, who is closer to Him than we, pray for us."

Now, why pray to Mary when there's the Father? Honestly, it is pointless. A saint will do nothing;They have no powers. God does. Get over all the patron saints stuff.

Saints do not grant our prayers. This seems to be what you are assuming. If we, as people on earth, can pray for each other, so can they pray for us. Why heavenly prayers, which need no intercessor, would be any less powerful than earthly ones, I cannot comprehend.

Why not make your church into a Jesus's Church, not St. Paul's Church? It would make more sense to give ownership of the churches to God, not any man, regardless of the abused term "sainthood".

If every parish building were called "Jesus's Church," I think we'd get them very much confused. That's like my saying that I think your high school should be named "Central City High."

Everyone who knows of the Midevil Catholic Church knows of the corruption of many leaders, including certain Popes, who were involved during that time period. I notice that then many new "traditions" appeared miraculously.

No traditions 'appeared.' Some of them were abused. There has been abuse of power throughout every clergical body, government, and any other organization given power throughout history. The human beings, imperfect as they are, who head the Church, cannot be expected to be perfect in their conduct--only in their canonical judgment.

Now, on the subject of being Excommunicated, can the Pope, a simple man, or a Bishop, another mere human, turn another equal away from God and Heaven? Is it thier place to? Can't God decide who goes to Heaven and Hell?

No. They cannot judge who will and will not get into heaven. They can, however, deny participation in the Church, on the grounds that the person does not remotely believe or respect her institutions.

Originally Posted by DarkFire360

Now, on the subject of being Excommunicated, can the Pope, a simple man, or a Bishop, another mere human, turn another equal away from God and Heaven? Is it thier place to? Can't God decide who goes to Heaven and Hell?

Excommunication does not equal condemnation to hell. The Church has never condmened anyway to hell, nor will she ever (not Judas, not anyone).

Excommunication is not final either. Anyone who is excommunicated can be admitted back into full communion in various ways depending on the level of the excommunication. For instance, someone who procures an abortion excommunicates themselves. I believe they need only go to their confessor, and by confessing their sins, they are restored. Excommunication is a tool to put souls that are on the wrong course on the right course.

Excommunication, I believe, can be done locally by a bishop, or anyone above him in the heirarchy. Plus, as I mentioned, some actions cause the person to excommunicate themselves. I don't believe a priest can excommunicate anyone.

Then how do you define excommunication?

Let me please shed some Light on the situation, if you will allow it. That Light being the Word of God:

Originally Posted by Paul, 1st Timothy 2:1-5

Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, ...

Bobslob mentioned this verse before, but attempted to use it as a way to exhort others to pray for Christians who had passed on. The strength of this Scripture, though, is that it tells us that our audience with God is through our Lord, Himself.

Another verse tells us this:

Originally Posted by Paul, Romans 8:27

Now He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He makes intercession for the saints according to the will of God.

As someone who studies the Bible will tell you, we (Christians) are referred to as "the saints". Over the course of human history, certain people have made the definition of the word mean people who are particularly "righteous" (though we know that "there is none righteous, no not one--for ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God".) Neverless, God's Word is plain on the matter, whatever the traditions of men have taught. And yes, I do make a very sharp differentiation between the traditions of the original Christians and those after the death of the first apostles, for this is also a Biblical teaching--that we are to be wary of those and test those who claim to have something else for us to follow.

Again, I make no promises, but perhaps I will stop in again and speak further on this matter. In particular, I would like to address Peter's supposed part in Rome. If anyone searches the Scriptures, they will find that he was neither sent specifically to the Gentiles by God (as Paul was), nor (to my knowledge) did he ever visit Rome. And also I will discuss, if the Lord so wills it, how, if Peter was to found the Church, he also is Satan, himself, and there will be no denying this, for those who believe the Scriptures. But that shall be left for another day, as God so pleases.

Okay. It looks like I struck a few nerves before, and I apologise for that. I'll try to be a bit more careful this time round.

Originally Posted by LionHarted

Baptism is here declared a condition for Christians to enter heaven.

Baptism is declared to be a condition, yes - but I cannot recall any instance of baptism in the Bible that did not invlove full immersion. I suppose it really comes down to what you believe is involved in baptism, doesn't it?

Originally Posted by Bobslob

If it is so highly probable, why don't you do it?

Because I'm not in the habit of reading through 1,500-odd pages of scripture just to prove a point. If I come across anything in my normal studies, I will tell you.

Originally Posted by Bobslob

But she was bethrothed to be married. Normally, you'd be expecting to have children if you were engaged, no? She knew how babies were made, as it was so nicely put. She was going to get married. The angel tells her that she is going to conceive (not that she has), hence, she's looking towards the future. But, this perplexes her because she hasn't been planning to conceive at all. Obviously, we can quibble about this, but I think it's a totally acceptable explanation.

You're right - we could easily quibble about this for the rest of our natural lives without making any headway, so I'll back off. I still don't agree, though.

Originally Posted by Bobslob

Have you ever told a friend, hey, pray for me?

No, actually, I haven't. But that's beside the point.

Originally Posted by Bobslob

It's so natural, I believe all Christians do it all the time. Why do it? Because we do. It's the same thing as praying to a saint. You're asking someone else to pray for you. It certainly isn't necessary, but, it still works. You know, hey, I'm having that operation tomorrow Joe, will you pray for me? Why, sure I will. It's that innocuous.

Except that you think the saints' prayers are "better" than the prayer of someone still on the earth. But I'll back off here as well.

Originally Posted by Bobslob

The Deuterocanonicals. They're part of Scripture, part of the Old Testament. They were removed at the time of the Protestant Reformation by Luther. The Catholic Church, on the other hand, continued to use them.

Oh. Right. That makes sense now. I'll see what I can find.

Originally Posted by Bobslob

I'm sorry, but the issue seems to be coming down to your Bible being an inaccurate translation.

It does, doesn't it? But without a copy of the original Bible, it's impossible to know for sure.

Originally Posted by Bobslob

As far as I know, the Mormons claim to use a version of the King James Bible which is... correctly translated?

Which we believe is correctly translated, yes. Especially as Joseph Smith went over it in a similar way to the Book of Mormon and corrected some of the more mangled passages. Please note: these corrections are in the footnotes and the back, not in the main text.

Originally Posted by Bobslob

I don't know where we can go from there. The point is more that water is used ritually, and that is holy water. I only see the quote from Numbers 5:17 claiming to say "holy" water.

Oh, so that's your definition of holy water. In that case, you could claim water used for baptism as "holy". Objections withdrawn.

And you don't see the "consecrated" footnote because you're not holding an LDS Bible. I've never seen a version of the Bible that has footnotes as extensive as ours.

Originally Posted by Bobslob

(Not to mention that in the case of Mormons, they indeed accept non-Biblical sources, of course these are the Book of Mormon, etc... but my interest now is, why is it wrong for Catholics to have non-biblical sources, but not Mormons?)

It's a question of differing faiths. If you claim to have non-Biblical sources, fine by me - but I wouldn't put any weight on viewpoionts based on such a source. That's why I haven't been quoted anything but the Bible - because I wouldn't expect you to accept it as a valid source.

Originally Posted by DarkFire360

Then how do you define excommunication?

I'm with LionHarted and Bobslob on this one. Excommunication is simply the act of expelling an errant member from church membership. It does not, in itself, automatically condemn anyone, but the act or acts that result in the excommunication often do. Full and honest repentance is all that is needed to be re-admitted to the Chruch (for LDS, anyway).

EDIT: BBD posted while I was typing (yes, I take a long time preparing my replies). In reply to the first part, thank you. That helps my peace of mind. In reply to the second...

Originally Posted by Big Bro Davidia

And also I will discuss, if the Lord so wills it, how, if Peter was to found the Church, he also is Satan, himself, and there will be no denying this, for those who believe the Scriptures.

...what the heck?