Catholics have no direct line to God

[ahimsaman72]

The catholics have no direct line to God any more than the Jews and the Muslims do. So the Jews write notes to God and leave them in the wailing wall. And the Muslims go to Mohammed's teachings to figure out what Mohammed heard from God. And the catholics go to Mary to get to God.

Not true dear lady. Mary only points the way to her Son. She's isn't prayed to in place of God.

But only the true born again Christians have a direct line to God through the indwelling Holy Spirit which is what saves us as Jesus tells us in John 17:3. So we don't need Mary, notes, or Mohammed because we have Jesus to talk to.

Hmmm....care to provide proofs that "only the true born again Christians..." and while you are at it, please provide some evidence of what a "true born again Christian is" so that when we find one we can recognize them. When I find one, I will certainly have to talk to them about this. We will have a lot to talk about.

And this nonsense about catholics claiming they're asking Mary to pray for them just like they ask their neighbors to pray for them is pure rubbish. They don't bow down and address their prayers to their neighbors, they pray with their neighbors to God. But catholics bow down and pary to Mary. So that argument holds no water.

Your argument is based on false notions about what Catholicism teaches about communion of the saints and about prayer and about the function of Mary in their faith. Even as a lapsed protestant I know better than this. Care to quote actual Catholic teaching on your false notions?

Catholicism is therefore a cult and no different than the Hindus, Muslims, and Jews praying to someone who can't help them. Once we have direct access to Jesus through the indwelling Holy Spirit, there is then no reason to pray to anyone else! It's a huge lack of faith to think that God can't accomplich his purpose without Mary whom Jesus downplayed all throughout the gospels. I'm sure he already knew that people would try to latch on to a fallible human being instead of to Christ alone which is why he kept diverting people's attention away from his mother and toward the only source who could help anyone; himself. But nevertheless, people don't listen to Jesus and instead, turn to their own imaginations which is what most of the world does. So sorry, catholics, you're praying to the wrong God.

Your conclusion is based on false notions about what they teach, therefore your conclusion is invalid. Try again.

Yet you latch on to a fallible set of books and your own fallible thinking and think nothing of slandering others with your false views.

I'm sorry, but your God is one you have constructed out of thin air and not based on what Scripture and Tradition says about Him. Learn about Catholicism and then get back to us with real arguments.

Peace...

Woody

 

[mutzrein]

Those who are born of the Spirit of God have a 'direct line' to God. And, thank God, this is not dependant on doctrinal stand, theological premise or denomination.

 

[ahimsaman72]

Those who are born of the Spirit of God have a 'direct line' to God. And, thank God, this is not dependant on doctrinal stand, theological premise or denomination.

I absolutely agree. The apostle John spoke of being born of water and "from above". There is most assuredly a natural birth and a supernatural birth. This is clear from the exchange between Jesus and Nicodemus early on in the book of St. John.

Woody

 

[ahimsaman72]

Those who are born of the Spirit of God have a 'direct line' to God. And, thank God, this is not dependant on doctrinal stand, theological premise or denomination.

I absolutely agree. The apostle John spoke of being born of water and "from above". There is most assuredly a natural birth and a supernatural birth. This is clear from the exchange between Jesus and Nicodemus early on in John's gospel.
Woody

 

[Heidi]

The catholics have no direct line to God any more than the Jews and the Muslims do. So the Jews write notes to God and leave them in the wailing wall. And the Muslims go to Mohammed's teachings to figure out what Mohammed heard from God. And the catholics go to Mary to get to God.

Not true dear lady. Mary only points the way to her Son. She's isn't prayed to in place of God.

But only the true born again Christians have a direct line to God through the indwelling Holy Spirit which is what saves us as Jesus tells us in John 17:3. So we don't need Mary, notes, or Mohammed because we have Jesus to talk to.

Hmmm....care to provide proofs that "only the true born again Christians..." and while you are at it, please provide some evidence of what a "true born again Christian is" so that when we find one we can recognize them. When I find one, I will certainly have to talk to them about this. We will have a lot to talk about.

[quote:010a3]And this nonsense about catholics claiming they're asking Mary to pray for them just like they ask their neighbors to pray for them is pure rubbish. They don't bow down and address their prayers to their neighbors, they pray with their neighbors to God. But catholics bow down and pary to Mary. So that argument holds no water.

Your argument is based on false notions about what Catholicism teaches about communion of the saints and about prayer and about the function of Mary in their faith. Even as a lapsed protestant I know better than this. Care to quote actual Catholic teaching on your false notions?

Catholicism is therefore a cult and no different than the Hindus, Muslims, and Jews praying to someone who can't help them. Once we have direct access to Jesus through the indwelling Holy Spirit, there is then no reason to pray to anyone else! It's a huge lack of faith to think that God can't accomplich his purpose without Mary whom Jesus downplayed all throughout the gospels. I'm sure he already knew that people would try to latch on to a fallible human being instead of to Christ alone which is why he kept diverting people's attention away from his mother and toward the only source who could help anyone; himself. But nevertheless, people don't listen to Jesus and instead, turn to their own imaginations which is what most of the world does. So sorry, catholics, you're praying to the wrong God.

Your conclusion is based on false notions about what they teach, therefore your conclusion is invalid. Try again.

Yet you latch on to a fallible set of books and your own fallible thinking and think nothing of slandering others with your false views.

I'm sorry, but your God is one you have constructed out of thin air and not based on what Scripture and Tradition says about Him. Learn about Catholicism and then get back to us with real arguments.

Peace...

Woody[/quote:010a3]

Mary no more points the way to her son than my husband's dead mother points the way to my husband!

So where do your views come from about Jesus if not from the bible? :o Your imagination? Or how about the catholic clergy? Did they witness Christ's life? :o Or are you telling the world that the god of your imagination has brought you aiddferent Jesus than the God of the bible? So which is it? :o

 

[notapseudonym]

Statues break, icons can be stolen or destroyed

Seems Heidi has sucessfully proven the catholic point that we don't worship statues believing they are dead humans. When a statute breaks thats not the end of Mary, St. Francis or St. Catherine. Like she said statues can break.

Mary no more points the way to her son than my husband's dead mother points the way to my husband!

Its probably a good thing you're not married to God.

All Sarcasim aside:

The catholic clergy is comprised of human beings. Yes, some of them have fallen into regrettable sin, however you will find the vast majority are normal, upright, even holy men. The ones who really understand who and what they are and what their vocation as a priest entails and take this to heart are far more in the majority then your much beloved pediphiles Heidi.
You know there are gay Protestant ministers -- does this make all protestant ministers gay? I bet you know one or even more who are not.

The Catholic Church has a tracible, documented direct line to Christ. we can produce the documentation of this line. Can you produce such a line? Or is all you can produce is a line based on praying directly to God? The Catholic Church has stood the test, the fires, the persecutions for 2000 years. When was your church founded how long and how many persecutions has it persevered through? How many glourios martyers have laid down their lives in your particular section of Christianity?

 

[ZeroTX]

So where do your views come from about Jesus if not from the bible?... Or how about the catholic clergy? Did they witness Christ's life? :o Or are you telling the world that the god of your imagination has brought you aiddferent Jesus than the God of the bible? So which is it? :o

Funny you should say that, as this goes to the core of apostolic succession. Knowledge taught by Christ, including witness to Christ's actual life, flows through the Church through oral tradition from the original witnesses, the original apostles. We have a non-stop lineage to the apostles. Our church wasn't started 100 or 200 years ago, but 2000 years ago by Jesus Himself.

In other words to answer your question: Yes, the Catholic clergy witnessed Christ's life and continues to pass down his teachings.

"But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written." John 21:25 (RSV)

-Michael

 

[Heidi]

So where do your views come from about Jesus if not from the bible?... Or how about the catholic clergy? Did they witness Christ's life? :o Or are you telling the world that the god of your imagination has brought you aiddferent Jesus than the God of the bible? So which is it? :o

Funny you should say that, as this goes to the core of apostolic succession. Knowledge taught by Christ, including witness to Christ's actual life, flows through the Church through oral tradition from the original witnesses, the original apostles. We have a non-stop lineage to the apostles. Our church wasn't started 100 or 200 years ago, but 2000 years ago by Jesus Himself.

In other words to answer your question: Yes, the Catholic clergy witnessed Christ's life and continues to pass down his teachings.

"But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written." John 21:25 (RSV)

-Michael

Have you ever heard of the game "telephone"? :-? Why do you think the NT written down if these are oral traditions? Why do you think that is? The answer is simple; to know God's will and distinguish true teachers from false one...unless of course, the catholics think that the popes who executed people and sold forgiveness for financial gain were passing along the teachings of Jesus. :o The accounts of those who witnessed Christ are vastly different than the rumors passed down through the centuries just like the game "telephone" shows us how people distort what they hear. There is nowhere in the bible that says we should pray to Mary, or that she was a virgin and was sinless. Those are all made-up gospels. And thank God we still have the original accounts of the disciples but even then, people don't mind distorting them at all and claiming that God told them to do that. :roll: That's exactly what Jim Jones & David Koresh did. So sorry, Charlie, you don't fool true born again Christians, only those who worship fallible human beings like the pagans all do. ;-)

 

[ZeroTX]

Then why was the NT written down if these are oral traditions? Why do you think that is? The answer is simple; to know God's will and distinguish true teachers from false one...unless of course, the catholics think that the popes who executed people and sold forgiveness for financial gain were passing along the teachings of Jesus. :o So sorry, Charlie, you don't fool true born again Christians, only those who worship fallible human beings like the pagans all do. ;-)

Nice way of disregarding both what I said AND what the Scripture in John 21:25 is saying. It isn't saying that nothing could contain anything that Jesus did. It says that if EVERY one of the things that Christ did were written down, the world could not contain them. In other words: there are plenty of things that Jesus did which were not recorded in the Bible.

And, FYI, the New Testament wasn't written down, as such. What was written were individual gospels & letters, which were compiled by the Church into a canon of Scripture known as the New Testament at a later time, in accordance with the authority given by Christ. Had the apostles and holy men who wrote down the Scriptures known what their writings would be used for, they would have surely taken a different and more prescriptive approach. Instead, there is much assumed oral tradition that is never mentioned in any Scripture, as it was universally taught and agreed upon within the Church (e.g. there were no heresies or problems that needed to, say, be addressed by Paul, as he did on several occasions where there WERE disagreements and corrections to be made). As they are, the Scriptures are true, accurate and inerrant. They are not, however, the complete and total teachings of Christ.

Where does the Bible say that they are? What I read in John 21:25 is that they are, explicitly, not complete when it comes to Christ. Accurate, true, reliable, yes. Complete? Where does it indicate that there is nothing else to know or to believe or to do? Where does the Bible say that?

-Michael

 

[Heidi]

Then why was the NT written down if these are oral traditions? Why do you think that is? The answer is simple; to know God's will and distinguish true teachers from false one...unless of course, the catholics think that the popes who executed people and sold forgiveness for financial gain were passing along the teachings of Jesus. :o So sorry, Charlie, you don't fool true born again Christians, only those who worship fallible human beings like the pagans all do. ;-)

Nice way of disregarding both what I said AND what the Scripture in John 21:25 is saying. It isn't saying that nothing could contain anything that Jesus did. It says that if EVERY one of the things that Christ did were written down, the world could not contain them. In other words: there are plenty of things that Jesus did which were not recorded in the Bible.

And, FYI, the New Testament wasn't written down, as such. What was written were individual gospels & letters, which were compiled by the Church into a canon of Scripture known as the New Testament at a later time, in accordance with the authority given by Christ. Had the apostles and holy men who wrote down the Scriptures known what their writings would be used for, they would have surely taken a different and more prescriptive approach. Instead, there is much assumed oral tradition that is never mentioned in any Scripture, as it was universally taught and agreed upon within the Church (e.g. there were no heresies or problems that needed to, say, be addressed by Paul, as he did on several occasions where there WERE disagreements and corrections to be made). As they are, the Scriptures are true, accurate and inerrant. They are not, however, the complete and total teachings of Christ.

Where does the Bible say that they are? What I read in John 21:25 is that they are, explicitly, not complete when it comes to Christ. Accurate, true, reliable, yes. Complete? Where does it indicate that there is nothing else to know or to believe or to do? Where does the Bible say that?

-Michael

I rebuke all false teachers as the bible tells us to do. And Jesus did many other things, but I don't decide what they were and pass them along as the truth. Making up new stories that aren't in the bible is making up your own gospel and Peter tells us what will happen to those who do that in 2 Peter 2:3. By your reasoning, then we are blasphemying Jesus if we don't claim that he was married and had children because the bible doesn't say that he did! That reasoning is not only extremely irrational, but passing along rumors about our Lord. So sorry, friend, my beliefs are not based on what is not said in the bible like the catholics beliefs are. :roll:

 

[John the Baptist]

Sure is a scriptureless 'thread'. None of this Matthew 4:4 'food' which causes the NO 'LINK' to God, and finds all of these denominations of Revelation 17:1-5 with a closed door past/tense warning!

But: Yes, Christ still has His truely ignorant 'babes' still there at this time period, how much more time do they have yet? only He knows! Revelation 18:4.

Someone quotes The Word, and instantly we see them being bombarded with useless 'talk'! (if not on the bottom of the pile here?) And it still amazes me of people using Pope (:wink Peter's vision of Acts 10:10-19 to eat whatever moves! :roll: But, what is just as bad, is some even knowing better, who say nothing. Revelation 18:4 Partakers?? See Isaiah 66:15-17. Aw, nevermind.

---John

 

[francisdesales]

So sorry, friend, my beliefs are not based on what is not said in the bible like the catholics beliefs are.

Really? Tell me, friend, where in inspired Scripture, does the Bible tell us what BOOKS or LETTERS ARE Scripture? Can you point me to a verse that tells me that the Letter of the Hebrews is inspired and Scriptural? And the Gospels? Frankly, your beliefs that the Bible IS the Word of God as we have it is based on a belief that is nowhere found in the Bible itself.

And secondly, WHERE does the Bible tell us that oral tradition has been abrogated? Our last command in Scriptures on the subject are from St. Paul, who tells the Thessalonians to hold fast to the traditions given, whether by word of mouth or by letter. THAT, my friend, is in the Bible! BUT, where does it say we no longer need to listen to oral traditions??? This abrogation of Apostolic Tradition is a tradition of man that keeps us from God!

I could go on, but the above will keep you occupied. Before you continue telling us about your "biblical beliefs", you should remember that much of your presumptions are fundamentally based on extra-biblical concepts...

Regards

 

[ZeroTX]

Heidi,

Again, you attack and don't even answer the questions or address what I said.

1) I ask again, where does the Bible say that it is the complete, total teachings of Christ?

2) The oral teachings and traditions of Christ given to the apostles are not "made-up gospel." It is the Gospel of John that tells us that Christ did many things not recorded in writing. When did Catholics claim Christ was married with children? That is a Gnostic claim that was never taught by the Church.

3) Catholic beliefs are not "based on what is not in said the bible"... they are based on apostolic tradition and scripture. It's not a free-for-all, as you imply.

4) You said: "Making up new stories that aren't in the bible is making up your own gospel"... Who is making up stories? What are you talking about?


-Michael

 

[Heidi]

So sorry, friend, my beliefs are not based on what is not said in the bible like the catholics beliefs are.

Really? Tell me, friend, where in inspired Scripture, does the Bible tell us what BOOKS or LETTERS ARE Scripture? Can you point me to a verse that tells me that the Letter of the Hebrews is inspired and Scriptural? And the Gospels? Frankly, your beliefs that the Bible IS the Word of God as we have it is based on a belief that is nowhere found in the Bible itself.

And secondly, WHERE does the Bible tell us that oral tradition has been abrogated? Our last command in Scriptures on the subject are from St. Paul, who tells the Thessalonians to hold fast to the traditions given, whether by word of mouth or by letter. THAT, my friend, is in the Bible! BUT, where does it say we no longer need to listen to oral traditions??? This abrogation of Apostolic Tradition is a tradition of man that keeps us from God!

I could go on, but the above will keep you occupied. Before you continue telling us about your "biblical beliefs", you should remember that much of your presumptions are fundamentally based on extra-biblical concepts...

Regards

Actually, John 1:1-3 and John 1:14 tells us that the Word is God himself. But since you have admitted that you are in the dark about what the Word is, then of course you have no clue to what that is referring. How about; the "code of hamurabi?" or perhaps, it's the "epic of Gilgamesh?"

So what do you think Jesus was talking about when he talked about the word? oh I forgot, you don't use the disicples accounts of what Jesus said and did. You rely on the rumors that have been passed along through the centuries, just like the Gnostics did. So since you have no clue what Paul means by scripture, then, I'll just leave you in the dark about it. ;-)

 

[ahimsaman72]

Dear lady Heidi,

Since you bait and switch and never directly answer questions or provide proofs for your assertions, I will decline to enter dialogue with you. It's a waste of my time and frankly a waste of yours. It's very rude to engage in this kind of debate and not be forthright. I don't believe God sees any joy out of it. I would say He is rather indignant at how his children play with one another.

I wish you peace, joy and blessings.

Woody

 

[ahimsaman72]

The catholics have no direct line to God any more than the Jews and the Muslims do. So the Jews write notes to God and leave them in the wailing wall. And the Muslims go to Mohammed's teachings to figure out what Mohammed heard from God. And the catholics go to Mary to get to God.

Not true dear lady. Mary only points the way to her Son. She's isn't prayed to in place of God.

But only the true born again Christians have a direct line to God through the indwelling Holy Spirit which is what saves us as Jesus tells us in John 17:3. So we don't need Mary, notes, or Mohammed because we have Jesus to talk to.

Hmmm....care to provide proofs that "only the true born again Christians..." and while you are at it, please provide some evidence of what a "true born again Christian is" so that when we find one we can recognize them. When I find one, I will certainly have to talk to them about this. We will have a lot to talk about.

[quote:180d8]And this nonsense about catholics claiming they're asking Mary to pray for them just like they ask their neighbors to pray for them is pure rubbish. They don't bow down and address their prayers to their neighbors, they pray with their neighbors to God. But catholics bow down and pary to Mary. So that argument holds no water.

Your argument is based on false notions about what Catholicism teaches about communion of the saints and about prayer and about the function of Mary in their faith. Even as a lapsed protestant I know better than this. Care to quote actual Catholic teaching on your false notions?
[quote:180d8]
Catholicism is therefore a cult and no different than the Hindus, Muslims, and Jews praying to someone who can't help them. Once we have direct access to Jesus through the indwelling Holy Spirit, there is then no reason to pray to anyone else! It's a huge lack of faith to think that God can't accomplich his purpose without Mary whom Jesus downplayed all throughout the gospels. I'm sure he already knew that people would try to latch on to a fallible human being instead of to Christ alone which is why he kept diverting people's attention away from his mother and toward the only source who could help anyone; himself. But nevertheless, people don't listen to Jesus and instead, turn to their own imaginations which is what most of the world does. So sorry, catholics, you're praying to the wrong God.

Your conclusion is based on false notions about what they teach, therefore your conclusion is invalid. Try again.

Yet you latch on to a fallible set of books and your own fallible thinking and think nothing of slandering others with your false views.

I'm sorry, but your God is one you have constructed out of thin air and not based on what Scripture and Tradition says about Him. Learn about Catholicism and then get back to us with real arguments.

Peace...

Woody[/quote:180d8]

Mary no more points the way to her son than my husband's dead mother points the way to my husband!

So where do your views come from about Jesus if not from the bible? :o Your imagination? Or how about the catholic clergy? Did they witness Christ's life? :o Or are you telling the world that the god of your imagination has brought you aiddferent Jesus than the God of the bible? So which is it? :o[/quote:180d8]

Just so that I can honestly exit dialogue without being rude, I will only comment on a couple of things.

First, I can use my finger and point to the moon in the sky to show you what it is. I can tell you that it's the moon and lead you to experience it yourself instead of you relying on my word only that the moon indeed exists. Mary pointing to Christ is exactly the same thing. Do you understand this analogy?

Second, my views come from a comprehensive number of sources that spans not only the past couple of hundred of years, but almost 2,000 years. These sources are the apostles, their successors, the compiled Scripture (you should really do some studying on the putting together of Scripture by the Catholic Church), scholars, theologians, reason, logic, historical and scientific facts. That's a really good start :roll:

Third, the apostles and their successors are all witnesses to the facts. This was originally only an oral Tradition but then later developed into the Scriptures. How do you think the Old Testament was written down? It was orally transmitted from person to person down through the centuries and later compiled into what we now call the Old Testament. It's through oral Tradition that you have the Bible in your hands right now.

Don't believe me. Just do some real research for yourself and you will see the things I'm telling you are true. I challenge you. Or, you can keep believing false ideas and forcing your views on others till we're all blue in the face and sick to death. Your choice.

Peace...

Woody

 

[John the Baptist]

Hi Heidi, John here:

You say, quote:
"So sorry, friend, my beliefs are not based on what is not said in the bible like the catholics beliefs are."

I agree with that also. These 'people' could lay down the N.T. as they call it, and find that the very old Jewish Bible has been around long, long before they came around! And when Christ came the first time to His People Israel, these ones that were to be His 'special' force to take the Eternal Gospel to the world could have had a different ending! So all one really needs, if they were Born Again in the first place, is what 'some' call the O.T.
Ask yourself how many were included in the Hebrews 11:13 verse from Adam on?

And NO, you are correct with the Oldest Jewish Bible of the O.T. even finding Rome as an future prophesied santanic 'fold', they were left out of any affiliation with Christ. (except Israels small Remnant & Romes sincere foolish of Revelation 18:4! See Micah 2:12-13, Amos 5:1-3,
Revelation 12:17) And Rome was not even on the scene only in Daniels future prophecy! Even then one see's in Daniel 2 that they are the last world Impire, and also Daniel 7:18-26. (compare Revelation 13:2 and the whole of Rome final satanic work! See and compare Revelation 3:9)
Yet, Heidi, note in Daniel 2 & 7 we see Rome [not by name], here is an observation by a ex/Jew Clifford R. Goldstein that is a very good observation that you will like! (I think?)

He says, Quote:
In the context of the destruction of Jerusalem, by the Romans, Jesus linked the Roman Empire to the book of Daniel. Jesus, therefore, not only points out Rome but places her within Daniel itself. Phrasing linked to "the abomination of desolation" spoken of Jesus by Jesus, in reference to Daniel, which occurs three times. (Daniel 9:27, Daniel 11:31, Daniel 12:11). Thus, Jesus links the Roman Empire to Daniel, making it even more obvious that Rome is that power that arises in Daniel 2, 7, and 8, after Greece and extends to "the end."

Though Daniel doesn't name Rome, the New Testament does, Thus following the Protestant formula of the Bible being its own interpreter, we find all four empires depicted in Daniel named in the Bible. ... Maybe, then, Rome isn't directly named not because Daniel wasn't able to tell the future but because the Lord knew that Rome would be in sole control of the Scriptures for ceintures and that had leaders in Rome seen the empire distinctly named, particulary in such a bad light, they could have destroyed the Scriptures or the book of Daniel. ... the Lord kept that identity hidden, knowing that He would at the right time raise up people, the Protestant Reformers, who would discover the true identity of the little-horn power. Daniel does say that his words would be "closed up and sealed till the time of the end: (Daniel 12:9) :wink: J/t/B

 

[francisdesales]

Hi Heidi, John here:

You say, quote:
"So sorry, friend, my beliefs are not based on what is not said in the bible like the catholics beliefs are."

I agree with that also. These 'people' could lay down the N.T. as they call it, and find that the very old Jewish Bible has been around long, long before they came around!

Wow. We are "people"... I suppose we barely make the cut. I see love is not part of your forte.

As to your arguments, it is ridiculous to try to tie the prophesies of Daniel's 4 empires to the Church. They are SECULAR empires. And on the book of Revelation's Beast being the Catholic Church, that is quite hilarious, that a Catholic writer would say that his church was the beast!

What does 1 John say about such people who hate those who they see, but claim to love What they cannot see???

Regards

 

[Vic C.]

Which beast are we referring to and how & when did the Apostle John become Catholic?

 

[Henry]

The apostles would be shocked at the RCC, they would not identify with it in the least.