Papal Claims

[Montalban]

What you are saying is incorrect. I did not miss the point. What you have done is take what I wrote out of contect.

You asked me what Church infalibility is, not what does it mean to my church or yours. I point out that it is a doctrine of my church, and yours. All you need note is that yours involves the Pope being infallible.

The complete idea is contained, not in one paragraph, but three paragraphs which must be taken together. They follow. If you wish to comment, then comment on the complete idea, not the first part only.

Great, and there you go on repeating yourself. If you repeat your beliefs often enough you might go... well nowhere really.

If you can address some of the points I've raised, such as how the Apostles saw each other in Acts 15, that would be great.

Or else, why not just re-state your passages from Mat, with no context again. I'm sure some people may have missed the four or five times you last quoted them

 

[Fantasea]

You asked me what Church infalibility is, not what does it mean to my church or yours. I point out that it is a doctrine of my church, and yours. All you need note is that yours involves the Pope being infallible.

Great, and there you go on repeating yourself. If you repeat your beliefs often enough you might go... well nowhere really.

If you can address some of the points I've raised, such as how the Apostles saw each other in Acts 15, that would be great.

Or else, why not just re-state your passages from Mat, with no context again. I'm sure some people may have missed the four or five times you last quoted them

It's simple enough. Your church has its own dogma which differs from that of mine. Believe what you wish.

 

[Montalban]

It's simple enough. Your church has its own dogma which differs from that of mine. Believe what you wish.

Sure, you're entitled to change Christian teachings if you want, and invent papal infalibility, then work your way back, selectively quote the gospel; if you wish.

 

[edb19]

Quertol - that was a great reference - thanks so much for sharing.

A site that a good friend shared with me when I was having some on-line discussion with a RC friend (about marks of a true church, Mary as co-redemtrix, and a couple of other doctrinal differences) is http://www.justforcatholics.org/

I found some great information there - all backed up with Scripture. It is managed/written by a Reformed Baptist pastor who grew up in the Roman church. No Catholic bashing - just Scriptural answers to RC doctrine (i.e. the infallibility of the pope).

 

[edb19]

And then there's the Westminster Confession of Faith, which I believe spells out very clearly who is the head of the Church. Each of the numbers refers to multiple Scripture references.

CHAPTER XXV
Of the Church

I. The catholic or universal church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the Head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fullness of him that filleth all in all.[490]

II. The visible church, which is also catholic or universal under the gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion;[491] and of their children:[492] and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ,[493] the house and family of God,[494] out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.[495]

III. Unto this catholic visible church Christ hath given the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God, for the gathering and perfecting of the saints, in this life, to the end of the world: and doth, by his own presence and Spirit, according to his promise, make them effectual thereunto.[496]

IV. This catholic church hath been sometimes more, sometimes less visible.[497] And particular churches, which are members thereof, are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them.[498]

V. The purest churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error;[499] and some have so degenerated, as to become no churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan.[500] Nevertheless, there shall be always a church on earth, to worship God according to his will.[501]

VI. There is no other head of the church but the Lord Jesus Christ.[502] Nor can the pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof.[503]

 

[Fantasea]

And then there's the Westminster Confession of Faith, which I believe spells out very clearly who is the head of the Church. Each of the numbers refers to multiple Scripture references.

Given that the Westminster Confession of Faith occurred in England in 1646, what would one expect?

 

[Montalban]

Given that the Westminster Confession of Faith occurred in England in 1646, what would one expect?

The Church of England was in effect started by a man who couldn't keep his *ahem* in his pants. (Henry VIII). Not a very sound basis for founding a church

 

[geekgrrl]

[...]
My apologies for initiating this tangential avenue of discussion. No harm was intended. I sincerely sought a logical theological answer for what I consider to be an archaic and centric-based format of theological revenge.

No need to apologize. Persecution of erudite and inquisitive minds will always be a feature of ideology-driven cultures, be it the anus-crazed culture of the Vatican or the evangelism-crazed culture of the current Republican congress in Washington.

 

[edb19]

The Church of England was in effect started by a man who couldn't keep his *ahem* in his pants. (Henry VIII). Not a very sound basis for founding a church

With the exception of the true founder and head of the church, Jesus the Christ, the entire Christian church - regardless of denomination - is comprised, in its entirety, of nothing but sinners. I would argue that he didn't "found" a church - he merely broke off from Rome - same as the Reformers in Geneva ~20 years before. The Westminster Confession was written almost 100 years after the Church of England separated from Rome, so it isn't like Henry VIII had a hand in writing it.

But neither one of those things detracts from what the confession says. I could have as easily quoted the LBC which also clearly states that Jesus the Christ is the only head of the church - and that the pope is not now, nor has he ever been the head of the church.

When we discuss a point of theology and/or doctrine we shouldn't say "What does the pope say" or even "What does the Church say". Like Christ before us, our response should be "What does Scripture say". While they certainly aren't a replacement for Scripture, I like the confessions because they clearly and concisely take Scripture, and only Scripture, to make their point. The writers have done the research for me :smile:

"I cannot submit my faith either to the Pope or to the Councils, because it is clear as day they have frequently erred and contradicted each other. Unless therefore, I am convinced by the testimony of Scripture . . . I cannot and will not retract . . . Here I stand, I can do no other. So help me God, Amen."
Martin Luther

"Wherever we find the Word of God surely preached and heard, and the sacraments administered according to the institution of Christ, there, it is not to be doubted, is a church of God." John Calvin

 

[Montalban]

With the exception of the true founder and head of the church, Jesus the Christ, the entire Christian church - regardless of denomination - is comprised, in its entirety, of nothing but sinners. I would argue that he didn't "found" a church - he merely broke off from Rome - same as the Reformers in Geneva ~20 years before. The Westminster Confession was written almost 100 years after the Church of England separated from Rome, so it isn't like Henry VIII had a hand in writing it.

Semantics! That's akin to saying that Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Geo. Washington et al didn't really found a new nation, they just 'broke-off' from Britain.

You also make a claim that is novel that the church is not real in a institutional sense, but invisible, made up of all the believers regardless of their denomination. This is illogical, and certainly contradicted by the Protestant groups themselves; witness the fact that some Protestant churches argue over women priests/clergy, others over gay clergy, some argue about infant -v- adult baptism, some over what 'gifts' one should have; speaking in tongues, handling of snakes etc. These differences that the Protestants argue over; you say are irrelevant... which is disproved by the fact that they continue to be divided. St. Paul always called Christian groups into unity, he never said "Okay, go worship God your own way".

Jesus was not the invisible God, but God made visible. Why should not the church be a refelction of Him? Jesus gave to His Apostles certain rights and duties, to bind and loose, to go out and do things in His name. Jesus appointed 12 Apostles, and when Jesus had left, they met and appointed on to take the place of Judas, thus showing that they exercised the commission Jesus had given them (they also appointed other offices, deacons etc).

But neither one of those things detracts from what the confession says. I could have as easily quoted the LBC which also clearly states that Jesus the Christ is the only head of the church - and that the pope is not now, nor has he ever been the head of the church.

Nonsense argument. I don't agree with the Papacy either! You're arguing the wrong thing with me.

When we discuss a point of theology and/or doctrine we shouldn't say "What does the pope say" or even "What does the Church say". Like Christ before us, our response should be "What does Scripture say". While they certainly aren't a replacement for Scripture, I like the confessions because they clearly and concisely take Scripture, and only Scripture, to make their point. The writers have done the research for me :smile:

Why only 'the Scripture' (by which you mean the Bible; and not other early Christian writings such as the Epistle of Clement, the Epistles of Ignatius of Antioch, the Didache etc). Where does the Bible say that the Bible only should be read.

How did the Bible come into being? Did it authorise itself? Did it fall out of heaven fully compiled? Or, did the Church create it?

"I cannot submit my faith either to the Pope or to the Councils, because it is clear as day they have frequently erred and contradicted each other. Unless therefore, I am convinced by the testimony of Scripture . . . I cannot and will not retract . . . Here I stand, I can do no other. So help me God, Amen."
Martin Luther

"Wherever we find the Word of God surely preached and heard, and the sacraments administered according to the institution of Christ, there, it is not to be doubted, is a church of God." John Calvin

Great, but what relevence has it to me? I don't follow the Pope.

Where does Martin Luther get the authority to deny the church?

Refer to The Church is Visible and One
A Critique of Protestant Ecclesiology
by Patrick Barnes
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/church.aspx

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Pardon me if I don’t find this all to be rather ridiculous. I was raised Catholic, my wife was raised Southern Baptist, when we married we figured we ought to compromise. So we visited several churches representing several different denominations. We ended up joining a local Episcopal parish. We didn’t necessarily choose the Episcopal Church because we thought that the Episcopalians were the ones who had it more right than any other denomination, but rather it was because we liked the rector of that parish a lot. Like most Catholics, my knowledge of scripture was somewhat limited, I heard the readings on Sunday my whole life but that by and large was the extent of my knowledge of scripture. After joining the Episcopal Church, I took to reading the Bible somewhat regularly on my own. I did this more out of wanting an intellectual understanding rather than being compelled by my parish or something.

At any rate, after a good bit of reading of the Bible (and this was a Catholic Approved Bible), more so the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament than the Old Testament, it seemed to me that the Good Lord established a Faith, not a huge bureaucracy, and not Church that had to be defended by overly complex arguments given by various apologists. The Gospels are more of a handbook for socialism (not the communist variety) than a handbook for building a massive church that makes the U.S. Government look like a model of efficiency.

It seems to me that the core message of the Gospels is the following:

1. Love the Lord more than anything; Love each other more than yourselves.

2. Live simply, avoid materialism, and help each other out. If you have two coats and another has none, then give them one of your coats.

3. We are all sinners, none of us deserve Gods love, and we are saved through the Grace of God not through anything we could possibly do ourselves.

4. Don’t judge people, and be hospitable to everyone.

5. Once again (because this seems to be the core teaching of the Gospels), Live simply, avoid materialism, and help each other out.

No where in the Gospels does it say anything about Gay marriage or homosexuality at all. So it would seem to me that good Christians ought to work on living simply, avoiding materialism, helping each other out, and being hospitable to everyone before they worry about the gay and lesbian agenda.

Things like whether you should be fully immersed when Baptized, whether the Pope is infallible, or which church is more right is pretty much irrelevant to our salvation.

 

[edb19]

You also make a claim that is novel that the church is not real in a institutional sense, but invisible, made up of all the believers regardless of their denomination. . . .

Nonsense argument. I don't agree with the Papacy either! You're arguing the wrong thing with me. . . . .

Why only 'the Scripture' (by which you mean the Bible; and not other early Christian writings such as the Epistle of Clement, the Epistles of Ignatius of Antioch, the Didache etc). Where does the Bible say that the Bible only should be read. . . . .

How did the Bible come into being? Did it authorise itself? Did it fall out of heaven fully compiled? Or, did the Church create it?

Where does Martin Luther get the authority to deny the church?

I don't know how to set apart multiple quotes, so. . .

1. I never said the church is not real in an institutional sense - not sure where you got the impression I did. Without question there is both a visible and invisible church. There are multiple denominations with doctrinal differences - some big, some not so big. The point of confessions - i.e. The Westminster - is that they identify and unite us. I can pretty much walk into a Presbyterian church anywhere and know what they subscribe to based on their adherence to the Westminster. Same goes for Baptist churches and the London Baptist Confession or a Lutheran Church and the Book of Concord.

2. I didn't know I was arguing with you - I simply referred to the Confessions to support my position that the pope is not the head of "the church".

3. I have no problem with extra biblical writings, - but they don't take precedence over Scripture. The Bible, like Jesus the Christ, is both human (written by man's hand) and divine (these same men and women were inspired solely by God). I've read Stott, Boice, Augustine, Calvin, Schaeffer, Lewis, Spurgeon, Piper, Owen, Horton, Packer and others. All great authors with much more theological knowledge and wisdom than I'll ever have. But all would say - Scripture first. And yes, I do believe (as Scripture teaches) that the Bible is self authenticating, its authority depends on God - Who authored it and Who is Truth.

"The Bible is the cradle wherein Christ is laid." Luther

4. Luther's authority to challenge the Roman church came from his correct reading of Scripture. His original intent wasn't to start a new church/denomination. He loved the church and truly hoped that Rome would change its ways.

 

[Montalban]

Pardon me if I don’t find this all to be rather ridiculous. I was raised Catholic, my wife was raised Southern Baptist, when we married we figured we ought to compromise. So we visited several churches representing several different denominations. We ended up joining a local Episcopal parish. We didn’t necessarily choose the Episcopal Church because we thought that the Episcopalians were the ones who had it more right than any other denomination, but rather it was because we liked the rector of that parish a lot. Like most Catholics, my knowledge of scripture was somewhat limited, I heard the readings on Sunday my whole life but that by and large was the extent of my knowledge of scripture. After joining the Episcopal Church, I took to reading the Bible somewhat regularly on my own. I did this more out of wanting an intellectual understanding rather than being compelled by my parish or something.

At any rate, after a good bit of reading of the Bible (and this was a Catholic Approved Bible), more so the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament than the Old Testament, it seemed to me that the Good Lord established a Faith, not a huge bureaucracy, and not Church that had to be defended by overly complex arguments given by various apologists. The Gospels are more of a handbook for socialism (not the communist variety) than a handbook for building a massive church that makes the U.S. Government look like a model of efficiency.

It seems to me that the core message of the Gospels is the following:

1. Love the Lord more than anything; Love each other more than yourselves.

2. Live simply, avoid materialism, and help each other out. If you have two coats and another has none, then give them one of your coats.

3. We are all sinners, none of us deserve Gods love, and we are saved through the Grace of God not through anything we could possibly do ourselves.

4. Don’t judge people, and be hospitable to everyone.

5. Once again (because this seems to be the core teaching of the Gospels), Live simply, avoid materialism, and help each other out.

No where in the Gospels does it say anything about Gay marriage or homosexuality at all. So it would seem to me that good Christians ought to work on living simply, avoiding materialism, helping each other out, and being hospitable to everyone before they worry about the gay and lesbian agenda.

Things like whether you should be fully immersed when Baptized, whether the Pope is infallible, or which church is more right is pretty much irrelevant to our salvation.

That's good for you but you make out Christ to be a guru who taught some really cool stuff about how to live life.

Christ came to conqueor death. We are to follow Him. He didn't, for example just say "Go live a cool life", He told the prositute "Go and sin no more"

Your statement about homosexuality is incorrect.
Jude 1:7
Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

Sodomy comes from "Sodom" and we are reminded of the fate of that city.

More specific...
1 Corinthians 6
9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders

It's really great you live a 'nice' life. Christ is not about being nice.

 

[Montalban]

I don't know how to set apart multiple quotes, so. . .
1. I never said the church is not real in an institutional sense - not sure where you got the impression I did. Without question there is both a visible and invisible church. There are multiple denominations with doctrinal differences - some big, some not so big. The point of confessions - i.e. The Westminster - is that they identify and unite us.

Not all Protestans follow the Westminister confession, and you are not united with Catholics, Orthodox, Copts etc. I don't know why you think you are united, except with those that follow a confession that was created by men.

I can pretty much walk into a Presbyterian church anywhere and know what they subscribe to based on their adherence to the Westminster. Same goes for Baptist churches and the London Baptist Confession or a Lutheran Church and the Book of Concord.

Great, what is being united with a few groups of Protestants mean?

2. I didn't know I was arguing with you - I simply referred to the Confessions to support my position that the pope is not the head of "the church".

I agree that the Pope isn't the head; what I object to is you citing a reference from a church that was founded by an adulterer, that follows doctrines that a novel, such as sola scriptura, sola fide etc. The Anglican church also allows women clergy and is divided on homosexual clergy issues

3. I have no problem with extra biblical writings, - but they don't take precedence over Scripture. The Bible, like Jesus the Christ, is both human (written by man's hand) and divine (these same men and women were inspired solely by God). I've read Stott, Boice, Augustine, Calvin, Schaeffer, Lewis, Spurgeon, Piper, Owen, Horton, Packer and others. All great authors with much more theological knowledge and wisdom than I'll ever have. But all would say - Scripture first. And yes, I do believe (as Scripture teaches) that the Bible is self authenticating, its authority depends on God - Who authored it and Who is Truth.

Cool. What about John Damascene? John Chrysostomon? Photius the Great? Ignatius of Antioch?

"The Bible is the cradle wherein Christ is laid." Luther
4. Luther's authority to challenge the Roman church came from his correct reading of Scripture. His original intent wasn't to start a new church/denomination. He loved the church and truly hoped that Rome would change its ways.

His reading of Scripture was so flawed that he had to fudge several verses so as they would more fall into line with what he hoped it would say.

I don't think appealing to another man to found a church is a good idea.
I apologise if this appears as a rant

 

[Montalban]

I have whittled down your post to reveal these two statements, which together are unfortunate

Like most Catholics, my knowledge of scripture was somewhat limited,avoid materialism, and help each other out.

No where in the Gospels does it say anything about Gay marriage or homosexuality at all.

Romans 1:26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

This is in addition to the 1 Corinthians quote above. Jesus was not about 'let it all hang out' or 'do whatever'.

 

[edb19]

Not a rant - but a mite confusing at times. Hard to tell where you stand.

Anyhow - again, the confessions are nice because they put in a concise format what a church believes, they unite within a denomination. First and foremost - I look for the signs of a true church (Acts 2:42), then I look at their doctrine and whether or not it is Scriptural. Having that doctrine spelled out is helpful. Churches without creeds and confessions often have a "whatever you believe is ok" attitude.

Since all men are sinners we won't find a church today that doesn't have sinners in their history - doesn't mean that we have to discount the church and what it teaches. Again, we just have to hold it to a Scriptural standard. And yes, that means I hold to the tenets of Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Sola Christus and Sola Dei Gloria. The solas are Biblically based. I'm saved from God, by God, for the glory of God.

Re: the Anglican church, yes they are currently ordaining women and there is plenty of discussion about homosexual clergy. There have been churches here in the US that are withholding their money from their diocese because they don't agree with some of the current stances. The Anglican church in Africa is very conservative - and growing. They will either have to revisit some of their viewpoints or they may well suffer a scism. Time will tell.

 

[Montalban]

Not a rant - but a mite confusing at times. Hard to tell where you stand.

I apologise. We believe in Christ's words as not all being contained within the Bible (even the Bible says this (last verse of the last passage of the Gospel of John))
Thus we believe in Holy Tradition, and to that degree we are similar to the Catholic Church; however we don't believe in a Pope, and thus we don't believe that one can 'develop' doctrine. (Express it better, yes, but not invent doctrine/dogma; such as the Catholic Church did re: Immaculate Conception, Papal Infalibility, the Papacy in general, etc).
We have icons, like Catholics, but not much statues (as far as I'm aware, they're frowned on)

Anyhow - again, the confessions are nice because they put in a concise format what a church believes, they unite within a denomination. First and foremost - I look for the signs of a true church (Acts 2:42), then I look at their doctrine and whether or not it is Scriptural. Having that doctrine spelled out is helpful. Churches without creeds and confessions often have a "whatever you believe is ok" attitude.

Indeed, we are not a 'do what you feel church'. St. Paul continually called churches into line.

Since all men are sinners we won't find a church today that doesn't have sinners in their history - doesn't mean that we have to discount the church and what it teaches. Again, we just have to hold it to a Scriptural standard.

If you mean all men commit sin, yes. We don't believe in Original Sin, but Original Guilt.

And yes, that means I hold to the tenets of Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Sola Christus and Sola Dei Gloria. The solas are Biblically based. I'm saved from God, by God, for the glory of God.

Where does the Bible say the Bible alone is sufficient? What happened to the early church that didn't have a Bible? Why that particular Bible, and not say, the Bible Marcion compiled?

Re: the Anglican church, yes they are currently ordaining women and there is plenty of discussion about homosexual clergy. There have been churches here in the US that are withholding their money from their diocese because they don't agree with some of the current stances. The Anglican church in Africa is very conservative - and growing. They will either have to revisit some of their viewpoints or they may well suffer a scism. Time will tell.

This is an example of the development of doctrine that we are against, not just that particular doctrine, but of all doctrine. We believe that the complete repository of faith was given to the Aposltes

We believe also in the real Body and Blood of the Eucharist.

 

[Montalban]

Not a rant - but a mite confusing at times. Hard to tell where you stand.

Forgot to cross-promote. If you want to debate one aspect there's a thread I started "Body and Blood" on the real presence in the Eucharist

 

[ALiberalModerate]

That's good for you but you make out Christ to be a guru who taught some really cool stuff about how to live life.

Christ came to conqueor death. We are to follow Him. He didn't, for example just say "Go live a cool life", He told the prositute "Go and sin no more"

Your statement about homosexuality is incorrect.
Jude 1:7
Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

Sodomy comes from "Sodom" and we are reminded of the fate of that city.

More specific...
1 Corinthians 6
9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders

It's really great you live a 'nice' life. Christ is not about being nice.

I think you might have missed my point. I stated that in the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) that Jesus in his short time with us on Earth did not mention homosexuality. Yes, there a couple of references by Paul in the epistles, and some Old Testament References, but in Jesus himself in his short time with us, did not say anything on the subject.

The greatest commandment Jesus gave us was:

"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[c] 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."(Matthew 22:36-40)

That’s where I got that loving each other part.

Here is where I got more of the loving each other and the avoiding materialism and helping out one another:

-Sermon on the Mount
1And seeing the multitudes, He went up on a mountain, and when He was seated His disciples came to Him. 2Then He opened His mouth and taught them, saying:

3"Blessed are the poor in spirit,
For theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4Blessed are those who mourn,
For they shall be comforted.
5Blessed are the meek,
For they shall inherit the earth.
6Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
For they shall be filled.
7Blessed are the merciful,
For they shall obtain mercy.
8Blessed are the pure in heart,
For they shall see God.
9Blessed are the peacemakers,
For they shall be called sons of God.
10Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake,
For theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

11"Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake. 12Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

And of course avoiding Materialsim –

Mark 10:25 "A rich man has as much of a chance entering heaven as a camel
through the eye of a needle."

Luke 18:22 "Sell all you have and give it to the poor."

Matthew 25:45 "When you refuse to help the least of these (the poor), you
refuse to help me."

These versus (among many others is where I got the saved through grace part)

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life (John 3:16).

If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved (Romans 10:9).

Of course those themes I am referring to only make up about 90% of so of the Bible. Its much easier for the self righteous to ignore that 90% and pluck out a verse or two against Gays or something so as to make themselves feel good.

 

[Montalban]

I think you might have missed my point. I stated that in the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) that Jesus in his short time with us on Earth did not mention homosexuality. Yes, there a couple of references by Paul in the epistles, and some Old Testament References, but in Jesus himself in his short time with us, did not say anything on the subject.

You are correct that on this one issue you did mention Gospels, however you also did a general précis of the entire bible…

At any rate, after a good bit of reading of the Bible (and this was a Catholic Approved Bible), more so the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament than the Old Testament

However, leaving that aside… Jesus also never said anything specific about bestiality, or child abuse. By your rationale He sanctioned these things.

However Jesus did mention specifically about marriage, and for the Jews of the day, the only valid marriage was between a man and a woman.

The greatest commandment Jesus gave us was:

"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[c] 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."(Matthew 22:36-40)

That’s where I got that loving each other part.

Sure, and it’s not loving your neighbour if you let them harm themselves. Homosexuality, from a Christian stand-point is a sin, and therefore harmful.

Here is where I got more of the loving each other and the avoiding materialism and helping out one another:
-Sermon on the Mount

And of course avoiding Materialsim –

These versus (among many others is where I got the saved through grace part)

I don’t deny that there is a social message; however that is not the central plank of Jesus’ mission.

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life (John 3:16).

This means he who has a right belief. Or else Jesus is saying everyone who believes He exists is a Christian, or who makes some statement of belief, such as the Dalai Lama who ‘believes’ in Jesus, and Muslims do, too.
Not everyone who cries Lord, Lord, will be saved!

If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved (Romans 10:9).[/quyote]
This goes more to the point of what I said. It is not just a belief in Jesus, but a belief in Jesus of a kind, in this case that He is raised from the dead. Muslims who believe in Jesus, and even refer to Him in the Koran as Christ don’t believe in His resurrection (they even deny the crucifixion), so the
mere statement of ‘faith’, is not enough. I’m surprised a Catholic would say that.

Of course those themes I am referring to only make up about 90% of so of the Bible. Its much easier for the self righteous to ignore that 90% and pluck out a verse or two against Gays or something so as to make themselves feel good.

And you do the same with the social message stuff, because you want a Christ-guru, hip dude/poster-boy for liberalism.

You make an error that is very un-Catholic, that all that Jesus said is in the Bible (the Bible itself says otherwise (see last verse of the last chapter of the last gospel)). Somehow, because He’s not stated something specific, you assume that the moral codes have been abrogated, even though the clear mentioning of them by St. Paul shows that the early church didn’t abandon this.