munari

Word, You have a point, but there are also Christians who live in those same conditions. And look in our own country, there are destitute people here who are also Christians living in poor conditions. Plus, you also have to realize that there are VERY rich people in those countries who are not Christian who are putting their own people down, ala Bin Laden...

John, I want to apologize for saying that you are twisting what the Catholic Church is teaching, I don't think you are really doing that. In order to twist it, you would have to understand it first, and I don't think you understand what the Church teaches that well. And, I think I can fairly say that since I didn't really understand too well myself until about 2 years ago after I'd been raised in the Church for 24 years. I am hoping I can teach you some of the things that the Church actually teaches.

Let me quote my last post... What do you think that means???? I'm sorry, I didn't spell it out verbatim... or did I. Let me quote myself again. Does that not mean that someone needs Christ in order to be saved? "Anyone" DOES include the Jews.

You continue to twist and distort what the Church says. The Church says that there is no salvation without Christ. However, the Church says that one CAN BE (not necessarily will be) saved without believing in Christ. An example, Bushman Joe who has never heard of Christ. Is he damned because he didn't know about Christ? What about the Jew (or Muslim) that has never really heard of Him. The Jew may have been told since he was two that Jesus was a crazy blaspheming carpenter from Nazareth. Believing anything else is not even thinkable! And about the same for the Muslim, being told lies about Christ, that he was only a prophet. Are these people automatically damned because they are ignorant of Christ? I know I don't want to make such a judgement and neither does the Church. Anyone who enters heaven enters because they are saved by Jesus Christ.

I have no comment or thought on it. The only I have heard about it is that the group that made that stance was not an official gathering and consensus of the US Bishops. This is not binding on Catholics, it is not infallible doctrine. Beyond that, I don't know about it.

FHA, It seems a lot of our discussion has been actually over what we say is an idol. An idol in the Biblical sense is worshipping something as God or as a god that is not God. Hence, by this definition, the one that I and the RCC uses, praying to saints and Mary or elevating them is not idolatry because we are not saying they are God, equal to Him, or before Him. Whatsitmean, AMEN! We are to follow her words all the time.

Cross over from where to where? Could you please clarify and give the scriptural reference?

But, you must also be careful because if you found the same verse in another OT book, which was the first book to be written? Perhaps they too were citings Maccabbees (or some other book)...

I will admit it, I did not read all these references and check them, but they were attached with an article by James Akin, and I trust him because of other things I have read by him. Here is the article that starts that list: Here is the evidence, I leave the burden of determination of the weight of that evidence to you. However, if you do have a problem with some of the verses, I would appreciate if you would share those verses and those issues with us.

Jesus did not condemn tradition, he condemned empty mindless tradition or tradition that goes against the law of God (Matt 151:13; Mark 7:9). Why do I say that? Because, Paul tells us to hold on to our traditions several times (1 Cor 11:2; 2 Thess 2:15; 2 Thess 3:6). Paul could not tell us to do something that Christ condemned!

I hope I'm putting this in the right place... Racer, you said: Like I said, just a tad bit dishonest - 100 or 200? Ha! References to what? Just to make sure you and everyone else sees it, I'm going to post the entire list the web page astralis gave you right here. from: http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/deutero3.htm I did a quick count and know that there are about 325 references listed there...

Racer, I may be mistaken, but I am not aware of a distinctive split between Apostolic Tradition and scripure, are you astralis? In fact, scripture pretty much falls into that realm of Tradition since the Church existed before the Bible...

I'm sorry if you don't accept it, but those are Apostolic Traditions. If those don't fit YOUR definition, could you be a little more specific and perhaps give us an example?

Eucharist Confession Holy Orders Marriage Confirmation Annointing of the Sick Baptism Those are the big 7, known as the Sacraments, all of which are scripturally based. I could probably go on and list more obscure/debatable ones, but I think these would bring enough debate themselves. Oh, and I didn't list a big one... The Mass

Oh no, discuss your point, I want you to so we can work this out. But you asked what I wanted to get out of this discussion, so I went for full honesty. That is what I am ultimately hoping comes from this discussion.

I don't think it was on this forum... I tried to find it, but I can't remember where he posted it... hopefully he remembers and will post again or direct us to it.

Astralis also gave you a list of books from the OT that were not quoted in the NT. So... if you can show me where in the NT those books are quoted, I will show you where the Deuteros are quoted... When did it become a requirement for OT scripture to have to be quoted in the NT in order for it to be scripture? Here's a good link on the Apocrypha: http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ110.HTM

I honestly don't know if I could of or could not of. I don't know if I would even be Christian if I was not raised Catholic. Its a hypothetical that no one can truthfully and accurately answer. I can ask you the same thing. If you were not influenced by Protestant ideas, do you think you could have discerned those things being there. I WILL say however that I honestly and 100% agree that those doctrines are implicitly based in scripture and on the nature of Christ. Each of those doctrines were developed and promulgated in order to protect a belief in Christ.

What I want is for you to see that priests are necessary and that Christ is the High Priest and the the priests of today are Christ's priests that fulfill the sacraments that Christ set up. Where does it say in the Bible that the line of Melchizedek ends with Christ? Its says that he is a priest forever in that order, but it doesn't say that it end or that Christ is the only priest in that line. Melchizedek was a priest, he was not a high priest. Christ was always THE High Priest (even though there were other high priests in the OT), even though we didn't know it. Melchizedek was a type of Christ, but he is also a forshadowing of the Christ's priesthood and of the priests who were to follow after Christ. Melchizedek's sacrafice, Christ's last supper sacrafice (the Lord's Supper), and the prediction of the rabbis stating that the todah is the only sacrafice that would last forever point DIRECTLY to the Sacrafice of the Mass and, more specifically, the Eucharist. And, as a sacrafice, it must be led by a priest...

You know what... I see where this discussion is going already... and it will boil down to authority again, like any Catholic/Protestant topic will eventually do... Yes, I do see a need for priests... I see a need for them because of the sacraments. At the Last Supper, Catholics believe that Christ instituted the Eucharist. We believe that with this institution (and with the later giving of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost), Christ made his Apostles priests who had the authority to teach, give the sacraments, and who could make others priests.

Get a little excited there Astralis?

I think that something needs to be pointed out here... something that is not fair racer... You were holding Catholics to the "do you think you would have known that from scripture if the Catholic Church didn't tell you" standard. However, you just admitted in your last post that one of (if not) the most important doctrines of Christianity would not be explicitly drawn from scripture by everyone! That's not fair.

Yeah, I knew you were TRYING to make a point about Mary... Pick up where we left off about Melchizedek? Sure, sounds good to me. If I remember correctly, the discussion actually didn't beging about Melchizedek, but started about Catholic priests. You were saying that God only set up two priesthoods in the OT and that our priests of today were not a member of either of those. I then said that there were actually three priesthoods, the third being in the line of Melchizedek and that this is the line of priests that our Catholic priets follow. Is that a good sumation? If I forgot anything, please let me know.

Well, it means that he was not created, that he has always been. However, it is not to be taken literally in all ways, for we know that Jesus has a Father, and that he has a mother. We know his geneology, we know he was born and died. This is referring to Jesus' eternal existance as God, it is not referring to his human existance.