Top doctrines in Christianity you consider false.

Artfuldodger · Dec 5, 2017

Big7 said:
[/SIZE]

Yes.

Interesting, I guess that Luther fellow thought the initial divine intervention was wrong and that he had just received new intervention from God.
This was probably similar to the mystery Paul had received new intervention from God to reveal. Maybe?
Going back to before Paul, there was this way Christian things were done as it pertained to Gentiles and then God reveals something hidden to Paul later. Then Paul reveals it.
Did Paul change anything that made the early Church more or less Catholic than it already was? KY55 suggests that it was more Jewish before Paul.

Then Paul rebukes Peter for not wanting to act like the mystery that was revealed to him. Weird seeing how some see Peter as the Rock and not Jesus that the Church was built on. Then it's also weird how wishy washy Paul was too.

atlashunter · Dec 5, 2017

Always comes back to "my team was writing on gods behalf and yours wasn't". Begs the question, why would an infallible deity use fallible men to communicate a message for him that he knows they are going to screw up? Is this really what should be expected from an omnipotent omniscient being?

atlashunter · Dec 5, 2017

All of these questions become easily answered if we just consider the possibility that religion is nothing more than psychological warfare. Just stories made up by some to control and take advantage of others. It worked for the Jewish priest class. It worked for Mohammed. Worked for Constantine. And it has certainly worked for the Catholic Church.

Artfuldodger · Dec 5, 2017

atlashunter said:
Always comes back to "my team was writing on gods behalf and yours wasn't". Begs the question, why would an infallible deity use fallible men to communicate a message for him that he knows they are going to screw up? Is this really what should be expected from an omnipotent omniscient being?

And like we discussed earlier, why would he need a council of men. Why would something as important as salvation from eternal death be left up to man and freewill?

This council may have missed something that one must believe in or not in order to gain everlasting life.
Yet if one believes God can call whom he wants, it's a better plan. He can even call individuals out of a country that isn't even a Christian nation.

Big7 · Dec 5, 2017

atlashunter said:
Isn't there a scripture in there that no man comes to the father but through me? Seems like he would be the one you need to intercede on your behalf? Does mom have more pull with Jesus? You pray to her to intercede on your behalf and then she goes and has a talk with Jesus about it? Is that how it works?

God, The Father, Christ, The Son and the Holy Spirit are
one and the same. (=)

Ok.. Let's say for a second, Mary does not exist.

Then roll on over to some of the other SF
threads and take a look at how many folks
want us to "pray" for a loved one in sickness
or death, after the fact or for their family's
ability to get through that loss or any other event.

By that logic, it is a waste of time.

One, at that time, asks us to "pray" for this, that and the other..

That's called "prayer for intercession".

To whom does one think is closer to God/Jesus/ Trinity
than The Mother of Christ?

The answer is very simple if you think about it.

I'm waiting on someone that THINKS he/she
can simply make a declaration, I'm "saved" and I can read a book, The Bible, and magically "discern " said book
and know everything there is to know without oral tradition which was the make up of The Bible to start with.

Don't get in a tiz.. Because you simply can't
make that argument.

atlashunter · Dec 5, 2017

Big7 said:
God, The Father, Christ, The Son and the Holy Spirit are
one and the same. (=)

Ok.. Let's say for a second, Mary does not exist.

Then roll on over to some of the other SF
threads and take a look at how many folks
want us to "pray" for a loved one in sickness
or death, after the fact or for their family's
ability to get through that loss or any other event.

By that logic, it is a waste of time.

One, at that time, asks us to "pray" for this, that and the other..

That's called "prayer for intercession".

To whom does one think is closer to God/Jesus/ Trinity
than The Mother of Christ?

The answer is very simple if you think about it.

I'm waiting on someone that THINKS he/she
can simply make a declaration, I'm "saved" and I can read a book, The Bible, and magically "discern " said book
and know everything there is to know without oral tradition which was the make up of The Bible to start with.

Don't get in a tiz.. Because you simply can't
make that argument.

No tiz here. Just trying to make sense of these claims. I'm not asking for truth, just coherency. :cheers:

So Jesus is effectively saying no man comes to the father but through the father. Because they are one and the same. What then is the point of saying it and where does the need for an intercessor come into play? If anything doesn't that indicate one must go directly to the big guy and cannot go through an intercessor? Why then the need to go through Mary or a priest? How do you square that with the scripture. Whether you say the scripture means one can only get to god through Jesus or one can only get to god directly because god and Jesus is the same, the point in either case is that no man comes to the father through any other means.

I do see your point about asking others to pray and it does seem an odd request. Prayer itself seems odd to me. As if some fate hangs in the balance and a deity is sitting there weighing the prayers and faith of the believers to decide if he will intervene or not. Asking the long since deceased mother of a deity to put in a good word for you just seems to compound the silliness. Out of curiosity, what is the scriptural basis Catholics use for this practice?

WaltL1 · Dec 5, 2017

atlashunter said:
I wonder if the whole eat my flesh and drink my blood thing also has some roots in paganism? I've heard more than one rabbi point this out and say the idea would be anathema for Jews.

From the link hobbs provided.

(2) Mithraism was a religion in the Roman Empire in the 1st through 5th centuries AD. It was very popular among the Romans, especially among Roman soldiers, and was possibly the religion of several Roman emperors. While Mithraism was never given “official” status in the Roman Empire, it was the de facto official religion until Constantine and succeeding Roman emperors replaced Mithraism with Christianity. One of the key features of Mithraism was a sacrificial meal, which involved eating the flesh and drinking the blood of a bull. Mithras, the god of Mithraism, was “present” in the flesh and blood of the bull, and when consumed, granted salvation to those who partook of the sacrificial meal (this is known as theophagy, the eating of one’s god). Mithraism also had seven “sacraments,” making the similarities between Mithraism and Roman Catholicism too many to ignore. Church leaders after Constantine found an easy substitute for the sacrificial meal of Mithraism in the concept of the Lord’s Supper/Christian communion. Even before Constantine, some early Christians had begun to attach mysticism to the Lord’s Supper, rejecting the biblical concept of a simple and worshipful remembrance of Christ’s death and shed blood. The Romanization of the Lord’s Supper made the transition to a sacrificial consumption of Jesus Christ, now known as the Catholic Mass/Eucharist, complete.

Spotlite · Dec 5, 2017

Big7 said:
God, The Father, Christ, The Son and the Holy Spirit are
one and the same. (=)

Ok.. Let's say for a second, Mary does not exist.

Then roll on over to some of the other SF
threads and take a look at how many folks
want us to "pray" for a loved one in sickness
or death, after the fact or for their family's
ability to get through that loss or any other event.

By that logic, it is a waste of time.

One, at that time, asks us to "pray" for this, that and the other..

That's called "prayer for intercession".

To whom does one think is closer to God/Jesus/ Trinity
than The Mother of Christ?

The answer is very simple if you think about it.

I would agree that Mary is closer to Jesus than any other human being. I would also point to Romans 8: 26 & 27 for who the intercessor should be.

Big7 · Dec 5, 2017

WaltL1 said:
From the link hobbs provided.

At the last supper, Christ declared:

This IS my body, this IS my blood.
Do this often, in remembrance of me.

He did not indicate "let's pretend" or "play like" it's me.

IS, is the operative here.

By the authority given St. Peter and his successors
when the keys to the kingdom, given to he and his
successors, that was a done deal.

Consecrated bread, The Host and wine, The Blood,
are truly the body and blood of Christ.

WaltL1 · Dec 5, 2017

Big7 said:
At the last supper, Christ declared:

This IS my body, this IS my blood.
Do this often, in remembrance of me.

He did not indicate "let's pretend" or "play like" it's me.

IS, is the operative here.

By the authority given St. Peter and his successors
when the keys to the kingdom, given to he and his
successors, that was a done deal.

Consecrated bread, The Host and wine, The Blood,
are truly the body and blood of Christ.

1. I made no claim as to the accuracy of the info in the link. It addressed what Atlas was wondering about.
Nothing more, nothing less.
2. Your assumption is because the Bible says that Jesus said that, that he actually did.
The paragraph gives you an alternative to that.
Do with it what you will.

Big7 · Dec 5, 2017

atlashunter said:
No tiz here. Just trying to make sense of these claims. I'm not asking for truth, just coherency.

So Jesus is effectively saying no man comes to the father but through the father. Because they are one and the same. What then is the point of saying it and where does the need for an intercessor come into play? If anything doesn't that indicate one must go directly to the big guy and cannot go through an intercessor? Why then the need to go through Mary or a priest? How do you square that with the scripture. Whether you say the scripture means one can only get to god through Jesus or one can only get to god directly because god and Jesus is the same, the point in either case is that no man comes to the father through any other means.

I do see your point about asking others to pray and it does seem an odd request. Prayer itself seems odd to me. As if some fate hangs in the balance and a deity is sitting there weighing the prayers and faith of the believers to decide if he will intervene or not. Asking the long since deceased mother of a deity to put in a good word for you just seems to compound the silliness. Out of curiosity, what is the scriptural basis Catholics use for this practice?

Not sure I completely understand your post.

Give me point A and I will try my best to give you point B.

Meantime, give this a thoughtful read.

https://www.scripturecatholic.com/saints-and-intercessory-prayer/

atlashunter · Dec 5, 2017

Big7 said:
Not sure I completely understand your post.

Give me point A and I will try my best to give you point B.

Meantime, give this a thoughtful read.

https://www.scripturecatholic.com/saints-and-intercessory-prayer/

I think my points were pretty clear. Not sure which part you aren't getting.

atlashunter · Dec 5, 2017

Big7 said:
At the last supper, Christ declared:

This IS my body, this IS my blood.
Do this often, in remembrance of me.

He did not indicate "let's pretend" or "play like" it's me.

IS, is the operative here.

By the authority given St. Peter and his successors
when the keys to the kingdom, given to he and his
successors, that was a done deal.

Consecrated bread, The Host and wine, The Blood,
are truly the body and blood of Christ.

We could put that one to the test with an upper endoscopy.

atlashunter · Dec 5, 2017

http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=1340

Apparently even Catholics aren't in agreement as to whether they are engaging in literal cannibalism or symbolic cannibalism.

At that time, the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of Christ, as the Church has always taught. Although they still look like bread and wine, they have, by divine power, actually changed into His Body and Blood. How can we know this? It requires faith.

bullethead · Dec 5, 2017

Artfuldodger said:
And like we discussed earlier, why would he need a council of men. Why would something as important as salvation from eternal death be left up to man and freewill?

This council may have missed something that one must believe in or not in order to gain everlasting life.
Yet if one believes God can call whom he wants, it's a better plan. He can even call individuals out of a country that isn't even a Christian nation.

Never ceases to amaze how votes from Clergy, ranging from Nicea to current Pope selection, are never unanimous despite them all claiming that God inspired them to vote the way they did.

ky55 · Dec 5, 2017

bullethead said:
Never ceases to amaze how votes from Clergy, ranging from Nicea to current Pope selection, are never unanimous despite them all claiming that God inspired them to vote the way they did.

Seems unusual that a majority vote works for a god-inspired issue, when a unanimous vote is required from a jury in a simple criminal trial.

Artfuldodger · Dec 5, 2017

bullethead said:
Never ceases to amaze how votes from Clergy, ranging from Nicea to current Pope selection, are never unanimous despite them all claiming that God inspired them to vote the way they did.

Especially since Constantine used his influence at the Council of Nicea to unite the division between Christians concerning the Godhead. Constantine wanted unity for political reasons. Arius thought God had divinity over Jesus. The pro-Trinity team went with Athanasius and thus won the election. It was Trinity for most from that point forward.
This council was more or less intervened for political reasons.

I can't say this was the Church that Jesus built or was how the early Church believed before this council convened.

It's still kinda weird that the followers that protested still placed a lot of faith in the Church that they sought reformation from. Maybe they should have looked at how Christians were worshiping from when Paul was spreading the gospel.

Artfuldodger · Dec 5, 2017

Concerning the Eucharist or Holy Communion, I don't see where it matters much if one thinks he is actually eating Jesus' body and drinking his blood or if it's symbolic in nature.

I personally view it as a remembrance from Paul's words to the Corinthians.

We have to realize that the body and blood of Christ was human even though he was divine or God or his Father was God. So even if one was to eat his actual flesh and drink his actual blood, it doesn't contain his divine nature, only his human nature.

It's not a part of salvation like the example of consuming a God's body and blood in order to gain salvation. Paul explains it as a remembrance of what the body and blood of Jesus means.
What actually happened to the body and blood of Christ on the cross and his resurrection.

John 6:53-54
So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of Man, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.

Apologist James McCarthy said something like;
Jesus was physically present with the disciples at the Last Supper. I'm pretty sure the disciples new the bread and wine wasn't Jesus. McCarthy rightly observes: “Surely they would not have thought that Jesus’ body was both at the table and on the table.”

bullethead · Dec 6, 2017

Artfuldodger said:
Especially since Constantine used his influence at the Council of Nicea to unite the division between Christians concerning the Godhead. Constantine wanted unity for political reasons. Arius thought God had divinity over Jesus. The pro-Trinity team went with Athanasius and thus won the election. It was Trinity for most from that point forward.
This council was more or less intervened for political reasons.

I can't say this was the Church that Jesus built or was how the early Church believed before this council convened.

It's still kinda weird that the followers that protested still placed a lot of faith in the Church that they sought reformation from. Maybe they should have looked at how Christians were worshiping from when Paul was spreading the gospel.

It was more than a trinity or not decision. They had to vote on what god(s) were going to be the official one(s) to be worshipped. It wasn't about getting the details of the one, only and true god right....they had to vote on who they were to make a god, then doctor him up to suit.

1gr8bldr · Dec 13, 2017

hobbs27 said:
What doctrines did you find easiest to pick apart?

The Holy Spirit being a co equal 3rd person of the God head.
The doctrine of he1l

Top doctrines in Christianity you consider false.

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

The Oracle

Senior Member

Senior Member

Resident Homesteader

The Oracle

Senior Member

The Oracle

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Of the hard cast variety

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Of the hard cast variety

Senior Member

Similar threads

Share this page