Roman Catholic and The Bible.

[popeman]

Bada-bing bada-bang. Tom, you are seeing the picture but no one else. Steve says that he does not fit the category of Protestant but only Christian. For the record, we are all CHRISTIANS. After that comes the sub-categories of Christian...ie, Catholic, Protestant, other(?). So when you say you are a Christian then I can assume by the definitions in dictionaries and encyclopedias that you are Catholic Christian, right? Oops, I'm sorry you do not believe in the every-virginity of Mary, purgatory, the Bible canon, so I guess you are Protestant.

If you are not Protestant and merely Christian, then please walk us through the path of Christian history from 100AD until today so I can see what Christians you believe in and which ones you do not, especially all those that studied and believed the written words of Paul. It is not that big a deal to admit you are Protestant. The only problem you will have is trying to evade the Catholic Christian questions about your Protestant doctrine that is all over the place. The authoritative church is here, but unfortunately you do not have one to go to when you have issues of salvation. By the way, Acts 15 was only about salvation? What about all of Mosaic law? It is discussed all over Acts 15. Popeman

[steve]

Hey Popeman,

There are Christian groups besides Roman Catholic and Protestant (e.g., the Eastern Orthodox, the Anglican, the Coptic, the Assyrian Orthodox, the Thomas Christians of India, the Waldensians, the Anabaptists, etc., etc.). Your dictionary apparently has forgotten these groups. None of these non-Catholic groups would call themselves "Protestant"—so it isn't just me. The truth is, a person may be a follower of the living Jesus Christ without being officially joined to any of these man-made subgroups. A person can simply regard himself as belonging to the Body of Christ, which includes people from within all these communions, and from none at all. The communion of the saints includes all who are in Christ (and excludes all who are not). I realize that you, as a Roman Catholic, will simply disagree with this position, and that doesn't even bother me a little bit. Your approval has not been solicited. What I am saying is that I am very qualified to define which labels do and do not apply to my religious position, and your insisting that you know better which "camp" to associate me with carries no particular weight.

Also, I find the question of the Apocrypha so boring that it puts my feet to sleep up to the hips. There needs nothing more be said to establish all that has been established in this thread on that subject (and which was known before this thread existed)—namely, that Roman Catholics (and many others) accept the Apocrypha as inspired scripture, and many other Christians (Protestants among them) do not do so.

[Jill]

.

[RND]

This whole thread had nothing to do with the definition of Protestant. The reason it was brought up was, you all say I'm neither Protestant and surely not RCC! What's being pointed out is you are Protestant but you can't say it because it will put you into a corner you can't get out of.

What's left to discuss is if you're not Protestant then you have no right to say RCC's are wrong in using the Apocrypha. In saying this you should be adding them to your Bible and use them without hesitation. After all you admit " we have no "official" Canon if we have no official institution/council to declare the same."

Tom, while you are right to a certain extent regarding the quip about "Protestants" you are slightly off in regards to why it was posted. It had nothing to do with the Apocrypha I can assure you of that.

[RND]

By the way, Acts 15 was only about salvation?

That was the main argument.

What about all of Mosaic law? It is discussed all over Acts 15. Popeman

Discussed. Not eliminated.

[popeman]

Anglican? I thought they were some of the first Protestants. As for Copics, the India group etc I will concede to, so you are a member of one of those groups? If not, then what sub-category of CHRISTIAN are you? If you are an original Christian (0-100AD) can you give me an education of your Christian history from 100AD to 2009? I would expect there to be a ton of info about those early/original Christians after Scripture was set/canonized.

Lets all just take a deep breath and can we consider ourselves a'' "Christians" or is that out-of-bounds for some of you on this site? If I can get an affirmative from you then I will press forward. If I do not get an affirmative from you then I will assume you feel Catholics are not Christians and maybe it would be good to know why that standard is set and how you come to that standard? It would be helpful because then I will hold that very standard to all the others on this site. Peace Popeman

[steve]

Popeman,

I do not have a Christian history extending from the year 100 to the year 2009, because I was not alive, and therefore not a Christian during most of that time. There have been Christians of the type that I am during that period, and belonged to various groups (as I myself have). You don't seem to be able to conceive of a Christianity that exists as a spiritual brotherhood of the followers of Christ, as opposed to a Christianity embodied in, and restricted to, an ecclesiastical organization. This deficiency renders it impossible for me to explain the spiritual roots, stock and branches of the movement of which I regard myself to be a part.

[Jill]

.

[tom]

Popeman,

I hope that others will read this but I'm addressing this to you because you seem to understand where I'm coming from. I don't get the Protestant view , or whatever those on this forum call themselves, on interpreting the Bible. They seem to say we all should read the Bible and let it talk to us. They say we should read the Bible and let the Bible interpret itself. They say we should read the Bible and understand it because we are all lead by the Holy Spirit. They quote verses from the Bible to show how their view is right. But as soon as a Catholic uses the Bible to interpret the Bible and quote verses from the Bible to show how their view is right.....we are wrong!? I don't get it? I can see their point of view and can see how that could be interpreted that way. But when we show sound views they say, "Sorry, no way can I see you view!".

I went on the forum to see my brothers prior posts, aka: catholic steve. I can't find them posted anymore. I can only find people responding to his posts but none of his. If you have time, see if you can find some of his posts. I hope this forum didn't discriminate against his posts and delete them?

I think I'm done with this forum. Thanks to Jim from Connecticut for at least letting me come here and state the Catholic view.

Tom

[darinhouston]

But when we show sound views they say, "Sorry, no way can I see you view!".

But, tom, it's not that we don't let you use Scripture, it's just that we don't find the views as sound. Pointing to clear unambiguous scriptural references that teach a point is one thing, but when folks twist scripture to say things it doesn't say, or they point merely to coincidences or parallels that the apostles themselves or even the earliest church fathers didn't note as having doctrinal significance, then I don't think we're being unfair to tell you honestly that we don't see your view. When we disagree with a scriptural position, we aren't saying you don't have a right to use scripture like we are, what we're saying is you're not using scripture fairly or merely that we don't agree with your particular point being made by scripture.

Don't you agree that all positions derived from scripture are not of equal weight merely because they "use scripture?"

By the way, the "older" posts were migrated over the best of our ability, but there are some missing users (not by design). If you're looking for old posts, you might try the old forum, which is still in place to search for such things. Try it here:

http://www.wvss.com/forumc/