The pope's words

[Heidi]

Since the catholics feel so free to change God's word in the bible, let's see how they feel about changing the pope's words around.

So my interpretation of what the Catholic doctrine really says is:

1) Mary was not a virgin her whole life
2) Mary was not sinless
3) We must not erect statues of Mary
4) We must not pray to people
5) We must use no rosary beads when praying to God
6) We must not wear hats in church
7) We must not use God's house as an art gallery

The above is what the bible says and is how I interpret the pope's doctrine, so I must be correct because it's my interpretation (so say the catholics). So am I correct because I interpret the pope's words in the above manner? :o

So do the catholics think it's okay to pass the above beliefs along and claim that the pope said them?If not, then how do you think God feels when people change his words around and claim that God said them?Or do the catholics have so little understanding of simple words in their native languages that they have no clue what people are saying when they talk to them? So which is it?

 

[jgredline]

:-D

 

[aj830]

Since the catholics feel so free to change God's word in the bible, let's see how they feel about changing the pope's words around.

So my interpretation of what the Catholic doctrine really says is:

1) Mary was not a virgin her whole life
2) Mary was not sinless
3) We must not erect statues of Mary
4) We must not pray to people
5) We must use no rosary beads when praying to God
6) We must not wear hats in church
7) We must not use God's house as an art gallery

The above is what the bible says and is how I interpret the pope's doctrine, so I must be correct because it's my interpretation (so say the catholics). So am I correct because I interpret the pope's words in the above manner?

So do the catholics think it's okay to pass the above beliefs along and claim that the pope said them?If not, then how do you think God feels when people change his words around and claim that God said them?Or do the catholics have so little understanding of simple words in their native languages that they have no clue what people are saying when they talk to them? So which is it?

What in the world are you talking about Heidi? I have no idea the point you are trying to make or what you are even trying to say.

 

[Heidi]

What in the world are you talking about Heidi? I have no idea the point you are trying to make or what you are even trying to say.

I stated my point when I said that since the Catholics feel free to change the words in the bible around, then how do they feel when we change the pope's words around all in the name of intepretation? :o

Sorry, aj830, but it takes effort to change Matthew 1:25 around to make it say that Mary and Joseph never had sex. That's as ludicrous as me changing the papal doctrine to say the opposite of what it says, then claiming that my interpretation of the papal doctrine is correct. :x

 

[MrVersatile48]

:-D

Luv-a-duck, eh, JG? :

Ian :-D

 

[aj830]

I stated my point when I said that since the Catholics feel free to change the words in the bible around, then how do they feel when we change the pope's words around all in the name of intepretation?

Sorry, aj830, but it takes effort to change Matthew 1:25 around to make it say that Mary and Joseph never had sex. That's as ludicrous as me changing the papal doctrine to say the opposite of what it says, then claiming that my interpretation of the papal doctrine is correct.

OK. When have you ever seen us change the words of the Bible around. You're stuck on Matthew 1:25 so here is that verse from the New American Bible, a Catholic translation.

He had no relations with her until she bore a son, and he named him Jesus.

I don't see anywhere where we changed the Bible. This verse alone does not point to Mary's perpetual virginity but it doesn't disprove it. This verse is concerned with showing that Joseph was not Jesuss biological father.

You talk about your interpretation of papal doctrine but you and the many other subscribing to sola scriptura have failed to realize that sola scriptura is only an interpretation of the Bible. It is an invention of man that was never around until the Protestant Reformation.

 

[Heidi]

I don't see anywhere where we changed the Bible. This verse alone does not point to Mary's perpetual virginity but it doesn't disprove it. This verse is concerned with showing that Joseph was not Jesuss biological father.

You talk about your interpretation of papal doctrine but you and the many other subscribing to sola scriptura have failed to realize that sola scriptura is only an interpretation of the Bible. It is an invention of man that was never around until the Protestant Reformation.

The catholics claim that Mary remained a virgin all of her life which Matthew 1:25 clearly denies. So either the Catholics have changed the words around in that verse or they blatantly call it a lie.

The catholics also disobey Deuteronomy 4:15 either by trying to change the words around or just blatanly disobeying that verse and Matthew 23:5-9.

The catholics also make up scripture that tells its congregation to pray to people in addition to God. Either that, or they declare that the pope's words are the new word of God and whatever he says is true. Otherwise, there is no biblical jsutification to pray to people.

There is also no place in scripture that says that only some born again Christians are saints and others aren't. But the catholics have decided that they can declare who's a saint and who isn't when scripture learly says that only God can judge men's hearts.

So the above is jsut the tip of the iceberg of scriputre that the catholics either contradict or add to scripture. :x

Sola scripture is the word of God which is the bible. But if you don't know where the word of God can be found, then how do you know what Jesus said? :o The pope's words, eprhaps? if so, then how does he know what Jesus said? So then if interpretations are correct, is my interpretation of the papal doctrine in my OP correct? Or can't the catholics discern between truth and fiction? :o

 

[aj830]

The catholics claim that Mary remained a virgin all of her life which Matthew 1:25 clearly denies. So either the Catholics have changed the words around in that verse or they blatantly call it a lie.

Umm...No it doesn't. It simply states that Joseph and Mary had no relations before Mary had Jesus so one could be certain that Joseph was not the biological father of Jesus. It does not deny or affirm anything after the birth of Jesus. Other Scriptures from the Bible and what the early Christians believed are drawn on to prove her perpetual virginity.

The catholics also disobey Deuteronomy 4:15 either by trying to change the words around or just blatanly disobeying that verse and Matthew 23:5-9.

We can start another post for this if you want. I believe we already have one for Matther 23:5-9.

The catholics also make up scripture that tells its congregation to pray to people in addition to God. Either that, or they declare that the pope's words are the new word of God and whatever he says is true. Otherwise, there is no biblical jsutification to pray to people.

No one prays to people. We worship God alone. We ask those in heaven to pray for us just as I would ask you to pray for me.

There is also no place in scripture that says that only some born again Christians are saints and others aren't. But the catholics have decided that they can declare who's a saint and who isn't when scripture learly says that only God can judge men's hearts.

You like to go all over the place with your post Heidi don't you Just messing with you. Catholics are not declaring that people are in heaven or letting people into heaven. God does that. What Catholics do do is affirm that some people have led extremley holy lives and are without a doubt with God.

So the above is jsut the tip of the iceberg of scriputre that the catholics either contradict or add to scripture.

You have still yet to show me one thing that the Catholic Church contradicts in the Scriptures. If the Catholic Church contradicted the Bible then the Church would be a false institution. Lucky for us it doesn;t though.

Sola scripture is the word of God which is the bible. But if you don't know where the word of God can be found, then how do you know what Jesus said? The pope's words, eprhaps? if so, then how does he know what Jesus said? So then if interpretations are correct, is my interpretation of the papal doctrine in my OP correct? Or can't the catholics discern between truth and fiction?

Scripture is the Word of God. However, God never said anything that Scripture is the sole source of communication with his people. All scripture is profitable, but not only scripture. The Bible does not tell you what the Bible is so therefore you can't be sure what Scripture really is. That is why Christ established a Church and he gave it the power to bind and loose so we could know things like what the canon of scripture was.

Catholics are not stupid Heidi. We read the Bible. The Pope isn't some all powerful puppetmaster who can do whatever he wants like you seem to think. The Church is given the charism of infallibility on matters of faith and morals. The Holy Spirit protects the Church against error for the "gates of hell will not prevail" and for the past 2,000 years they haven't and until Christ comes again they won't. You can put your faith in the man made doctrine of sola scriptura but I put mine in Jesus.

 

[stray bullet]

English is a very bad theological language. I suggest trying to study the words in Greek, not English.

Look at the "Our Father" prayer, in which we were instructed to say, "... and lead us not into temptation".

Does anyone believe we are actually asking God not to tempt us? No, it's a translation issue, we are asking God to save us and lead us away from it. Using the Mary example, one could try argue the bible 'clearly says" God tempts people, so we have to pray to Him not to.

We know at the end of the Gospel that John took Mary as his mother when Jesus died. That was because Mary had no children, or had really rotten children.

PostPosted: Mon May 21, 2007 5:54 am Post subject: The pope's words
Since the catholics feel so free to change God's word in the bible, let's see how they feel about changing the pope's words around.

So my interpretation of what the Catholic doctrine really says is:

1) Mary was not a virgin her whole life
2) Mary was not sinless
3) We must not erect statues of Mary
4) We must not pray to people
5) We must use no rosary beads when praying to God
6) We must not wear hats in church
7) We must not use God's house as an art gallery

The above is what the bible says and is how I interpret the pope's doctrine, so I must be correct because it's my interpretation (so say the catholics). So am I correct because I interpret the pope's words in the above manner?

With the exception of #1 and #2, none of those are doctrines. You can interpret the pope however you want, any Catholic can. All that matters to us is what the apostles taught.

 

[Heidi]

English is a very bad theological language. I suggest trying to study the words in Greek, not English.

Look at the "Our Father" prayer, in which we were instructed to say, "... and lead us not into temptation".

Does anyone believe we are actually asking God not to tempt us? No, it's a translation issue, we are asking God to save us and lead us away from it. Using the Mary example, one could try argue the bible 'clearly says" God tempts people, so we have to pray to Him not to.

We know at the end of the Gospel that John took Mary as his mother when Jesus died. That was because Mary had no children, or had really rotten children.



With the exception of #1 and #2, none of those are doctrines. You can interpret the pope however you want, any Catholic can. All that matters to us is what the apostles taught.

It's funny how the words in the bible are easily understandable to me, but not to the catholics. They seem to have a hard time with them. So they quibble about the and look them up in as many languages as they can hoping and praying to find the opposite meaning for them. They don't know what the word "Father" or "brother" means or images or idols. They don't know who's a saint and who isn't, who to pray to, whether or not men should wear hats in church, what the Sabbath means. They're pretty confused about what the whole bible means.

But are they confused about the pope's words? :o Never. They don't look up different translations of the pope's words even though he speaks Italian. :o They haven't the slightest bit of doubt what the pope says. Funny how Satan doesn't tempt them to change the pope's words one bit. ;-)

 

[MrVersatile48]

Whoever said 'Mary had rotten children' needs to know that Jesus' younger brothers, James & Jude, wrote the epistles named after them

Ian

 

[aj830]

It's funny how the words in the bible are easily understandable to me, but not to the catholics. They seem to have a hard time with them. So they quibble about the and look them up in as many languages as they can hoping and praying to find the opposite meaning for them. They don't know what the word "Father" or "brother" means or images or idols. They don't know who's a saint and who isn't, who to pray to, whether or not men should wear hats in church, what the Sabbath means. They're pretty confused about what the whole bible means.

But are they confused about the pope's words? Never. They don't look up different translations of the pope's words even though he speaks Italian. They haven't the slightest bit of doubt what the pope says. Funny how Satan doesn't tempt them to change the pope's words one bit.

Catholics aren't confused about anything in the Bible and the Bible is the Bible in any language. Some are better at conveying meaning true(English being a very technical language and not as good at expressing emotions as some others) but essentially if the translation is true then there is no confusion. Catholics know exactly what they believe, or at least they should.

What we are confused about is where Protestants come up with all their doctrines and why they remove books from the Bible etc.

 

[stray bullet]

It's funny how the words in the bible are easily understandable to me, but not to the catholics. They seem to have a hard time with them. So they quibble about the and look them up in as many languages as they can hoping and praying to find the opposite meaning for them. They don't know what the word "Father" or "brother" means or images or idols. They don't know who's a saint and who isn't, who to pray to, whether or not men should wear hats in church, what the Sabbath means. They're pretty confused about what the whole bible means.

You are getting sidetracked, you have another topic on idols and 'father' elsewhere, so I'll address that there.

If the words in the bible are easy to understand for you, then you are admitting a simplistic outlook without an understanding of translational and cultural issues. Any child can read through the bible and draw their own conclusions on the words in English.

The prayer I referenced earlier says, "lead us not into temptation'. Does this mean that God leads us into temptation or not?

 

[stray bullet]

Whoever said 'Mary had rotten children' needs to know that Jesus' younger brothers, James & Jude, wrote the epistles named after them

Ian

They are not his younger brothers. If they were, they would have taken care of Mary as per jewish culture. In fact, in any culture the care of the mother falls on the family.

 

[Heidi]

You are getting sidetracked, you have another topic on idols and 'father' elsewhere, so I'll address that there.

If the words in the bible are easy to understand for you, then you are admitting a simplistic outlook without an understanding of translational and cultural issues. Any child can read through the bible and draw their own conclusions on the words in English.

The prayer I referenced earlier says, "lead us not into temptation'. Does this mean that God leads us into temptation or not?

Again, the truth is always simple and straightforward. It's lies that are convoluted. ;-)

 

[Free]

They are not his younger brothers. If they were, they would have taken care of Mary as per jewish culture. In fact, in any culture the care of the mother falls on the family.

Arguing from Jewish culture is actually one of the stronger arguments against Mary's supposed perpetual virginity.

 

[stray bullet]

Arguing from Jewish culture is actually one of the stronger arguments against Mary's supposed perpetual virginity.

However, that really isn't significant, because they still did not have sex before Jesus was born- we all agree to that, and yet that would go against jewish culture.

Whatever arguments one can throw at Mary's perpetual virginity can be made against her virginity before Jesus' birth.

 

[stray bullet]

Again, the truth is always simple and straightforward. It's lies that are convoluted. ;-)

Astrophysics, that laws of our universe are simple? It's the truth. Could you please come forth with a equation linking all universal forces?

The bible says plainly, "lead us not into temptation". Do you really pray that God doesn't tempt you? That's what it says plainly, or is there a translation issue?

It's a simple interpretation issue- are we asking God not to tempt us, or is that not what we are really supposed to be asking because the English language doesn't convey Greek well?

 

[Free]

However, that really isn't significant, because they still did not have sex before Jesus was born- we all agree to that, and yet that would go against jewish culture.

Yes, it is significant. The fact that they did not have sex prior to Christ's birth is a very poor argument to support your point. Christ's conception was miraculous and such was told both Mary and Joseph by angels. Perhaps it actually was Jewish culture to not sleep with a woman when she was pregnant.

Besides, I think that virgin conceptions go against Jewish belief, so your point is moot. The main point is that the Bible mentions that Mary was a virign before giving birth to Christ, but it is only mere speculation that she remained a virgin afterwards.

Whatever arguments one can throw at Mary's perpetual virginity can be made against her virginity before Jesus' birth.

No, not really. You are trying to compare the miraculous and mysterious incarnation of the Son of God to the absurd notion that a man never consummated his marriage in a culture which believed that children were a blessing from God; a culture which believed that the more children a man had the more blessed he was. This was, and perhaps is, a culture which prized children and the family.

 

[Heidi]

No, not really. You are trying to compare the miraculous and mysterious incarnation of the Son of God to the absurd notion that a man never consummated his marriage in a culture which believed that children were a blessing from God; a culture which believed that the more children a man had the more blessed he was. This was, and perhaps is, a culture which prized children and the family.

It isn't speculation that Mary remained a virgin afterwards. God says in Matthew 1:25 she didn't. So she didn't remain a virgin. These people who call themselves Christians but don't believe God are worse than unbelievers. :roll: It's obvious that the catholics really don't believe God. They believe a human being like the pope, which is precisely why Jesus told us not to call anyone on earth 'father" particualrly Holy Father. People then replace God's word with the word of their earthly father which is exactly what the catholics do. I'm getting tired of posting just to give them more of a platform to lie through their teeth. But as paul tells us, "theri end will be what their actions deserve."