Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Some of this is semantics that depends on what you would call a "new doctrine".
But we assert that all knowledge necessary for salvation has been revealed and is preserved, defined, clarified, and promulgated in the teachings of the Catholic Church.
In that way, no "new doctrine" can be revealed. Doctrines can be more precisely defined and clarified, but not abrogated or changed.
Yes, semantics can get in the way of meaningful dialogue if we aren't careful. I appreciate your pointing that out.
Quote:
Some would point to the [wildly misunderstood, I might add] Catholic doctrine of Papal Infallibility as the introduction of a "new doctrine" into the Church at the Vatican Council of 1870. However, this doctrine is only a logical outflowing of what the Church has always believed and taught about itself and the nature of it. It was only necessary that it be defined at the Council because it was challenged, and an authoritative declaration in favor or against was needed.
This misunderstanding reminds me of something funny I once read: “Catholicism teaches that the Pope is infallible, but their members don't believe it. Mormonism teaches that the Prophet is fallible, but their members don't believe it.”
While we do believe that God continues to direct the Church (i.e. ours ) through a living prophet, and does on occasion provide us with direction and guidance specific to our day and age, most of what those not of our faith would call "new doctrines" are actually what we believe to be doctrines that weren't preserved during the early days of Christianity. We look at these doctrines not as "new" but as "restored." In other words, we see them as having once existed but modified -- either intentionally or unintentionally -- over time (mostly during the first few centuries after Christ's death).
I would interject here that I do not believe inspiration or revelation from God ever stops but I am pretty sure it does NOT depend on any human process of selection of prophets.
I know. We've talked about this before, haven't we? I believe that there is both revelation to a living prophet that pertains to the Church as a whole, and serves to preserve the integrity of what is taught as doctrine worldwide. I also believe -- very strongly, I might add -- in personal revelation. I believe (and my Church teaches) that all individuals may receive revelation that pertains to their lives and their understanding of God's will and purpose for their life. I have occasionally mentioned that whenever I am convinced of the truth of some particular teaching that I've read in the scriptures or heard taught from the pulpit, it is because God (through the Holy Ghost) has revealed its truth to me. I almost never disagree with Mormon doctrine, but I frequently find myself at odds with Church policies. (I can clarify the distinction between doctrine and policy if you or anyone else would like me to.) Whenever I do experience a conflict between what my leaders say (for example, their policies concerning the LGBTQ+ community), and what I believe to be God's will, I will without fail, go with what the Holy Ghost has taught me through personal revelation.
I know. We've talked about this before, haven't we? I believe that there is both revelation to a living prophet that pertains to the Church as a whole, and serves to preserve the integrity of what is taught as doctrine worldwide. I also believe -- very strongly, I might add -- in personal revelation. I believe (and my Church teaches) that all individuals may receive revelation that pertains to their lives and their understanding of God's will and purpose for their life. I have occasionally mentioned that whenever I am convinced of the truth of some particular teaching that I've read in the scriptures or heard taught from the pulpit, it is because God (through the Holy Ghost) has revealed its truth to me. I almost never disagree with Mormon doctrine, but I frequently find myself at odds with Church policies. (I can clarify the distinction between doctrine and policy if you or anyone else would like me to.) Whenever I do experience a conflict between what my leaders say (for example, their policies concerning the LGBTQ+ community), and what I believe to be God's will, I will without fail, go with what the Holy Ghost has taught me through personal revelation.
That is what makes you a follower of Christ, Katz, IMO. You follow the guidance of the Comforter to the Truth God has "written in our hearts.
...snip...
The idea that God became Incarnate, was born of a virgin, died on a cross, and rose from the dead seems preposterous to many as well.
...snip...
Actually, that's roughly in keeping with other ancient myths.
Factoring in the contrived, purported reason for the "sacrifice" -- obviating mankind's god-inflicted "sin" - and making it, in reality, a rough weekend for Jesus before he got to re-ascend to heaven to sit at the right hand of his dad, and/or himself, if you buy the trinity thing -- is when it really gets hilarious.
Of course it goes on for a while longer but relatively speaking, it all kind of stops there. No new stories. No more God talking to men, parting seas, urning bushes (at least Biblical events). Very few miracles and probably none in the past 100 years.
This may be why many people do not believe. Everything happened “back then”. There is no proof or eye witness events these days. Is it because God has left us to our own devices and gave up? I am Catholic and I believe but it is sure hard to convince people that a lot of things real when all of those stories all seemed to end around 2000 years ago. Is there an explanation for this or is it that Jesus will return when he is good and ready?
Remember: Jesus told us in an illustrative way he would be gone on a far-away long journey before returning - Luke 11-15
Plus, the setting, or the time frame for Revelation is set for our day or time frame - Revelation 1:10.
So, the stories that may seemed to end in the 1st century are Not really story endings.
Jesus will 'return' when his God is good and ready according to Matthew 24:36.
That returning is ' good and ready ' when the 'season is ripe' - Matthew 24:32-33
Scripture shows us that the Harvest Season is now ripe - 2nd Timothy 3:1-5,13; Matthew 24:14; Acts 1:8
For declaring the 'good news of God's kingdom' (Daniel 2:44) has reach a grand international scale as never before in history.
Miracles went on for a time to establish the legitimacy of the fledgling Christian congregations.
It was a sign that true worship no longer was centered at the temple in Jerusalem. Rather Christ was now the mediator between God and man. In the interim the Bible was completed and followers of Christ in later years knew how to worship the Father in spirt and truth without the need for miracles.
Jesus performed miracles in his day and many still rejected him and ultimately he was put to death. I think if Jesus showed up today performing miracles there would still be that attitude of many. Miracles aren't necessary to develop strong faith. Love, conviction, and knowledge of Who God and Jesus are...that grows faith.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes
Replacing a method you claim worked with a book that makes contradictory and unbelievable claims is a bit of a flawed plan if miracles worked in the first place.
Nevertheless it worked. Movements of the day ended under oppression by the established religious and political order. Remove the leader or leaders and the movement dies. Christianity not only survived but thrived.
The Bible is the most translated book ever produced. You may find it contradictory and unbelievable but apparently others find answers to questions they may have about life.
Even non Christians recognize its potential
“You Christians look after a document containing enough dynamite to blow all civilisation to pieces, turn the world upside down and bring peace to a battle-torn planet. But you treat it as though it is nothing more than a piece of literature.”-Gandhi
Isn't the Quran the "Post Jesus" part of the Abrahamic Religion Tree set of books?
I understand it is not the Christian Bible (New Testament) and Christians obviously reject it but universally speaking, just as the Christian Bible was the re-imagined extension of the Jewish Torah (Old Testament) from a Christian perspective, so was the Quran ...but from the Muslim perspective of God through the old testament to time of writing.
They view Jesus as a special prophet but not as the Son of God and not the FINAL Prophet. In 610 AD, God sent Arc-Angel Gabriel to Muhammad to write down "Word for Word" what should be done to continue the post Jesus Abrahamic religion. But they believe that "God" is the same one Christians view in the Old Testament
And the message was very effective, at the dawn of Columbus opening up Christianity in the New World continents, Islam had surrounded Europe and had actually infiltrated places like Spain and Sicily and Turkey- the birth place of political Christianity, and put up quite a fight in places like France.
And the message was very effective, at the dawn of Columbus opening up Christianity in the New World continents, Islam had surrounded Europe and had actually infiltrated places like Spain and Sicily and Turkey- the birth place of political Christianity, and put up quite a fight in places like France.
It's funny, when assessing the effectiveness of a religion thought immediately turns to who won the most battles and who controls the most real estate.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) through a living prophet, and does on occasion provide us with direction and guidance specific to our day and age, most of what those not of our faith would call "new doctrines" are actually what we believe to be doctrines that weren't preserved during the early days of Christianity. We look at these doctrines not as "new" but as "restored." In other words, we see them as having once existed but modified -- either intentionally or unintentionally -- over time (mostly during the first few centuries after Christ's death).
